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  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  Next

Comments 109651 to 109700:

  1. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Rob Honeycutt (245, 246) To elaborate on what you said a little bit: BOTH the WAIS AND the EAIS are LOSING mass since 2006, per your source. Here's the relevant bits:
    "132plusminus26 Gt yr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57plusminus52 Gt yr-1"
    My drug-laden math cells find a minimum loss of 5 Gt yr-1 from the EAIS and an additional minimum 106 Gt yr-1 from the WAIS. Both on a diet. Sign me up. The Yooper
  2. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Re: (1 & 2) That matches what I've read (0.1 differential between minima and maxima, IIRC). If I wasn't fighting an ear & sinus infection (plus, to be honest, laziness) I'd look it up for you. The Lazy Yooper
  3. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    That would be 204 then, would it? - my reply to 'The Yooper'. Can't understand why you didn't see it. I was referring to Bailey's 196 "The explanation that is best representative of the whole of the data is most credible" and my question of what you find lacking in this approach, which was not answered in your 204. I was also asking about your reaction to his 224. Clear? In 199 you said, "Any response to the other information in my comment?" Yet in 225 you say "I was not asking questions" Well I beg to differ - I spy a question mark. It was to THAT comment that I replied, "There was only one question mark in your 177, and I responded." In 177, I was responding to your questions… e.g. "there is no correlation though, is there?", "What's happened to the heat?" "what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?" and in 199 I asked if you had any response to those statements. Do you, or don't you?
  4. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz at 07:14 AM, I agree with you entirely on the terminology, and that instead whatever term is used should convey a sense of what the present status quo is. I suspect many who merely repeat the term acidification parrot like aren't even aware of the degree of alkalinity. I only threw in the term neutralisation to support the point you make about acidification being used because of the emotive effect. An alarmist should not be able to argue that acidification is more appropriate than neutralisation if the emotive impact is not a factor. Of course "reducing the alkalinity" is the most technical correct without any emotive overtones, but that is irrelevant when politics is involved.
  5. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    I definitely agree that Pielke is a highly rated climate scientists. And honestly that's why it bothers me so that he's made his recent statements about OHC. His rhetoric is extremely imprudent. I really expect more from a scientist of his stature.
  6. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Re #1, Global SATs might have been up to about 0.1 C higher had the sun not been so quiet. Don't quote me on that though.
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz... Do you not see what happens here? Antarctica is a great example. There are tons of charts that are showing ice extent increases in Antarctica. Right? So, the game is, every time someone mentions Arctic sea ice losses they come back and say, "Oh, but Antarctica is gaining ice. See!" But they neglect to look any further or if they have further data they neglect to pass it along. East Antarctica is gaining mass do to increased snowfall, consistent with global warming theory. (Same with Greenland.) But overall it's been clear for a long time and is even clearer now that Antarctica is LOSING mass at an accelerated rate.
  8. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz... I believe the GRACE satellites are clearly showing ice mass loss on Antarctica as well. Here is an article from Nature Geoscience.
  9. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    Ken #62 "kdkd #59 - this negates your point 1) and 2) OHC measurement is not the issue here - just that 90%+ of any long term heat gain must store in the oceans." The logic in this statement may be obvious to you, but I fear that you have made a logical jump too far. My point 1 related to your comment that: "The +0.12W/sq.m for 'natural' Solar forcing is baselined to what? Was it zero in AD1750? If it was not or we don't know; then it should not be added and subtracted from the AG forcings based on 'zero' in AD 1750. where you basically try to reframe the model assumptions by trying to dodge around them in an illogical manner. My point 2 was that while a very large proportion of the heat does reside in the oceans, we can't (yet?) measure it in a sufficiently precise manner to be able to draw strong conclusions, and have to rely on other proxies for energy accumulation in the atmosphere. Your fairly repetitive post at #62 does nothing to dispell either of these arguments as far as I can see.
  10. beam me up scotty at 07:37 AM on 17 September 2010
    Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    How much warmer might it be if the sun hadn't been so quiet for the last several years?
  11. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    scaddenp at 07:20 AM, Phil if you could quantify the radiation measured against what a thermometer measures as heat at the surface over the same time frame then that would help make the distinction.
  12. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    KR at 05:35 AM, so is that the reason monitoring stations are 1.2m above ground level, the first metre of air intercepts very little energy. ;-) Perhaps you can explain why it intercepts very little of this energy, taking into account these relevant points. The carbon cycle requires that all CO2 will either return to the surface to be sequestered or is released from the surface, an equivalent to the entire atmospheric content of CO2 every 3 or 4 years and it cannot do that without having an increased presence in the first metre, and isn't it considered a major factor in intercepting energy. All evaporation occurs also at the very surface so it also is unable to move to the upper atmosphere without maintaining an ongoing presence in that first metre of air. Apart from the situation at night when temperatures at ground level fall below those 1.2m above, any solar energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere as shown on the budget diagram, if it is not directly absorbed from incoming solar radiation, then it comes via the surface either as convection, evaporation or surface radiation, and during that transfer, the temperature is higher at the surface and decreases with altitude, so obviously more energy is held in that first metre than in any metre above it.
  13. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    John - I am perfectly aware of where the thermometer is and always have been. And the temperature of the seawater actually IS what matters for evaporation. Spenser's experiment does not show any different at all. And no, your ground thermometer or barefoot kid most certainly does NOT measure what radiation instruments do and while you persist in this belief, we get nowhere. And actually that IS a good diagram for true energy budget. So evaporation is next biggist compared radiation? So what? It is tiny compared to radiation its also second smallest. Furthermore, to keep hammering a point, evaporation is phyusically limited and cannot be a forcing. As to science - what a complete mischaracterization! That is actually insulting. Science creates models, uses them to make predictions and checks prediction against measurement LOOKING for discrepancy not confirmation. Science is founded on combination of logic and observation. Use both. I see KR has answered your question well since you seem to have ignored my answer in 109.
  14. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    KR and johnd. I'm not really happy with 'neutralisation' either! Because you haven't neutralised a solution if you've reduced it from 8.1 pH to 8.0. Obviously there doesn't appear to be a suitable term, unless you use the phrase that you've 'reduced the alkalinity'. I only brought it up to say I was unhappy with the term 'acidification' as it smacks of alarmism. However, this is really a side issue and off topic. Rob, Pielke will have to answer for himself in due course, but he is an esteemed climate scientist. However, I want to pull you up on a thing or too (can't let them pass :)) 'Ice caps are melting' is another of my pet hates. First of the Antarctic certainly isn't! And we know there were similar ice situations to today just 70-80 years ago. And I can't see any "acceleration" in sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png) but I'm happy to see any links you have.
  15. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    KR at 06:19 AM, the term used should be neutralisation as it is the neutralising effect on a normally alkaline ocean that is the concern, not that the ocean will ever become acidic, or is that the concern? 30 years as a climate measure is inadequate. When there are natural cycle that can take 6 or 7 decades to complete, anything less then two such cycles is meaningless.
  16. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz... "As I understand it, if the oceans don't heat, then it's over!" I honestly think that Dr Pielke is playing a dangerous game with his own professional reputation. If the "oceans don't heat" then there's a lot of explaining to do. Why are the ice caps melting? Why is Greenland's ice mass loss accelerating? Why are season start and end dates changing? Why is sea level rise accelerating? Why to the climate sensitivity data accurately explain paleoclimate? Why are we getting very consistent warming data from satellite and ground based temperature readings? This is just to name a very very few of the thousands of empirical observations detailed right here on the Skeptical Science site. Why are we getting these thousands of bits of information very consistently pointing at the same answer? Yes, I know there are data that isn't consistent as well, but these are FAR fewer than the one's that point to AGW. And these have the nasty propensity to be very inconsistent in their explanations and mechanisms. Yes, if the ARGO data continues to show no warming we need to figure out where Trenberth's "missing heat" is. Pielke is putting himself out there where Dr Spencer was with the UAH satellite data that was showing cooling until the data was fixed. Spencer suffered a huge loss of credibility when we found out the problem with his data. Pielke would be wise to tread more carefully as he wades into similar waters.
  17. It's El Niño
    Ken. So do I but Erl apparently does not.
  18. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz - Would you prefer the term "less alkaline"? Whether you like or not, "acidification" is the term used for the pH change of the oceans. And disagreements about terminology does not change either the physical reality of the pH change or its effects on the ocean organisms. Incidentally, thanks for the response on the time-frames for considering warming/cooling trends. 30 years for a climate measure seems to be the consensus view based upon internal variability and instrument noise.
  19. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz... Actually, it's not just the scientists who are saying that we DO know enough to act. It's the economists who are pasting the climate models onto economic models. There is a tremendous amount of research that has gone into creating that IPCC range for climate sensitivity of 1.5C to 6.2C, with ~3C being "best fit." Today the costs involved to deal with climate change are actually manageable. But each year we go without serious action pushes us into extremely hazardous territory. People keep saying, you buy fire insurance for your home on the tiny risk that something terrible will happen. If there is a 10% chance that we are out past the 3C mark then we should be doing something BIG... right NOW! What you have to understand is, with people like Dr Pielke, they are the voices that are keeping the IPCC numbers down. There are other voices saying the IPCC numbers are too low. The IPCC is required to listen to all those voices and give an opinion on the science. If you are JUST listening to Pielke you are cutting out 95% of the information on the issue of climate change. Likewise, if you listen to others you'll get a skewed sense that we are destined to hit 7C+ by 2100. Personally, I don't think it's 1.5C. And I don't think it's 7C. The extremes are invariably always wrong. But the middle is still concerning enough to take action. You definitely don't want to sink the world economy. No one is suggesting that. But solid market based solutions are required to address this. Now.
  20. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Dear Adam C at 220. You say that I wrote this: "("I work with acids, so you're wrong")." And you actually put it in speech marks - as if it were verbatim. What I actually wrote in Post 130 was this: "As the owner of this site can confirm from my registration details, I work with acids, and I hate the ter(m) "acidification" as it's just plain wrong." I'm surprised that comments like yours don't get deleted - when they are so obviously in error. If you want to bark at someone on a forum such as this, and even draw in cliches like 'strawman' and 'cherry-picking' (congrats, you managed to get two cliches in one post!) then at the very least make an attempt to get your facts correct. It serves no purpose to poke or bark, but it's also a useless waste of time if you actually get your facts wrong when quoting someone.
  21. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming
    Arkadiusz - the paper you link in your post does seem to provide some evidence linking the PDO to the SOI and ENSO. This isn't my field - I find it difficult to evaluate as a result. But there's certainly nothing in there about the PDO forcing the last 50 years of increasing temperatures. As to Dr. Spencer's graph - that's another horror of bad data manipulation. He shows no evidence of removed CO2 (and other factor) forcings from his data; the warming is built in. He's also working with rate of change (the derivative) rather than total change; in any modeling system I know of that increases your noise considerably. Ned's graph is far more interesting, and I believe, more relevant to this discussion.
  22. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Rob Honeycutt 226. Thanks for your reply. And of course, as I have stated, I agree with the physics behind CO2 and the warming that has occurred, and I agree with most of your concluding paragraph. Where I disagree is that we DON'T know enough. I admit that it's a gamble which could turn horrific. But my money is on the mild result. Quite seriously, I would like 10 more years before we worry. Now, some would say that's 10 years we haven't got. But you could say that the world ain't gonna change anyways! And that we should spend it on adaption rather than change. But to me, a layman, it all appears as though we simply don't know enough - and that's been reinforced by spending the past hour reading the Ocean Heat Content thread on this site (with comments by Prof Pielke). I appreciate that some on here want 30 years before 'admitting' that we got it wrong. That's an awful long time, and a lot of money spent trying to change something that changes itself. Not being a scientist, I didn't have the intellectual constraints, and obviously chose a much shorter time to jump ship. The next few years is going to be mighty interesting - OHC and surface temps. As I understand it, if the oceans don't heat, then it's over! Thanks to those that were polite and answered my questions. I shall stay here as there's lots to read. Again, thanks.
  23. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    johnd - I take it you have not read my post on the conditions relevant to radiation fog? The ground radiates to the sky, with said IR being intercepted over the first 100+ meters or so. The first 1 meter of air intercepts very little of this energy. The ground then cools the air via conduction. That's why (when it progresses to the condensation point) this effect of cold low level air is called "radiation fog". It occurs via IR radiation heat transfer. There's really no puzzle here.
  24. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    e. 222, See above.
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Soory, I should expand on that. I actually asked (in my ignorance) why I should continue to use HadCRUt when the rest of the world seemed to switching over to GISS. I was pleased to get an email from Mr Jones himself stating that GISS uses proxies for Arctic cover. He didn't tell me how far away that proxy was - that DID come from a sceptic site!
  26. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    scaddenp. Sorry that you missed my earlier post, that my 'GISS uses proxies' actually came from Phil Jones, not a "denialist site" (what a charming term?).
  27. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Paul Daniel Ash 225. That would be 204 then, would it? - my reply to 'The Yooper'. Can't understand why you didn't see it. In 199 you said, "Any response to the other information in my comment?" Yet in 225 you say "I was not asking questions" Well I beg to differ - I spy a question mark. It was to THAT comment that I replied, "There was only one question mark in your 177, and I responded." Clear?
  28. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming
    @#18: It may be repetitious to note that of the data shown on this graph, only the PDO has been normalized to remove the impact of warming. The residual shows the amount that the temperature deviations of the Northern Pacific have differed from the global average. The data source you referenced state that "monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any "global warming" signal. It doesn't specify how the anomaly is removed, but the implication is that even when this is done, the PDO Index still shows a negative residual during the 50s, 60s, & 70s. Correlation does not, of course, imply causation, but two possible hypotheses are that processes related to the PDO were responsible for some component of temperature change during this interval, or that both were affected by something else. The important part of this graph begins in the mid-1980s, when the two trends begin to markedly diverge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  29. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    CBDunkerson... Not only that but they traveled for an additional 3 days to find the MY ice. He said they were doing 13 knots. That's potentially (though he did not state this) another 1000 NM. AND he said other ships in the area were experiencing the same.
  30. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming
    #18: "Here's a figure" Wow, that's quite the graph. The conclusions seem inescapable: when CO2 takes over as the dominant 'forcing', temps rise in a corresponding fashion. This took place in the late 70's-early 80's, matching the predictions made by Hansen et al., not in 1988, but in 1981. If there isn't a Ned fan club, there should be!
  31. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Great graphic @3 Boba. Nicely done.
  32. How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
    #14: "The 1940s coincided with some historically cataclysmic events - Any chance this might have had some climatic impacts?" The sulphate emissions curve (red) on the graph above has a bump which appears to be WW2, as does the carbon emissions graph from CDIAC data shown below. But the scale of the emissions during the more recent decades seems to overwhelm. Note to John C.: Sorry, I was using width=480; I will downsize in the future.
  33. It's the sun
    Re: GnDoty (601, 602, 605, et al) My impression, reading your posts, is that you have been disinformed (as opposed to misinformed) as to the basics of climate change and CO2's role in regulating temperatures. No harm in ignorance, as long as one is truly seeking a better understanding of things. Here's a short version of CO2's role as a greenhouse gas. I would add to that the fact that the amount of fossil fuel CO2 concentrations man adds yearly to the atmosphere is 100 times that as produced annually by all of the Earth's volcanoes worldwide. CO2 is intricately linked to global temperatures and is the biggest temperature control knob of the GHG's. We see in the paleo record that natural changes in forces have operated historically at the millennial and geologic timescales. Change typically is slow. The record is punctuated, however, by short bursts of rapid change in both CO2 concentrations and temperatures. The paleo record is a good place to look for context. However, there is no comparable point anywhere in the record where CO2 levels have spiked so dramatically on such a short timescale. In 150 years, man has raised CO2 concentrations 40% of pre-industrial (read: the maximal levels of CO2 concentrations in inter-glacial periods). The rate of change is now the issue. Because of that, various feedbacks that could be expected to arise when change is slow seem to be not occurring as previous. For example, the ability of the oceans to sequester CO2 seems to be dropping (the base of the oceanic food chain, phytoplankton levels have dropped 40% in the last 40 years), the volume of the Arctic Ice Sheet is at an all-time low (surprise: the Arctic Ice Sheet acts as a carbon sink as well) and we may be seeing the pole area ice-free in summers as early as 2012 (inhibiting its function as a carbon sink). I will mention but not even discuss methane clathrate/hydrate releases already underway. We now know that we need never worry about Ice Ages again (one large factory can emit enough CO2 yearly to forestall decent into ice ages). The biggest remaining worry: will we still be able to produce enough food in a changing climate (droughts and floods play havoc with soil productivity) to support a population expected to reach 9 billion? Between unendurable heat and floods (Pakistan is the current poster child for both) becoming commonplace & suppressed food production will eventually cause significant human losses and migrations, creating enormous social and political unrest. Wars will occur, possible with nuclear exchanges. This is what the science is telling us. This is what the future holds in store. You are intelligent. I have read your comments. All that is lacking is a better understanding, one not blocked by an active disinformation campaign. Fill your mind with the coins of your pocket and your mind will fill your pockets with gold. The Yooper
  34. It's the sun
    GnDoty, it appears that you believe in a conspiracy by politicians and scientists to take all our money, remove all our freedoms and lord it over us ? Even if you don't actually believe all that, it would appear that your political beliefs are getting in the way of the facts. If that is not the case, you will obviously want to learn more and this website is good for that. Start here and here, then look at the following skeptical arguments : Climate's Changed Before CO2 Lags Temperature It's Freaking Cold ! There's No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature Humans are too Insignificant to affect Global Climate Precipitation and Storm Changes (From the EPA - there are further links there) If you are truly serious about the truth about all this, you will look at the above and then come back and tell us what you disagree with and why.
    Moderator Response: Indeed, GnDoty, please not only read the posts at those links, but put your comments on whichever of those posts is relevant. This post is narrowly focused. Off topic comments usually are deleted.
  35. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    An interesting experience that Boba's graph reminded me of. I was completing multiple regression analysis of the mass balance record of the Lemon Creek Glacier, Alaska. This is a 50 year long record. I compared mass balance to 10 different circulation indices from PDO to ENSO and AO. However, I failed to remove the year column before running the data. Year came out with the best correlation of all. Simply put in the last 40 years anyway year has been a decent proxy for temperature.
  36. It's the sun
    Re: sun tzu (600) Spot-on, sir. Diagnosis 100% correct. Blinders off. The down side to being able to see is this realization: most people intuitively understand that we are "heading for a cliff", which is why they close their eyes, stick their fingers in the ears, bury their heads in the sand & repeatedly mumble "it can't happen, it can't happen..." It can, it will, it's almost here. Very sobering, this seeing thing. The Yooper
  37. It's the sun
    My replies have been between classes so I apologize for the short responses. "Has anyone said anything about "controlling" climate?" Well yes, you did when you said "Controlling? Well, that's another matter--but it will be tried over the next century, even if the attempt is blunt, unwieldy, and ultimately does more harm than good." So you're telling me we are more worried about the acidity of the ocean from CO2 saturation (which is balanced by higher temperatures causing more evaporation) than places like the mississipi delta dead zones due to fertilizers from agriculture up-river. I'm glad we agree this is about money and power.
  38. It's the sun
    GnDoty--that's ridiculous. Has anyone said anything about "controlling" climate? Are you saying that humans can't change climate? If we dropped ten nuclear bombs in ten large volcanoes, the thirty-year trends would certainly be affected, and that's a tiny amount of power we can wield over our environment. We have the power to kill most of the life on this planet in a matter of days. I wonder if that would affect climate? The oceans are becoming more acid due to relatively rapid saturation with CO2, and life, marine biologists reveal, is having a hard time adapting in such a short time. Where might this added CO2 have come from, I wonder? The time is long, long past where we wonder whether or not we have an effect on the nature of Earth. We eradicate species on a weekly basis. At what point in the process of replacing nature with concrete and asphalt do you suddenly realize that humans (a part of nature, by the way) are quite capable of changing climate? Controlling? Well, that's another matter--but it will be tried over the next century, even if the attempt is blunt, unwieldy, and ultimately does more harm than good. Climate certainly does change without the influence of humans, but you're willfully ignoring the nature of this recent, very rapid climate change that is occurring against the grain of several your major natural cycles. Why aren't "we" as a species taking responsibility for this change? I'll tell you: money and power.
  39. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    ClimateWatcher #64, "Of course, if water vapor is providing positive feedback, one can still question why the warming rate is below the best estimate for the low end of IPCC projections." Only if they are living in a fantasy world where the statement above ISN'T nonsense. Observed warming is within the range of IPCC projections, not below the low end. Have you been listening to Monckton's fictional accounts of 'IPCC projections' which don't actually appear anywhere in the IPCC reports? "Both RSS and UAH, with recent corrections, indicate cooling trends in the pre 1998 data." Oddly the people who actually produce the RSS and UAH data all say that their results show long term warming trends... both pre and post 1998. "Also lost in that tale is that the -middle- troposphere, where models predict the greatest warming, indicates much less warming for both RSS and UAH." Source?
  40. It's the sun
    GnDoty writes: "I find it interesting the only rebuttle to sun spots driving temperature is a 40 trend, which is a blink of the eye in geologic time." Yes... because it is well known that sunlight travels at speeds best measured in 'geologic time'. PLONK
  41. It's the sun
    Sorry for my typo, which should have read 40 year trend. You can cherry pick time periods all you want. The fact is climate changes without the influence of man. That's why we find whale fossils in the Sahara Desert and shark teeth in north Texas. The position you are taking is essentially that man is more powerful than mother nature and can control climate. Do you honestly believe humans can prevent climatic events like the many that have occurred in the past. If you answer no for any of those events, then why are we focusing on it. I'll answer for you. Money and power.
  42. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    >>>"I take this as saying: The observations must >>>be wrong because they don't match the theory." > >I think it's perfectly reasonable for a paper to >point out that a certain set of observations doesn't >make any sense within current theory. Of course, if water vapor is providing positive feedback, one can still question why the warming rate is below the best estimate for the low end of IPCC projections. >The UAH measurements on tropospheric >warming/cooling were discrepant with ground-level >temperature measurements for over 10 years, and >all the climate community could say for sure was >that it didn't make any sense - until the UAH team >finally figured out their data analysis was in error. Well, for the MSU era, the MSU-LT (of both RSS and UAH ) track pretty well with the Land/Ocean indices (both CRU and GISS). The difference was the observations subsequent to the last big el nino, and not the corrections, however. Both RSS and UAH, with recent corrections, indicate cooling trends in the pre 1998 data. Also lost in that tale is that the -middle- troposphere, where models predict the greatest warming, indicates much less warming for both RSS and UAH.
  43. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Daniel... And the scary part of this being the hottest year on record is, 1) We're now in an La Nina 2) The PDO is negative 3) We in a deep solar minimum I shudder to think what's going to happen when we flip over to the other side of those three. "Whoops! I think we just found Trenberth's 'missing heat.'"
  44. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Agreed, I have to be careful how things are interpreted. Changed accordingly.
  45. It's the sun
    GnDoty, as adelady writes, the sunspot numbers representing that "40 trend" (going back to the 60s) are ACTUAL not modelled - apart from the projected figures beyond 2010, of course. Anyway, how about going back to 1850. What's the correlation there ? Shall we go further ?
  46. It's the sun
    GnDoty writes: I find it interesting the only rebuttle to sun spots driving temperature is a 40 trend, which is a blink of the eye in geologic time. So? Why does this strike you as interesting? Let's say you want to explain the modern temperature rise. You have two possible culprits: solar activity or CO2. Prior to this time period (say, 1800s to 1960-ish) solar activity and CO2 were both increasing, so it's not possible to rule either of them out. From the 1970s on, however, solar activity starts decreasing, while CO2 keeps increasing. Thus, solar activity can't explain the post-1970 rise in temperature but CO2 can. It's fairly simple logic. Looking at solar activity over longer time periods is no doubt scientifically interesting, but not really necessary to rule out solar as the cause of recent warming.
  47. It's El Niño
    scaddenup #2 My understanding is that ENSO, La Nina, AMO etc are internal re-distributions of heat energy around the globe - not overall gain or loss of heat from the Earth system to space by forcing imbalances.
  48. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    KL #53 I meant Arkadiusz, not Andreas. Arkadiusz - your posts are full of interest if hard to read and absorb. A mine of information.
  49. It's the sun
    GnDoty at 23:42 PM on 16 September, 2010 .... physical and not computer modelling. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I had a quick look through Jmurphy's references and there were a couple of projected trends but apart from that, all the other information, like the one I referred you to, were simply records of temperatures or observations of sunspots and related phenomena. Do you have a specific question about any of these?
  50. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    dana1981 #51 The Anthropogenic (AG) forcings and natural 'Solar' in Fig 2.4 AR4 are calculated 'changes' from AD1750, the critical point being that the AG forcings were 'zero' in AD1750, so the AG values are referenced to a zero baseline; whereas the Solar forcing in AD1750 is not nesessarily 'zero'. That means that you can reconstruct the AG forcings (with proxies and theory) back to AD1750 and draw the curves from a 'zero' baseline in AD1750. The area under these curves represents the energy added or subtracted from the Earth system. If you do the same for Solar forcing you need to know what the value was in AD1750, referenced to a 'zero' solar forcing. This 'zero' solar forcing would be the TSI where the Earth was neither warming nor cooling. Since the Earth was warming out of the Maunder Minimum from about AD1715 the chances are that Solar forcing was greater than zero in AD1750, and that the area under a forcing curve drawn from AD1750 to the present will have a stating point above zero, which adds a slice of area (energy) 250 years x starting point (AD1750) forcing in W/sq.m. This could be a large number of Joules. kdkd #59 - this negates your point 1) and 2) OHC measurement is not the issue here - just that 90%+ of any long term heat gain must store in the oceans.

Prev  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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