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  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  Next

Comments 109301 to 109350:

  1. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "Hello again! Ned, I didn't say that I am speaking for other people (did I?). " Yes, you did. You claimed to be Joe Average, to represent a majority of Americans, and you used "we" in that context. "What I think I said was that I am indicative of the vast majority of people out there." That is *exactly* the same as saying you speak for others. "I am sceptical (like very many) and don't fully understand the science (like very many!)." The problem is not that you don't fully understand the science, is that you cling on to fallacious notions even when people who *do* understand the science explain to you why you're wrong. If you want to learn the science, you'll have to start *listening* to those who know it. "No one is going to tell me that any of you would go to a Creationist website without your confirmation bias!" You don't understand what confirmation bias is. I suggest you start here for a simple explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias "Could I take this opportunity to ask for your views on future Arctic ice? It's something I've been reading about for the past couple of days and I would like opinions." There are other threads on this site about this, but the short story is: it's declining rapidly, both in extent and density. "The regular Joes might turn out to be correct!" That is highly unlikely. If you don't care about statistical significance, then why not just look at the last three years, and see that the warming has restarted with a vengeance? :-)
  2. Philippe Chantreau at 02:00 AM on 24 September 2010
    Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Climate skepticism is like the Gold Rush. There is so little gold to be had that it's truly not worth the effort. But then there are the clever ones, who do the cooking and the laundry and sell the booze to the miners. They're the ones getting rich. There are some very clever climate skeptics out there cashing in on the rush. Steven Mosher with his climategate book. Loehle, who wrote a book titled, believe it or not, "How to be a successful scientist." Yep, from the guy whose publication record is (almost?) exclusively in E&E... Then there is Watts, and all the ads he gets on his site, plus the exposure transferred to his electric car project. And Monckton with his speech tour. They're all working hard for the miners and raking in the dough. Quit wasting your time on a blog Ken, there is a large public out there ready to pay you to continue telling them what they want to hear. No data analysis required, no fancy statistics, no headache-generating line by line radiative transfer model, no Rossby Waves, just some good ol' talk in a book with a shocking title. Have at it, it's free money.
  3. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    BP, Pardon my skepticism, but it really does not help your cause presenting a paper co-authored by Singer and Douglass. Regardless, you continue to argue a straw man BP-- this post is not about the tropospheric hot-spot, and I am surprised that John has not deleted your posts for being OT-- if you want to speak to that, please go to the appropriate thread (see Riccardo's post for links). Second, several papers have recently come out which have superseded the Douglass paper (see my post @78). Why ignore those and cherry-pick Douglass? And why include Douglass et al's paper above when you know that there data and analysis had significant issues? And as for your comment about the inability of GCMs to simulate convection. Well, yes that was a tad difficult for Hansen et al. with a 1000 km grid spacing. One can use a good CPS (e.g., Kain-Fritsch) at smaller grid spacing (say, 50 km), and explicitly model convection at grid spacing <3 km. They are running the operational ECMWF global model at about 16 km horizontal grid-spacing right now, so it is going to be some time yet before modelers can address the deep, moist convection issue. In the mean-time the planet continues to warm at a rate very close to that predicted in the various IPCC reports. One final note, one does not need a climate model to infer ECS to doubling of CO2. Many proxy records which implicitly include all the feedbacks and processes point to a EQS of +3 C. You know that, yet you posts on this thread seem a determined effort to convince the unwary that the models have no skill and will predict too much warming based on issues surrounding both the observation and modelling of the tropical hot spot feature.
  4. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    @Arkadiusz: first, you should really stick to simple sentence, as your English does not appear to be strong enough to form complex sentences without making them confusing (non-English speaker, here). Second, you make a couple of puzzling statements: "For example, does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase - for whatever reason - an additional 20 or 200 ppmv in the XXI century must be the great importance - what specific actions we take. Being a huge difference - in the context of chaos theory - "the wings of a butterfly" - indeed fundamental." Chaos theory and the Butterfly effect have little to do with long-term trends and the clear effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. You seem to be implying (I may be wrong, for that paragraph is unclear) that more CO2 simply means more uncertainty in the resulting effect. That is not true, and seems to be a misunderstanding of what Chaos Theory is about. "These questions show that it really practically nothing (sufficiently accurately) do not know what will happen - for 40 years - from "our" CO2." Quantify "sufficiently accurately", please. Just because we don't have exact predictions doesn't mean we can't say it will be warmer using a climate sensitivity value of about 3C. "Instead, there are serious reasons for that, not only in the Himalayan glaciers will melt by at least 300 years. In one word: "clock" - almost certainly - “not ticking "." I don't know what you're trying to say, here. As I said earlier, keep to short, factual sentences. Are you implying that there is no cause for alarm and therefore we shouldn't be worried because we have plenty of time to wait and see? That sounds terribly irresponsible. "If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour" I know this is quoted from an article, but it's important to note this isn't directly attributed to Solomon. In fact, it seems to be an extrapolation made by the journalist, and one that appears extremely unlikely. Warmer world = more water vapor over the long run. "Rather than pay for the synthetic tree CO2 removes, I will pay for research such as thermo-nuclear fusion, or efficient energy storage in solar and wind power (in the periods when they do not produce energy) - it is always useful (for example, here is an interesting use of the thermal inertia of the usual molten salt)." Okay, I first thought your mention of the synthetic tree was a image representing all CO2 mitigation efforts, but now you seem to say it is a real artefact? I'm confused. Efficient energy storage for solar and wind (using molten salt, for example) *are* ways to mitigate CO2 emmissions by lowering our use of fossil fuels. As for nuclear fusion, I'm all for it, but it may still take decades to get something that requires less energy to control than it produces...however, there's nothing preventing us from pursuing that research *in addition* to mitigation efforts, right? Again, sorry if I misunderstood some of your post.
  5. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz #330: "No one is going to tell me that any of you would go to a Creationist website without your confirmation bias!" 'I do not think that term means what you think it means.' Disagreeing with a position does not perforce mean that you have a confirmation bias against it. Rather, 'confirmation bias', indicates that you ignore evidence against your position and/or accept 'evidence' in favor of it... even if that 'evidence' is factually untrue. So, for instance... when creationists say that there are no 'transitional fossils' showing the evolution of wings (which they claim are 'irreducibly complex'... so complicated as to have to have been created in that final form rather than evolving over time) and steadfastly ignore the existence of Archaeopteryx (or 'flying' squirrels as a LIVING transitional form of the kind of wings evolved by bats) they are displaying confirmation bias.... believing something which is demonstrably untrue because it supports their underlying opinion. Show me one thing which 'those who accept the existence of AGW' believe which is provably false and we'll talk. Until then the confirmation bias is on the other foot so to speak.
  6. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    If the change in heat measured were due to natural cyclical processes you would expect that some areas would go down in heat content while others went up. This would be the case unless the process was very long. If it was long we would not see a large effect like what has been observed. Perhaps the few areas where heat content went down were due to a long term mechanism. The fact that most areas went up suggests a common mechanism--AGW. Doug, excellent post as per your normal stuff. If people find two pages too long to read they can just read the introduction and the conclusion.
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    According to reasonably scientific inquiries as opposed to dubiously worded opinion polls (there's a difference) Baz is pretty much flat wrong in claiming to be part of a "vast majority of people out there." See this: Yale Project on Climate Change "Six Americas"
  8. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Composer99. I'm not saying that ordinary mortals could overturn scientific consensus opinion, what I'm saying is that a scientist would look at a graph and not see anything to be concerned about, and put it down to noise or variations, whereas a 'regular Joe' might see a downturn in temperature. The regular Joes might turn out to be correct!
  9. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Hello again! Ned, I didn't say that I am speaking for other people (did I?). What I think I said was that I am indicative of the vast majority of people out there. If you read the post you'll see what context that was placed in. I am sceptical (like very many) and don't fully understand the science (like very many!). I (we) look at a graph, I (we) see exactly what we see - we don't look at datasets. Do you see? That's the context in which I was trying to explain my choice of 10 years of data. As for confirmation bias, perhaps I might suggest people be a little more honest - with themselves and with others on here. No one is going to tell me that any of you would go to a Creationist website without your confirmation bias! Anyway, I really enjoyed the conversations and learned some things (especially from some of the links provided). Thanks to all. By the way Ned & CoalGeologist, I'm actually English, not American. KR, Points taken, that's what I like about this site, as there appear to be many knowledgable contributors. Could I take this opportunity to ask for your views on future Arctic ice? It's something I've been reading about for the past couple of days and I would like opinions. Many thanks.
  10. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    I also ought to lighten up my dismal perspective on instrumentation by mentioning NOAA's plans to equip a subset of Argo buoys for deep operations as well as their scheme to deploy some lurking benthic samplers that will run on the bottom for an extended period of time before emerging to report back.
  11. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Ken, yeah, and thanks for pointing that out, I did a poor (incomplete) job with explaining. It's a bit more complicated than what I suggested, there are several thing going on. One problem is that I left out the "haline" part of "thermohaline circulation." I'll fix the paragraph after pondering on it a bit. I have to disagree w/you on the relative magnitude of the heat located in P&J 2010. 0.09 W/m2 is in itself a substantial fraction of Trenberth's gap and as well is an indicator of how "missing" does not automatically imply "does not exist." But I'm repeating myself.
  12. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    doug_bostrom #Original post "One might wonder, if AABW circulation is driven partly by the relative density of water chilled in the Antarctic, won't distribution of this water change as deep waters warm in response to heating by AABW circulation, thus robbing AABW of some of its physical transport impetus?" I am certainly wondering at this mechanism Doug. Chilled denser water slides down deep off Antarctica, travels north and warms the deep water up to the Equator. One would have thought it would have mixed and cooled such water. The amounts of SLR and OHC increase from this mechanism seem to be small. "Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas, the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (±0.009) W m–2 applied over the entire surface of the Earth. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current adds 0.068 (±0.062) W m–2. The abyssal warming produces a 0.053 (±0.017) mm yr–1 increase in global average sea level and the deep warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front adds another 0.093 (±0.081) mm yr–1." 0.027 + 0.068 W/sq.m = 0.095 +/-0.071W/sq.m Dr Trenberth's TOA imbalance is 0.9W/sq.m of which he can account for about 0.55W/sq.m with wide error bars. Of the 0.35W/sq.m 'missing' the above analysis (0.095) accounts for about 27% - again with wide error bars. A total contribution 0.146mm/yr of SLR is tiny compared with the current trend of 2.1 - 2.5mm/yr. Oceanographers have a tough job - as a sailor myself I know what a heaving deck in a 50 knot storm is like. Permanent tethered buoys reporting the oceans at regular coincident times is the ideal we should be financing - not technical fantasies like CCS.
  13. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    I find this post disappointing for its lack of data to support the premise that warming will drive more extreme weather events. Where are the peer reviewed papers, statistically significant trends, and large (not cherry-picked) data sets? In the absence of any supporting data, articles like this discredit the generally solid scientific story behind global warming. Furthermore, it provides fodder for the distractions that deniers tend to latch onto. I'm not saying it is or isn't true, but the lack of data or references is a red flag. In the absence of any data, I could argue that greater warming in the polar regions will result in smaller temperature gradients in general, and therefore less extreme weather. (Don't anyone get worked up - it is just to make a point about the need for evidence.) Sure, the post is a podcast, but the bar must be set higher for inclusion on this site.
    Response: It was for this reason that Kevin asked me to specifically mention this was a transcript of a very short message for a broad audience. Kevin is probably the only climate scientist I know whose public communications are accused of being too simple (and I'm not sure he's a big fan of that fact). Other posts on extreme weather such as the page about record snowfall and extreme precipitation events feature many peer-reviewed references. However, currently there is a diverse range of styles on offer at Skeptical Science - both basic, light pieces and detailed, technical articles. It is all part of a plan :-)
  14. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    Re: daniel (25) First, I must echo the thoughts expressed so ably by kdkd and CBDunkerson above. Your insistence on attempting to personalize a science discussion is telling. Frame your debate around the science, not vitriolic personal attacks and you will gain credibility here. This is not p_o_l_i_t_c_s, where (when lacking in position and substance) attacking the messenger is considered "fair game". No one (other than yourself, by running afoul of the comment policy) prohibits your offering up critiques of literature presented. When doing so, please offer up sourced support for your position, or be careful to delineate what constitutes fact vs opinion. Unsupported position reverts back to opinion when it contradicts the known science. My use of the term "dude" was an attempt to lighten the conversation. That's it. Nothing else implied. My attaching the appellation "Yooper" to my signature is due to another "Daniel Bailey" also commenting on science blogs. I use my real name. Others use whatever they feel like (my favorites are "Albatross" and "A_ray_in_Dilbert_space" - classics!). If I could think of a cool, unique signature tag I would use it. Yooper is the best I have; it denotes the geographic area in which I live (people from here are referred to as "Yoopers"; there is no bad connotation associated with it). While I did play sports in college, that period and lifestyle was a lifetime ago. What endures is the education and training I received: degrees in Earth Science, Cartography, Remote Sensing and History. I used those skills working for the Department of Defense for a long time; currently, I work in pharmaceuticals, making scientific articles and research digestible for the medical professional in the field. I try to "keep my hand in" in climate science by keeping up on the literature (10-20 hours of reading a week is what I spare). I share this not to brag, but to give you some idea of my background & credentials. I chose a reference at hand in my response to you to give you an example of where to get some background info; it wasn't meant to tell a whole picture. People commenting here are expected to educate themselves and to ask questions when they hit roadblocks. When offering up commentary, it's equally expected that positions running counter to the science be sourced with a reference. Equally, when replying to a comment running counter to the science, it's good form to offer up a source for the reader (not just you) can go for ancillary material. I, and most others here, have no wish for AGW to be the reality it is. Wishing it weren't so will not undo what has been done. Every day I search the comments here for a scientific basis to undo AGW. None has been offered. The radiative physics of greenhouse gases are well-understood and have endured the withering scrutiny of peer review in the scientific literature for generations. The rest of my comment stands. As an addenda, it would be illustrative to look up Confirmation Bias. The Yooper
  15. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Ken #37, brief foray into reality; * Climate scientists complained amongst themselves about a 'dissenting view'. * There is no evidence that they tried to prevent it being published. * It, in fact, WAS published. * Most of the editorial board of the paper which published it then resigned in disgust because it was immediately apparent that the paper was a complete fraud which never would have been released by any reputable journal. So where's the 'suppression of dissenting views'? This episode shows that skeptics can get even blatant nonsense published from time to time.
  16. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Riccardo, ~36 hours happens to be the longest I've ever worked in a single shift, too! In my case (ironically!) standing in the middle of an old landfill outside of Houston, Texas, servicing instrument packages being sent down a prospective oil well. Stinky, muddy, hot, w/mosquitoes. Driller did not want to believe hydrocarbon show at the "wrong" place in the hole. An early lesson for me on how seriously stupid it is to burn petroleum after working so hard to get it. "Crude," so to speak. Regarding parts of this heat distribution being cyclic, as I mentioned in the post it's probably the case that some of what's being measured is a natural feature, as natural as anything can be at this developing stage of the disruption game. It's even remotely possible that by some chance the -entire- apparent signal is down to some cyclic behavior. We don't know for sure; more measurements will help to resolve the proportionality of influences. To get the full picture here, I highly recommend reading Purkey & Johnson's paper itself; my post is an absurdly compressed synopsis of the publication and is as much as anything a general remark on how ill-equipped we are to scrutinize what lies shortly past the end of our collective noses. P&J's paper on the other hand is a model of circumspection and caution. It's an education all by itself on the general topic of Southern Ocean circulation as well as providing an excellent list of references for becoming better acquainted with the subject of the Southern Ocean's influence on the rest of the planet. Read it completely twice before leaping to conclusions, that's the best course to set. For my own part, I see a monotonous refrain in comments to the effect of "it's natural." To believe that this finding reflects only a natural process means expanding and then continuing to bear the burden of an already terminally cumbersome and awkward caveat. Choosing to interpret this enormous bulge of heat as being unrelated to AGW as usual requires that one simultaneously believe a myriad of -other- things are also coincidentally entirely in keeping with predictions arising from some fairly simple physical principles we've set in motion. Long ago this chain of coincidences became conspicuous and has since reached the point of being far beyond the realm of probability worth the investment of our faith. I'm not the sort to buy even a single lottery ticket so maybe I'm not the best judge of these things. MattJ, it -is- long. I struggle with my bloviation; so much to say, so little of other people's time in which to say it.
  17. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Excellent article. A real addition to the blog. Sea level rise is like the shadow cast by the heat, finding a reasonable portion of that missing heat is a real big break.
  18. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Berényi Péter, "The study below shows beyond reasonable doubt [...]" not quite so, indeed: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ They even used an outdated RAOBCORE dataset version; right or wrong they may be, they for sure should have used the last version available or justify the choice (which they didn't).
  19. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    The Danster #25 wrote: "What kind of error margin would you put on the assignment of years in an ice core daniel?" Actually, proxy records are generally described in terms of 'resolution' rather than 'error margin'. For instance, ice core records are generally considered to be accurate on the scale of centuries. Some more recent forms of sediment analysis show data resolution at the decade scale. I'm not aware of any proxy which claims to be able to accurately distinguish each individual year. That said, some individual years CAN be picked out of many proxy records due to unique events... atmospheric atomic detonations, specific meteor impacts, and so forth. So yes, climate scientists actually DO have reasons for these things rather than 'just making up dates' as you seem to imply. I'd explain why I think you make this mistake, but apparently it isn't allowed.
  20. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    BP #96 Given your recent history of invalid analysis, and refusal to provide your data for checking (and thus laying yourself open wide open to accusations of scientific fraud) you'll excuse my cynicism when examining your argument. In this case, I want to see more published examples of large scale evaluations of climate models. And more importantly I want you to present quantified estimates of model precision and bias, not the vague insinuations that you have presented. Finally, I'm not sure that validating the model against absolute temperature would be the best procedure. Given calibration problems and the fact that these complex systems are very likely sensitive to initial conditions (modeled and observed in quite different ways in all likelihood), the agreement between modeled relative change in temperature ovr time versus observed relative change in temperature over time looks not too bad (although I'd have to evaluate that with a chi squared test of goodness of fit to be sure).
  21. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    Seriously? daniel going off with comments like "give yourself a bad name", "without much desire for, or competence in, critiquing the 'science' behind the fad", "not particularly thorough", "skewed towards 'group think'", "lame appeals to authority", and so on does NOT get removed for violation of the comments policy... but me implying that he might be projecting DOES? Seriously? My claim that some of the things he was saying MIGHT apply to daniel himself was unacceptable, but him saying those things definitely do apply to people he disagrees with is ok? Obviously this post, in repeating the suggestion that he might be projecting, is every bit as 'much' a violation as the original one sentence version and thus may well be removed also... but it would be nice if there was some kind of logical consistency in application of the policy.
  22. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    #93 kdkd at 08:15 AM on 23 September, 2010 I'm sorry, but that's really not good enough. Comparing charts by eyeball like that is so ridden with pitfalls of subjectivity (conformation bias, perceptual bias and so on) the only way you can hope to offer a valid comparison is through statistical comparisons. And that's even before accounting for Albatross' comments at #78, which suggests that even if quantified your analysis would be invalid in any case. No need for confabulation. The situation is more serious than you claim. It's definitely not an optical illusion and it is not just a weakness of Hansen 1988, but much more pervasive, plaguing effectively all computational climate models since then, irrespective of implementation details and any impressive advance in computing power. The study below shows beyond reasonable doubt that even quite recent models (not a few but 22 of them) are inconsistent with observations in this respect and not just with the HadAT2 dataset, but also with three others (RATPAC [Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate], IGRA [Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive] & RAOBCORE [RAdiosonde OBservation COrrection using REanalyses]). Consistency is only found at the surface, but we do know how surface data are picked & adjusted ad nauseam on the one hand while the very selection criterion for model set used in this study was consistency with surface temperature datasets on the other hand, so no wonder they match on this single point. All this evidence points to some robust problem not only in individual models, but also in the underlying AGW theory all otherwise independent computational climate models are based on. International Journal of Climatology Volume 28, Issue 13, pages 1693–1701, 15 November 2008 DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651 A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer Article first published online: 5 DEC 2007 "Our results indicate the following, using the 2σSE criterion of consistency: (1) In all cases, radiosonde trends are inconsistent with model trends, except at the surface. (2) In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends. (3) The UMD T2 product trend is consistent with model trends." "Evidence for disagreement: There is only one dataset, UMD T2, that does not show inconsistency between observations and models. But this case may be discounted, thus implying complete disagreement. We note, first, that T2 represents a layer that includes temperatures from the lower stratosphere. In order for UMD T2 to be a consistent representation of the entire atmosphere, the trends of the lower stratosphere must be significantly more positive than any observations to date have indicated. But all observed stratospheric trends, for example by MSU T4 from UAH and RSS, are significantly negative. Also, radiosonde trends are even more profoundly negative – and all of these observations are consistent with physical theory of ozone depletion and a rising tropopause. Thus, there is good evidence that UMD T2 is spuriously warm." "Our view, however, is that the weight of the current evidence, as outlined above, supports the conclusion that no model-observation agreement exists." So. The take-home message is "no model-observation agreement exists". The most likely candidate for explaining model failure is insufficient theoretical treatment of deep moist convection of course (and ample production of extremely dry air parcels by association). Why is it important? Because Douglass at al. also write: "If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high." They can't help but say it, as it is the case. Climate sensitivity to changes in levels of well mixed gases showing some opacity in restricted bands of thermal IR is consistently overestimated by computational models.
  23. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:18 PM on 23 September 2010
    Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    “By your own definition you are incorrect.” No. At the hydrophobic surface sufficiently heated, drops generally do not combine - do not join because they do not ... The liquid forms a uniform layer. Violent phenomena virtually disappear. That's why (among other things + no Panamanian isthmus) in the Oligocene tree ferns (with extremely fragile stems) grew almost from the equator - practically to the North Pole - around - so defined area - and in addition, the same species.
  24. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    daniel #25 You're sailing pretty close to going against this site's comments policy with that post. It's perfectly possible to make your argument without recourse to the use of inappropriately emotive terms such as "crusade", "lame", "bother to do so" and so on, and in fact will help your argument to be taken more seriously. I strongly suggest that if you want your comments to remain on this site, then you adapt to condtions that will prevent your posts from being deleted. By the way, it's not "appeal to authority", it's "appeal to inappropriate authority". Good examples of inappropriate authority are Christopher Monkton, Tony Abbott and Al Gore.
  25. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:47 PM on 23 September 2010
    Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    “Nothing you've posted here would lead anyone to not invest in mitigation and adaption.” The aim of the actions already adopted in Kyoto was that the cost of fighting the AGW, ONLY (and solely) suffered final consumers (therefore: "normal" people), so that the producers of energy - due to rising costs - not moved their production to countries where there is no this "struggle." „As usual, you're cherrypicking ...” This is not true. Indeed, my aim was not to summarizing the work of the authors - which I cited. Everyone knows that of teams the authors - cited the work (especially the second and third) is an “avowed” great proponents of the theory of AGW. If, however, and they have such fundamental questions ... (And that was my goal - to submit questions - I hope not omitted any of their doubts - because only then - if I ignored this question - it would be "cherrypicking"). For example, does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase - for whatever reason - an additional 20 or 200 ppmv in the XXI century must be the great importance - what specific actions we take. Being a huge difference - in the context of chaos theory - "the wings of a butterfly" - indeed fundamental. These questions show that it really practically nothing (sufficiently accurately) do not know what will happen - for 40 years - from "our" CO2. Instead, there are serious reasons for that, not only in the Himalayan glaciers will melt by at least 300 years. In one word: "clock" - almost certainly - “not ticking "... Such a large number of papers of supporters of the theory of AGW, containing such a large question - written in recent times, is probably the result of appeal (2008 - The IPCC Must Maintain Its Rigor) Susan Solomon (real boss section "of science," the IPCC): “The climate system continues to change and science continues to improve, so policy must be kept current with our best understanding. Reformulating the science/policy interface should be considered and be open to change but must acknowledge lessons from the past. ...” “... if a rigorous scientific basis is to continue to inform the growing challenge of decision-making on climate change.” In 2010, Solomon does not know (but) nothing concrete (sufficiently accurately) about-at least - 1 / 3 warming - Guardian: “She said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a natural shift, or if it was a consequence of a warming world. If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.” “It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.” Korhola: “Decision-makers should make sensible choices regarding the overall benefits in the environment of UNCERTAINTY.” Rather than pay for the synthetic tree CO2 removes, I will pay for research such as thermo-nuclear fusion, or efficient energy storage in solar and wind power (in the periods when they do not produce energy) - it is always useful (for example, here is an interesting use of the thermal inertia of the usual molten salt).
  26. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Question: Did the economic recession in the 1930s contribute much to the mid 20th century cooling, as there is this delay?
  27. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    daniel #25: You should read up on the psychiatric concept of 'projection'.
  28. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    I happened to work for a few days on a oceanographic ship in the much warmer and calm mediterranean waters. We had a simple task, take an instrument left at the bottom (2000 m) back home. The operation plan was simple, distributed to all of us printed on paper it was about a single page. The weather was fine and the sea smooth, i thought it was going to be almost a couple of days out at sea on vacation. It turned out to be the hardest 36 hours of continuos work of my life. When the instrument was finally on board, we were so tired that no one could eat or take a shower. Still wearing our wet clothes we hung over the deck for a long while drinking coffee. I commented that everything went wrong but my collegues laughed at me and said "welcome to oceanography!" Thank you Doug for reminding me this experience.
  29. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    I guess I must respond without the hoopla... I'll try "Dude", you give yourself a bad name. You believe unshakeably in anthropogenic global warming without much desire for, or competence in, critiquing the "science" behind the fad. Please also see the enormous link in comment 222 on the "There is no consensus" comments page 5. You will read a little about the not particularly thorough, easily skewed towards 'group think', peer review process and then reconsider your lame appeals to authority when trying to play down my claims. I am allowed to criticise scientific literature daniel, that is how scientific thought is truly refined, after publication. So many crusaders in the name of science just don't understand this (or don't want to). The link you provided is not specific to ice core dating. Why do you simply believe in O/E events without asking the hard questions daniel. It's just not good enough for you to lie there in your warm blanket of ignorance and say it's up to me to provide what wasn't provided by the "experts" in the first place. "In the meantime, you're blurring the line between skepticism and denial." Nice one liner here's one I thought of for you "Give up, you're an amateur" What kind of error margin would you put on the assignment of years in an ice core daniel? Do climate scientists bother to do so? Why don't you ask John to augment the article with some of that real scientific analysis. You should be thanking me for putting these comments in before he blunders the "intermediate" version up as well. All the best The Danster
  30. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Re:#8.sleepership You have seen the future we are currently headed for, and it is very frightening indeed. The following extract from your comment on my article is insightful: “Was the heat the planet experienced this summer from 1980 C02 or from recently? If from 1980- when CO2 was just passing 350ppm- then we are in deep deep trouble when today's levels overcome the 'inertia' around the year 2040” A deep political problem at the moment is that the majority of our politicians see the current warming of 0.8 C (if they concede there is any connection to CO2 at all) as being related to the current atmospheric concentration. The equilibrium temperature rise for 390 ppm is in fact at least 1.4 C, so we are only part way there. The stated goal of the Copenhagen Accord of keeping global warming below 2 C is looking increasingly difficult to achieve. The only ray of hope is that the oceans have not yet absorbed all of this heat. They will absorb it, and the surface temperature will rise as projected, if the current energy imbalance is not reduced. We need not only to move rapidly to a near-zero carbon economy – we need to remove the bulk of the CO2 emitted from 1750 up till now. That will require either carbon sequestration on an industrial scale, or geoengineering.
  31. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Articles like this one, Matt, are like some books on our shelves. Even if we have read the whole thing, it's always instructive to return and reread with more understanding. It's terrific, Doug. And we should all echo your sentiments about the fanatical dedication of people prepared to take such risks for the benefit of science. Gratitude to all of them.
  32. citizenschallenge at 16:40 PM on 23 September 2010
    Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    MattJ #7 said: "I love the title! Unfortunately, the article is both long and dense, so I didn't finish it -- and am wondering how many in the target audience will finish it. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That is why ScepticalScience folks are writing the basic version explanations as well. Also, don't forget - sometimes, one just needs the words to explain the situation.
  33. citizenschallenge at 16:36 PM on 23 September 2010
    Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Yes, excellent, informative post. First class. I'm back to wondering about how the Pacific Decadal Oscillation might interact with deep sea thermohaline circulation... mixing dynamics? Any info?
  34. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    I love the title! Unfortunately, the article is both long and dense, so I didn't finish it -- and am wondering how many in the target audience will finish it.
  35. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    The relevance of this paper is to total ocean heat content (OHC). Plenty of cycles to move heat around within the ocean without changing total OHC. (I'm not lost on calling it heat either). We barely have adequate measure of OHC now let alone anything remotely useful covering the last 100 year. If we did however, I would expect to periods of static and cooling because changes in solar and aerosols should have affected it. Climate is not single factor.
  36. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    There are several cooling / flat periods over the last 100 years of ocean temperatures, so surely this is an ocean cycle or sunspot affect or la nina, and surely its been identified?
  37. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Excellent job Doug. Thanks for this. Have to "digest" the content before commenting on the science.
  38. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Nice job, doug. Very interesting stuff.
  39. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    I wonder, with the ice packs breaking up in the north, if the now more open passages might be allowing new colder currents to flow south within the upper levels of the oceans. Think of cold fresh melt water spreading over the surface while the original warmer saline water is pushed down deeper. This might explain why we see less warming in the upper oceans than we expect. Just thinking out loud.
  40. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    I'd like to point out that carbon fibers do not really decompose in a short time. To use these in construction and such would be preferable to many other materials.
  41. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Bering strait flow is probably too small to include in that wonderful image but I think it should be a two-headed arrow.
  42. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Also, yes, the atmosphere emits radiation in approximately the spectrum of the Planck's Law for a blackbody radiator (modified by the gas absorption bands).
  43. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    John - massive confusion here. IR is not heat for starters. Heat is energy being transferred by conduction between bodies at different temperatures. IR is energy as electromagnetic radiation. A CO2 molecule DOES absorbs radiation only in certain frequencies. It is anything but "clear" that it does otherwise. However, the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction. A molecule excited by absorption "heats" other molecules by collision. The CO2 molecule will also gain energy by collision with other molecules. The temperature of the atmosphere reflects both processes.
  44. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    #25 nerndt Atmoshperic conditions are trivial. Good to know. Glad that's settled. It's really too bad so many climatologists are in the dark on this point. I guess they're just dumb, huh?
  45. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    scaddenp at 10:10 AM, it all comes back to trying to establish how as mentioned in the lead article CO2 "is “tuned” to the wavelengths of infrared (heat)" when it is clear that it absorbs and emits thermal energy at wavelengths beyond that "tuned" range found in the atmosphere. Can you elaborate on your answer as to clarify whether CO2 also absorbs and emits thermal energy at temperatures and pressures BEYOND those found in the atmosphere, and thus is not "tuned" to any specific range.
  46. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    John - answer to 1 and 2 would be "all temperatures and pressures found in the atmosphere. (pressures of 1bar or less). Again, the relevance of your questions to anything in climate is hard to guess.
  47. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Riccardo at 09:18 AM, can you perhaps clarify these points for me, 1 - at what temperatures does CO2 exist as a gas? 2 - what is the range of temperatures that CO2 absorbs thermal energy and emits thermal energy?
  48. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    johnd, in #28 I copied part of your previous post and said it was not true. Maybe now you agree with me. In #34 you're switching argument: "As the diagram indicates, at 1 bar pressure the absorption band for thermal energy exceeds the range of 200K to 400K, that limitation being solely the range of the diagram." As MichaelM already said, there's no relation between a PT diagram and vibrational absorption/emission. That diagram just tells you that at 1 bar pressure CO2 is a gas between 200 and 400 K. Good to know, but then what? There's no thermal energy nor absorption lines shown there.
  49. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Badger, for the AR5, you are look for PCMDI participants
  50. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    The Guardian still doesn't have a working link to this article. Look, the politicians are getting a lot of money from fossil fuel interests. Cuccinelli's dad used to work in marketing for the American Gas Association and now has two companies that do advertising and marketing--including for "European" companies. Sometimes these "professional services" are just ways of laundering money from foreign entities to US politicians. I have some experience of such "Europeans." They are going to try to destroy the scientists by hiring politicians and lawyers. They are going to take over consumer affairs. That's what they do in the part of "Europe" they come from. They don't care what is true. They want to sell gas.

Prev  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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