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  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  Next

Comments 109701 to 109750:

  1. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Indeed, if the "skeptics" are to be believed the planet should be undergoing marked and prolonged cooling. Yet, we have this happening: And the above graphic (courtesy RC) does not include data for most of 2010. Now applying certain people's misguided logic here, the theory of AGW would have been erroneously "falsified" many, many times over the duration of the instrumented SAT record. Yet, despite all those dips and bumps, the long-term warming trend is clear. Drawing attention to every "dip" by skeptics is quite simply unscientific and misleading. I really do not understand what 'skeptics' here are trying to argue. To my knowledge, no (reputable) climate scientist has said that we should expect a monotonic increase in global surface temperatures with increased GHG forcing.
  2. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "Perhaps I should clarify something, it's unfortunate that some here think that, as believers in a certain theory, you are somehow self-consored in visiting a website which is the opposite to what you believe." First, science is not about beliefs, it's about rational thinking. I don't "believe" in AGW, I believe the scientific method can be used to correctly interpret the facts. So far, the evidence supporting AGW theory is nothing short of overwhelming, so it is my opinion that the theory is very likely true. As someone else said here the other day: I don't believe in AGW, I accept the theory is true. Second, there's nothing wrong with visiting WUWT or other denialist/contrarian sites. What we're objecting to here is you using them as a source. "This type of thinking pervades society, not just beliefs on the internet. If you are right wing in politics, then it's actually beneficial to understand what the left is saying." I think that's the crux of your misunderstanding, if I may be so bold as to suggest you are mistaken: the left/right debate is mostly about opinion, which is why it's a political debate. Scientific debate is not the same, for it is not about opinions, but about scientific evidence, theories, and the like. You can't just say "I believe X" without expecting to be ask to support X with some peer-reviewed evidence. "If you strangely believe that the 'other side' should not be even visited then, believe me, you REALLY need to take a look at yourselves. You're not just closing your mind, your building a big wall where you cannot see anything but your own opinion, and the opinions of people who think just like you. It's actually dangerous." You're being overdramatic, here. Actually, you're being a little ill-mannered, suggesting we have closed minds because we don't regard WUWT as a scientifically valid web site. The truth is that we *are* open-minded, and most of us have probably spent some time visiting WUWT and similar sites. The very fact that Skeptical Science lists a compendium of contrarian arugments is proof we are aware of the arguments presented (time and time again) on such sites. So, you see, it's not that we don't want to hear what the other side is saying - it's just that the other side is always saying the same thing, even though what they're saying has been debunked ad nauseam. It's useful to bring these anti-AGW arguments *once*, so that the scientific community can address them, but once they've been shown wrong, repeating them is nothing more than engaging in anti-scientific propaganda.
  3. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz writes: "BTW, I've "ignored" no other's comments other than yours" Far from true. There have been several comments you did not respond to... such as both of mine (#39 & #105). I just assumed that was your standard response when you didn't have an answer.
  4. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "archiesteel. You might want to be careful with the term "denialists". I read John Cook's conditions when I came here, and you are apparently "skating on thin ice"." I didn't call you a denialist, I said I've seen such tactics being used by denialists quite a bit. But, hey, at least you're speaking to me now! "BTW, I've "ignored" no other's comments other than yours" You haven't, but you've ignored most counter-points presented to you, such as the fact that the last five or even ten years are not enough to gauge a statistically significant climate trend. "and you know why." Yes, I do. You have no responses for my counter-arguments, as you demonstrate yet again. "Try and write calmly" I am extremely calm. In fact, I am on medication that prevents me from being agitated. :-/ I think you're simply mistaking intellectual incisiveness for emotional aggressivity. This is a rational debate, and it can be frustrating when one side does not play by the rule (i.e. refuses to address counter-arguments, uses logical fallacies, etc.) "rather than classic prose like, "you do not want to find the truth, you want truth to conform to your pre-made opinion...The fact that you refer to WUWT in your last post (instead of some scientifically accurate source) is the icing on the cake, really." Well, prove me wrong, then. Admit that you were wrong about changing your mind based on a perceived five-year trend, when such a period of time is much too short to make such a call. "It's ill-mannered. If you can't write civil then don't bother at all." "Civil discussion" doesn't mean I won't call you on your mistakes when you make them, and not when you refuse to admit them, cite scientifically-deficient sources, or misrepresent a temperature graph. In fact, I am making great efforts here to remain polite; if you want to see how uncivil I can be, I can give you a few links! I respect this forum and what it stands for, and in that spirit I will now apologize if I've been too forceful in my criticism of your position. I will also retract any speculation I've made as far as your motives go. In exchange, I hope you'll finally admit that the last five years - even the last ten years - represent too short a time period to warrant changing one's mind about the validity of AGW theory and whether or not the world is still warming. "You said you weren't going to add anymore, by the way!" You said you weren't going to respond to me, so I guess we're even. :-)
  5. A South American hockey stick
    Although this graph shows a MWP that does not mean that it is the same as the northern hemishere MWP. Deniers like to look at a single graph, like figure A, and say here is the MWP. The problem is that the timing of this supposed MWP is different at different locations. When Mann adds up all the different graphs, the "Medieval warm periods" and "little ice ages" cancel each other out. This happens because they do not occur at the same time globally. This graph will be added to Mann's data. Its MWP will cancel out like the rest have. Most of the supposed MWP is just a bunch of local effects that occur at different times and are not globally significant. The current warming is Global and significant everywhere.
  6. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @CBDunkerson: I don't think every skeptic truly believes what they say. I think many of them are "political" skeptics, who simply repeat the arguments they've seen on contrarian sites with little regard as to whether the information is correct or not. It is also probable there is a certain number of oil industry shills out there, considering how much money Koch Industries and such have put into Climate Denial propaganda (through conservative think tanks, notably). The money flow has been well-documented, and it's naive to believe that no portion of that money is going to a number of Internet foot soldiers. Needless to say, such thought mercenaries aren't concerned with the validity of the science in the least. That said, it is also highly likely that many of them *do* believe what they write. It is for these people we must engage with, as they are the likeliest to be convinced of the scientific reality of AGW. This is why civil debate is so important, and why we must be patient with people who challenge the science in good faith. So, in the interest of peace and good will, I'll offer Baz an olive branch. I'll all ask him is to keep an open mind, to consider that changing your mind based on a statistically insignificant period might not be the rational thing to do, and to be as skeptical (i.e. questioning) of what he reads here than what he reads on WUWT. As a lurker there, I look forward to see Baz challenge Anthony and co. on their various positions...
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Perhaps I should clarify something, it's unfortunate that some here think that, as believers in a certain theory, you are somehow self-consored in visiting a website which is the opposite to what you believe. This type of thinking pervades society, not just beliefs on the internet. If you are right wing in politics, then it's actually beneficial to understand what the left is saying. In fact, it's really important. However, if you hover somewhere around the middle, it's not just important, it's essential. I make no excuses at all for visiting WUWT (and I've posted there). Neither would I apologise (while there) for visiting (and posting) at realclimate and Tamino's Open Mind. So if some of you shameful people think that you're going to try and curtail me from visiting websites which shoq all side then you are really wasting your fingers tips. You REALLY have to understand that this issue of AGW needs discussion, debate, and resolution. If you strangely believe that the 'other side' should not be even visited then, believe me, you REALLY need to take a look at yourselves. You're not just closing your mind, your building a big wall where you cannot see anything but your own opinion, and the opinions of people who think just like you. It's actually dangerous. JMurphy, IF you had read my posts (IF!), then you may have seen that I have been reading THIS site for some days now - but that's not going to stop me reading teh opinions of others at WUWT. I heartily suggest you go there. Some people (ably qualified) write there (just as they do here) with interesting opinions and theories. archiesteel. You might want to be careful with the term "denialists". I read John Cook's conditions when I came here, and you are apparently "skating on thin ice". BTW, I've "ignored" no other's comments other than yours - and you know why. Try and write calmly rather than classic prose like, "you do not want to find the truth, you want truth to conform to your pre-made opinion...The fact that you refer to WUWT in your last post (instead of some scientifically accurate source) is the icing on the cake, really." It's ill-mannered. If you can't write civil then don't bother at all. You said you weren't going to add anymore, by the way! Daniel Bailey, I've already stated that I'm a sceptic, so my bias surely comes as no surprise, does it? Odd. I came here to learn what your beliefs were/are - I have made this plain time and again, I don't know how you've missed it. I will read your Joe Romm link (I've been there too!). However, I have stated my beliefs on the principle issue. I have even stated that if surface temperatures rise in the next five years then I will be back on board. But as I currently see no cause for alarm (especially with regard to OHC) then it's more likely that my early jump-of-ship may prove to be a correct one. As for my comment on Arctic ice for 2010, let's wait and see who's right, shall we? FYI, 'confirmation biases' are perfectly natural and excusable - on BOTH sides, it's human nature and can be witnessed plainly on this site as well as WUWT. However, refusing to listen to an opinion opposite to yours is also natural, but dangerous.
  8. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    @KL: "The most recent 8-15 years is not cherry picking. 1-2 years is cherrypicking." So, is 8 as good as 15, then? How about 16, is that better or worse? How about 6? Hey, look at the last three years: Global Warming has restarted with a vengeance! I'm curious to hear your threshold for how many years is enough, and why it is so.
  9. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Rob, that's true, but WUWT did cover it earlier here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/does-piomass-verify/
  10. A South American hockey stick
    #20:"CO2 is well mixed, I don't think that where the sources are located is what makes the difference." I wonder about the degree of mixing. Compare BarrowBarrow to Palmer Station; there are clear differences in seasonal amplitude as well as annual mean value between the hemispheres.
  11. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Rob wrote: "They surely know this is a topic on which they are going to lose in the end." Unfortunately, no they don't. Indeed, the fact that every expert on the subject says the ice is in full scale collapse is itself sufficient to convince deluded conspiracists that the opposite must be 'true'. The thing that makes 'skeptics' so tenacious is that they truly believe what they are saying... not on a rational basis, but on the level of 'faith'. At such a point it becomes impossible to 'prove' them wrong because they simply dismiss any and all facts which contradict their world view. Sadly, even when the Arctic ice DOES melt away completely I can guarantee that most of these people won't waver in the slightest. They'll deny that they ever predicted anything different. Say it doesn't indicate that current warming is unusual. Insist that it has all happened many times before. Et cetera.
  12. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz... Case in point. Your link at WUWT does not include PIOMAS ice volume. Out of sight out of mind. Based on the first hand observations this season by Dr Barber at U of Manitoba I would expect that the MY ice situation is like worse than is being reported by the satellite data.
  13. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Daniel... I am very curious why Anthony and Steve at WUWT are so tenaciously clinging to the Arctic ice issue. They surely know this is a topic on which they are going to lose in the end. Every expert on the Arctic is saying the summer ice is going to be gone, and fairly soon. But these non-experts are pounding the "ice is rebounding" meme like there is no tomorrow. Anthony seems to laying the entire credibility of his site on the line with this one. It just makes no sense.
  14. It's the sun
    Beagle, to save everyone here (and yourself) from going over arguments that have been brought up many times in the past, I suggest you have a look at Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says because most of your assertions are in the Top 10 there. Read what they say and then come back and state what you disagree with. Also, you state that you definitively know one thing : "I know for a fact that many of the meteorological sites in the Russian high Arctic that had been reporting since the 1940s were shut down when the Soviet Union collapsed, and this resulted in a spike in reports from more tropical sites." Facts should be quite easily proven and backed-up, so could you provide a link to the facts concerning shut-downs and the "spike" ?
    Moderator Response: Beagle, please do as JMurphy suggested. Also, please respond to his request for more info not on this thread, but on the thread Dropped stations introduce warming bias. The policy on this site is for off-topic comments to be deleted. "Off topic" on this site means off topic of the particular post on which the comments are appearing, such as this "It's the Sun" post. Often conversations start as asides on an irrelevant thread, which is okay as long as immediately those conversations continue on a relevant thread. In such cases, it's fine to post a short comment on the original thread, pointing readers to the continuation on the relevant thread.
  15. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Ken Lambert... I don't think anyone has a problem accepting that warming has flattened in the past decade. That's pretty obvious. What people are objecting to is this statement: "[This is] pretty good proof that the theory of CO2GHG forcing as the main driver of global warming is in serious trouble." As everyone is pointing out, the climate is highly variable. It has ups and downs and has throughout the warming of the past 40 years. I presented a chart where there are a number of short term (cherry picked) trends that show cooling. Why is this warming this decade any different than previous cooling or flattening of the past? Answer: It's not. As well, if you can plot the 2 standard deviation of the trend I think you'll find that the flattening is still well within the expected range. When we start plotting consecutive years falling outside that range then you have full permission from me to claim that CO2GHG driven GW is in trouble. And I'll back you up.
  16. A South American hockey stick
    To add to what Robert Way just said... I don't think anyone should be jumping up and down over a global and pronounced MWP. As Robert said, the same mechanisms are at work today. If we see a strong MWP that would suggest higher climate sensitivity, one of the primary uncertainties discussed by the IPCC. We REALLY don't want to find out climate sensitivity is in the 5C or 6C range. As I understand it that would be a very very unpleasant scenario.
  17. It's the sun
    Interesting site with erudite comments and very well moderated, thank you John Cook. I recall in 1971 the Big Worry was global cooling and then the Modern Solar Maximum started up coincident with "global warming." I'd be interested in seeing the actual facts on global temperature measurements, i.e. what sites were used, what data controls are on those sites, who owns them, who pays for them, and when were the measurements taken. I know for a fact that many of the meteorological sites in the Russian high Arctic that had been reporting since the 1940s were shut down when the Soviet Union collapsed, and this resulted in a spike in reports from more tropical sites. Some Smart People think this led to a false sense of "global warming." My educated suspicion is that ‘greenhouse’ gasses do play a role, as does space weather, as does vulcanism, as do asteroid-earth collisions… But if you look at prehistoric periods of mass extinctions, they seem to all be associated with global cooling, not warming. Geologic periods of global warming seem to have all been associated with a great diversity of life. So what then should we fear most? All I know is my tomatoes did very poorly this year because “they” say it has been the 13th coldest summer in the US Pacific Northwest since 1941... and when I can’t grow food to eat because it is too cold, I starve. So show me the unbiased, actual, unspun, factual temperature data please.
  18. Philippe Chantreau at 00:44 AM on 19 September 2010
    A South American hockey stick
    Muoncounter, CO2 is well mixed, I don't think that where the sources are located is what makes the difference. The much larger proportion of ocean on the Southern hemisphere is more likely to contribute.
  19. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (269, et al), JMurphy (270), archiesteel(271)
    "2010 isn't over yet! Let's wait and see how the line performs as the Arctic re-builds. You may be in for a surprise. " "You only read what confirms your beliefs, it would appear." "How does this not sound like wishful thinking? Thanks for confirming my earlier musings: you do not want to find the truth, you want truth to conform to your pre-made opinion."
     Baz, as JMurphy and archiesteel rightfully address, the preponderance of your comments display confirmation bias. Perhaps a period of honest self-assessment is in order. It's not like we all went over to WUWT and engaged you on this. You came here, ostensibly to learn. When advice and sourced correction has been proferred, you either ignore it or only selectively address it. If you actively wish to learn here and make positive, substantive contributions to everyone's understandings, please cease the posturing and try to more actively engage. Or you're wasting everyone's time here. And I'm sure you consider your time to be valuable, right? So let's try this: your comment I quoted above is refuted by Romm over at his place. As the Arctic ice volume is at an all-time low (remember, 60% of melt occurs from the bottom of the ice, so thinning occurs 24/7/365...w/ rising OHC, the volume loss of multiyear[MY] ice doesn't get completely replaced every winter anymore), the melt season has lengthened, with greater periodicity/variability from one year to the next. This is direct testimony to the loss of MY ice. The melt/export season continues, the volume losses continues. So, the question is this: given your statement I quoted and direct evidence indicating your position has a confirmation bias, what will you do about it? Will you continue your current trajectory arcing you towards denier status? Or will you use your evident intelligence, amply demonstrated, to objectively consider all of the evidence before positing an opinion? If the latter, we all welcome your contributions here. The Yooper
  20. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    KL #43 While you clearly have some intelligence, your comment shows that your understanding of applied statistics is pretty zero. To wit: "The most recent 8-15 years is not cherry picking. 1-2 years is cherrypicking. Given that AGW was recently declared a post-pubescent 35 year old, the most recent one third of this period cannot be regarded as insignificant" Is illogical, incorrect, and theoretically unsupportable. I must prepare a post on linear trends and statistical power in order to deal with this oft-repeated rubbish of yours and others' once and for all.
  21. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Re: Ken Lambert (47) Would that analysis you conduct be with your Mark 4 eyeball? Still cherry picking. A good background on statistics, and inherent dangers therein, is here. The Yooper
  22. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Re: Ken Lambert (43)
    "The most recent 8-15 years is not cherry picking. 1-2 years is cherrypicking."
     I could quote other bits, but I believe the entire gist of your comment revolves around this fulcrum. As other commenters have ably demonstrated above, this insistence upon a narrow focus of time, without the relevant context of the available larger dataset of time, is Cherry Picking. You conflate natural variability of noisy datasets with interrupted warming. This has been addressed many times here on Skeptical Science. Outside commentators have also addressed it, such as here and here. The long term trend, with natural periodicity properly removed, is what is important. Tamino gives a good example of how to adjust for that INRE: Sea Level Rise here. The Yooper
  23. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    JMurphy #46 Ned's Chart at post #18 here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-and-global-warming.html shows smoothed GISS land + SST and RSS temperatures which sure looks like flattening over the last 8-10 years. That's if a clear reduction in the slope of a curve is flattening - which for most people it is. Not desperate - just fact JM.
  24. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Ken Lambert wrote : "There is little doubt of a flattening in warming over the last 8-10 years. All temp records show it..." Really ? I tried it out for UAH (the favourite of the so-called skeptics - although am I right in thinking that they doubt even that now, because it doesn't give them what they want ?), and came up with this : I have used trends for the last 6-12 years, to encompass the years since which you believe there has been 'flattening' as well as a couple of years on either end, and the trend details are : From 1998 - 0.00559773 per year From 1999 - 0.0203245 per year From 2000 - 0.0160839 per year From 2001 - 0.00678464 per year From 2002 - 0.00372316 per year From 2003 - 0.0102541 per year From 2004 - 0.0168241 per year From what I can see, the flattest trend shows up if you take 2002 as your start date but it's certainly not as flat (in fact the trend is increasing) for the following two years. Now, I don't like to use any trends of only 6-12 years (let alone your 8-10) but surely even you can see that your assertion ("flattening in warming") is desperate ?
  25. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Ken Lambert, there's not a fixed amount of time (or whatevre) that tells us how much is enough, it is a statistical problem. Five years may be enough for a set of data but not enough for another, it depends on the noise and/or natural variability of the physical quantity that is being analyzed. There's one more thing that needs to be understoood. If we have, say, 5 years of flat trend, although we can still say that it has been flat (it's our best guess, afterall) we need to explicitly state its statistical significance. So the problem is not on the claim by itself but on the conclusions that can be drawn.
  26. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming
    Ned #18 Nice chart Ned. Lots of work in that compilation. Would it be possible to show us a similar chart of the areas under the TSI curve and the logCO2 curve with the correct vertical scale in Joules?
  27. A South American hockey stick
    I should at least point some of you to here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm And have you guys note that although the MWP did affect the Northern Hemisphere distinctly and strongly (far stronger than the Southern Hemisphere) temperatures now are far beyond those achieved during the MWP and also that the mechanisms which explain the MWP are the same mechanisms which likely caused the 20th century warming but that these same mechanisms are not at play now.
  28. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    #43: "The most recent 8-15 years is not cherry picking." Really? Examine: The blue points are a full 10 years of RSS data for all latitutdes; the pink are just the most recent 8 years. The 'trend' for the blue is positive; the 'trend' for pink is slightly negataive. So it would appear that choice of sample directly influences the apparent outcome. We have 30+ years in RSS and lots more in surface temperatures; please use all available data. As for your continued insistence that I must provide some hypothetical baseline TSI value for you: we've already discussed this ad nauseum elsewhere. I'm not a solar irradiance expert and I'm not going to speculate. Its time to stop asking the same question every time we cross posts. This is a public forum; if anyone else felt your question was important, no doubt they would have chimed in by now.
  29. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: more posturing to avoid responding to my questions, Baz? I'm not being ill-mannered, I just want to get to the bottom of this, and for some reason you cannot answer the questions I ask. Perhaps I wouldn't sound so aggressive if I hadn't seen this tactic over and over again from denialists posing as "concerned believers" or "ex-believers who were convinced otherwise by a statistically insignificant period of time." When people start to confront you with the errors in your reasoning, you begin to complain of being badly treated. Give me a break! In fact, it is *you* who is starting to act rude by ignoring counter-arguments and explanations as to why your "change of heart" was based on actual science, but an impression. "2010 isn't over yet! Let's wait and see how the line performs as the Arctic re-builds. You may be in for a surprise." How does this not sound like wishful thinking? Thanks for confirming my earlier musings: you do not want to find the truth, you want truth to conform to your pre-made opinion. The fact that you refer to WUWT in your last post (instead of some scientifically accurate source) is the icing on the cake, really. So, let me ask my question again (no need to provide anything but the answer): point *what* to me? If you're going to mention me in a post, at least have the common decency to tell me what you meant.
  30. A South American hockey stick
    #15: "perturbance doesnt appear to be that significant given the total amount of fossil fuel that has been consumed" Can you substantiate that? Are you aware that the annual 2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 tends to be about 50% of annual CO2 emissions? "global warming is happening in the northern hemisphere faster than in the southern hemisphere." Most of the CO2 sources are in the northern hemisphere. If atmospheric CO2 contributes to warming, one would expect exactly that the northern hemisphere warms more rapidly. Add in the greater thermal inertia of the southern hemisphere (all that water and a big mass of ice) and it would be very surprising if the southern hemisphere was not warming more slowly.
  31. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    RH, kdkd, Ned, muoncounter; Gentlemen (maybe ladies for muoncounter): The most recent 8-15 years is not cherry picking. 1-2 years is cherrypicking. Given that AGW was recently declared a post-pubescent 35 year old, the most recent one third of this period cannot be regarded as insignificant - particularly since the CO2 concentration and logarithmic forcing therefrom is at its highest level and increasing every year up to the present. There is little doubt of a flattening in warming over the last 8-10 years. All temp records show it, and OHC measurement is showing less heat gain (or no heat gain), the more accurate it becomes - even with the imperfect Argo. Even Jason is showing about 2.1mm of yearly SLR since 2002, with most of this (3 of 4 recent analyses) attributing to ice melt (mass) and not steric rise (OHC rise causing thermal expansion). OHC measurement prior to Argo is next to useless - very high noise, poor spatial coverage and no baseline. OHC increase claimed by splicing charts from 1993 with Argo (2003-04) has been dealt with elsewhere ie; "Robust Warming of the Upper Oceans", and found to be anything but robust. Muoncounter won't engage on the TSI needing a baseline of 'zero' forcing, because he has probably worked out that I am right, and we could well be seeing a 250-300 year slice of heat accumulation from Solar forcing imbalance which the IPCC AR4 has wrongly dealt with in Fig 2.4 and has been repeated elsewhere. Could this be another IPCC AD2035 or AD2350 moment? 8-10 years of flattening temperatures can't be attributed to ENSO, PDO, AMO unless these complex circulations actually cause a net global heat loss rather than re-distribute heat internally within the Earth system over that sort of time period - and who is suggesting that? Mind you it is not impossible - but contrary to our current understanding, and would be a welcome burp of heat to space to relieve some of that AGW if real. Finally Dr Trenberth's speculation that the 'missing heat' could be sequestered down below the 700-1000m level and might belch forth to king hit us, is looking increasing unlikely by the latest Willis analysis which is finding nothing much down there.
  32. A South American hockey stick
    Oops, the insturmental record is only added to the second graph, but you still see the beginning of the dramatic increase at the end of the first one...
  33. A South American hockey stick
    @Sealcove: if confronted with this, turn the question around, i.e. demand if people have proof of climatic changes that happened as quickly as the current warming without some clear catastrophic event (supervolcano, etc.) associated with it. @RSVP: "Figure 1, if accurate, seems to take some wind out of AGW as exhibited by the overall extent of natural temperature oscillations." Not really. We are already aware of natural temperature oscillations, that's how we know the current one isn't natural. "Temperature is seen to change as much on its own (between 1000 AD and 1500 AD), as it does in the subsequent 500 years that follow." You seem to forget the spike at the end (i.e. the instrumental record), which is *exactly* what AGW is about. So this graph reinforces AGW, not "take some wind" out of it as you would suggest.
  34. A South American hockey stick
    Figure 1, if accurate, seems to take some wind out of AGW as exhibited by the overall extent of natural temperature oscillations. Temperature is seen to change as much on its own (between 1000 AD and 1500 AD), as it does in the subsequent 500 years that follow. While man's activities are surely contributing to recent warming, the perturbance doesnt appear to be that significant given the total amount of fossil fuel that has been consumed in this period. It is also hard to ignore the data that shows global warming is happening in the northern hemisphere faster than in the southern hemisphere. Seems to be loosing about 1 degree on its way south.
  35. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Aha, now we see where Baz has been coming from all along - WUWT. That explains a lot. Firstly, for your own benefit, you should do some reading on this website, starting here and here. That should help to wean you off WUWT... But, more importantly, I can see how your reliance on secondary sources is giving you a warped picture of reality. Take your MartinFrost link : that is two reports spliced together, with only one source shown at the top - to claim that it is all coming straight from Physorg.com. However, that particular report ends two paragraphs before the graphic. From there on (including the graphic) the report is direct from The Register, that fine, unbiased source...not. And he's using two uncredited pictures, one (perhaps both) from NASA. Tut, tut. This is your usual sort of source, is it Baz ? You only read what confirms your beliefs, it would appear. No wonder you are so willing to accept very short trends.
  36. A South American hockey stick
    @archiesteel: That is helpful, but I still can't help wondering if we can truly say that this recent warming is outside of the range of a normal shift without a larger sample. Do we have any longer range proxy data for South America to compare it against to illustrate that the recent shift is unprecedented?
  37. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Rob that PIOMASS reference is out of date, it was for June, and was much discussed at WUWT. See here for all the charts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ 2010 isn't over yet! Let's wait and see how the line performs as the Arctic re-builds. You may be in for a surprise.
  38. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    acrchiesteel. That was close, you almost posed a question for debate! No, it's okay, reading back, you didn't. Is this your style, to try and brow-beat? As I pointed out way back, I'm happy to discuss, but not with people who act ill-mannered. Try and 'discuss' even when someone frustrates you, rather than poke them with a stick. It serves absolutely no purpose when they don't respond (as I have not) as you cannot converse. And before you say "I wouldn't want to" then why all the postings? Clearly you want to talk, but (IMHO) you lack the civilised ability. Rob, my 0.001% figure comes from loss gainst volume. The Antarctic contains 20,000,000 GT of ice. The annual loss of 190 GT is a little less than 0.001%. Rob, clearly it's completely insignificant. Even 100 years of (even accelerated) loss would still be completely insignificant! If you had £20m and donated £190 to charity every year, I would say that your donation is insignificant against your wealth, wouldn't you? And before we debate this any further, you might want to read this: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2010/greenland-icemelt.html
  39. A South American hockey stick
    I see your tropical South American hockey stick ( already broken I notice) and raise you one Arctic hockey stick http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46320000/gif/_46320407_arctic_temperatures_466gr.gif
  40. Himalayan Glaciers: Wrong Date, Right Message
    A fairly detailed analysis of the 2035 typo is provided at the link below. It suggests that the typo was actually caught during the expert review stage but some kind of glitch occurred, perhaps due to multiple changes being requested, and the requested correction was either not applied or the original text was accidentally restored. Anatomy of IPCC’s Mistake on Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035
  41. A South American hockey stick
    Too many hockey sticks around, it's going to be boring :) Small (irrelevant) typo, Moburg -> Moberg both in the text and in the caption
  42. A South American hockey stick
    I notice my comment is the same as Lazarus #10 - you have my permission to remove!!!
  43. A South American hockey stick
    I notice that this reconstruction shows a "Medieval Warm Period" from about 1000 to 1200 AD. Does that mean that the MWP was possibly worldwide, not just a Northern Hemisphere or North Atlantic phenomenon?
  44. A South American hockey stick
    Since John seems to approve of fig1 not having the instrument record attached I thought it'd be interesting to see moberg 2005 without it as well (although these are uncalibrated). Moberg 2005 SI
  45. A South American hockey stick
    I think that mann's "hockey sticks" are a contribution to the scientific literature. I think that some individuals (who will remain unnamed) have taken aim at Mann far to much for his previous studies really tried to develop novel techniques and was ripped apart for doing so regardless of the amplitude of millennial to centennial scale changes in the earth's climate cycles even our best measurement techniques show that the greenhouse effect is increasing.
  46. A South American hockey stick
    Doesn't this research indicate that the MWP was global, or at least not restricted to the northern hemisphere?
  47. A South American hockey stick
    But are these two 'hockey sticks' strictly the same as the Mann hockey sticks that got everybody so excited? Mann had near perfectly straight down trending shafts with a very obvious blade. Both the figures you show allow for far more natural variability than the contentious Mann hockey stick. It's worth reading the text in the Moburg et al. (2005) link you provide under Fig2 to get a perspective on that. Can we throw away Mann's hockey sticks?
  48. Jeff Freymueller at 14:38 PM on 18 September 2010
    A South American hockey stick
    Thanks, Yooper.
  49. Himalayan Glaciers: Wrong Date, Right Message
    Daniel @17, That was an awesome Kansas video that you linked to! Had Thingadonta actually read something useful like glacier backgrounder by Kargel rather than linking to spam from a UK tabloid paper, then he would know that the glaciers of the eastern Himalaya in particular are not doing well. The typo was an unfortunate mistake and should not have been made. It does not change the fact that "Total Himalayan mass balance is distinctly negative” (Kargel et al. 2010). Anyhow, the issue had been addressed (ad nauseum) and it is time for everyone to move on.
  50. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    24.Riccardo But if we take glacier melting as a signal of global warming then we have to say that temperature in 1945-1955 were similar to 1995-2005. I think some people struggle with accepting that. 25.mspelto The UNEP/WGMS report does show the mass balance changes were similar in 1945-1955 as 1995-2005 (Fig 5.1). This is with regard to "30 reference glaciers" which I imagine represent good spatial coverage and records. Their "all glacier" record appears to show tha same result although it doesn't extend quite as far back. Fig5.9 tells me that records began Europe - late 19th century. North America - ~1900 but major ramp up ~1945. Arctic - ~1935 Asia/South America - ~1960's New Zealand - 1980's Antarctica/Africa - erm, take your pick Actually looking at this then maybe the idea that the WGMS data as a true global record has to be qualified. mspelto if you have time could you comment on the WGMS data? And maybe let us know which data Cogley has access to that the WGMS doesn't have? 26.michael sweet Expertise is a good thing. Mselto seems to rate Cogley The United Nations Environment Programme seem to rate The World Glacier Monitoring Service Both seem to have importantly different stories to tell about glacier mass balance in the mid 20th century. Which should I go with?

Prev  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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