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?
    One major wild card I would add to your discussion is ocean heat content (or if you prefer, ocean cold content-just to be language-neutral), and the current disagreements (ie non consensus) surrounding this.
  2. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    I found this document (http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/7076.pdf) which confirms there's data for 300 glaciers starting with 1850, but they're all Swiss. Can you really get a global picture from just 1 small country?
  3. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Oh, and the graph is determined by using over 300 glaciers (as far as I can make out), if Table 1 in the original paper itself is anything to go by - but I have only skimmed over it.
  4. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Grim_Reaper, have a look at another graph which includes the above but also data from all glaciers since 1980, and you will see the same downward trend : NOAA Glacier Mass Balance
  5. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Figure 1 (Global glacier volume) looked great to me at first. Then I started wondering how they managed to calculate the volume all the way back to 1850. From what I can tell, more than half that graph is extrapolated from just 30 glaciers, all of which are based in Switzerland. Can you really do this and come up with a reliable result?
  6. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    John, it comes from BOTH sun and backradiation as has been explained. Why is it so hard to understand this? You can sense the backradiation if you go into your backyard at night - note the lack of instant freezing to death. However, your sensors are more likely to notice the conduction from your warm body to the cooler night air. Have you bothered to compare ground cooling rate between clear and cloudy night yet?
  7. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    You have to be very careful about any "trend" in the TSI data, because of the strong 11-year cyclic nature of it. Any trend should be based on an integer number of cycles, so 22 or 33 or 44 years. Otherwise the partial cycle will influence the trend. That said, the bit of extra cycle you chart would tend to influence the trend upward, and yet the overall trend is down...
  8. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    John, this is getting a bit repetitive but I will try... At the surface, radiation is being received as short wave from sun, and long wave from the atmosphere. The radiation is absorbed by atoms/molecules in that surface (at top for ground, in first few metres for water). This radiation energy converts to added kinetic energy for these atoms. Collectively this is heat, and what the thermometer measures. Conduction comes into play. The energy is transferred, atom to atom, both downward below the surface and to molecules of the atmosphere at the boundary, which collide with others to transfer energy up. In liquids, some of that energy also goes into evaporation. So the surface loses energy and thus is cooled by those processes. The amount of energy the can be moved away by conduction and evaporation is strictly limited by physical laws. As energy is absorbed, more and more radiation energy is converted to kinetic energy in the atoms. However, moving atoms (or more to point, the charged particles of the atoms) lose energy by radiation. The temperature of surface (the amount of kinetic energy in the atoms) stops rising when the losses by radiation match the energy coming in. Surface radiation goes up. For the temperatures at the earth surface, this radiation is long wave as opposed to the short wave coming in. The atmosphere is transparent (it doesnt absorb) to short wave, but GHG do absorb the longwave, convert to kinetic energy and so heat the atmosphere. Moving particles again, so atmosphere emits radiation, some of which goes down to the surface again. Its not an efficient emitters because atmosphere re-absorbs radiation, then emits again and so on. This is the backradiation. What happens to your thermometers? Well in day time, shortwave from sun and backradiation both heat. Surface heats faster than atmosphere because it absorbs the radiation whereas atmosphere is only heated by conduction and the limited absorption of surface radiation by GHG. Conduction is more important closer to the ground. At night, the surface continues to radiate effectively for its temperature but now only warmed by backradiation. As it is efficient radiator is cools faster than atmosphere and again conduction works in reverse, cooling air closer to the ground. As temperature of ground drops, surface radiation reduces and so back radiation also is reduced but not hugely as whole thickness of the atmosphere is involved in radiation, absorption and re-radiation. You can see the relative night time drops if you go to site that actually measures the radiation as well as the temperature. And in case I need to say it... A thermometer does not measure radiation - it may measure the energy converted to atomic motion by an absorber however.
  9. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    scaddenp at 07:20 AM, Phil, on the contrary, I think we are getting somewhere. So, a thermometer lying on the ground, or a barefoot kid does not measure what radiation instruments measures. What they both measure is the result of solar radiation being absorbed by matter or objects on surface, sufficient radiation to heat the surface to the point a bare foot kid would be unable to stand still for fear of burning his feet, or as I mentioned earlier, enough to fry an egg in some cases. That leads us back to the question as to where does the energy come from that drives evaporation, is it that heat absorbed from the solar energy that can burn the soles of the kids foot, or is it the back radiation that he is unable to sense as it can only be measured by radiation instruments?
  10. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    KR at 12:34 PM, regarding how well CO2 is mixed in the atmosphere, you will find this study of CO2 levels measured by surface stations interesting. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7239/2008/acp-8-7239-2008.pdf In particular note what variations can occur over a few days, as well as the huge variations that occur over the course of the year due to seasonal conditions, up to or in excess of 50ppm, certainly very much more than a slight decrease, as well as how much the CO2 varies between locations. Given the processes that transport the CO2, the distribution of it has a lot in common with how heat is distributed as well as moisture, so would you say that they too are well and evenly distributed in the atmosphere. We know and accept that water must return to the surface to complete the hydrological cycle and so too does CO2. The amount of CO2 that is in the carbon cycle moving between the sources and sinks, all of them at the earths surface, is about 30 times that which is released by the combustion of fossil fuels.
  11. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Re: ClimateWatcher (5)
    "And in fact, the linear trends for most global measures of temperature since 2002 do indicate cooling: RSS_MT -1.29 K/century UAH_MT -0.25 K/century RSS_LT -0.15 K/century CRU -0.53 K/century CRU SST -0.46 K/century While these indicate warming: UAH_LT 0.37 K/century GISS 0.35 K/century"
     That's odd. This is what the RSS Website shows: RSS_LT 0.163 K/decade or 1.63 K/Century RSS_MT 0.099 K/decade or 0.99 K/Century RSS_TS 0.005 K/decade or 0.05 K/Century RSS_SL -0.313 K/decade or -3.13 K/Century Smelling a cherry pick, opted for the quick, down-and-dirty Eyeball Mk. 4 method from here on. This is from CRU.: CRU 0.80 K/century (eyeball Mk. 4) CRU SST 0.70 K/century (eyeball Mk. 4) This is from GISS.: GISS 0.80 K/century (eyeball Mk. 4) Didn't even bother with UAH. Pointless. Unless you're looking at all of the data available, or at least snippets of 30 years or more (or you can demonstrate high correlation values that are statistically significant), you're wasting our time. The Yooper
  12. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Agnostic, Like Daniel Bailey said it depends on the form of the precipitation. Where glaciers gain most of their ice is usually higher up (the accumulation zone) and in these areas it is a lot more likely that precipitation falls as snow. You should also note that increases in wintertime precipitation are the important thing to consider as for most glaciers that is all snow... What it essentially means is warming can increase precipitation during winter at some glaciers, making more snow accumulated during the winter than was melted during the summer... BUT once the winter precipitation subsides or summer temperatures pass a threshold, then more melting occurs than gains.
  13. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    johnd - The first meter intercepts fairly little energy because it's only the first meter. The IR from the ground is absorbed in the first couple hundred meters (80+% in the first 100, if I recall correctly) due to the optical depth of air to IR. If that's not understandable, I don't know what I can say to explain it to you. (I thought of saying "if that's not clear", but I didn't want to add to the issue...) As to CO2 "...having an increased presence in the first metre" - absolutely not. CO2 is very well and evenly distributed in the atmosphere. If anything, in areas where sequestration was taking place, you would expect CO2 levels to decrease slightly based upon sequestration rates and the (very high) diffusion rates. Please look at some of the information on radiation fog (fog produced by the nocturnal cooling of the surface boundary layer to a temperature at which its content of water vapor condenses) here, here, and here. It's really pretty simple. The ground radiates IR (cooling), which is intercepted over 100+ meters (distributing that energy away from the ground), and by conduction cools the first meter or so.
  14. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    #5: "And in fact, the linear trends for most global measures of temperature since 2002 do indicate cooling:" So you suggest that climate is to be determined by less than 8 years of data? From which you can extract a gradient in degrees per century??? Looking at a recent RSS file, for example, does indeed give a linear trend with negative slope for the cherry-picked period of 1/2002-7/2010. But the R^2 of such a line is 0.0038. That's not worth much. Try a longer time period, say 1979-2010 (the extent of the UAH/RSS data set). Your cooling trends will go up in a puff of CO2.
  15. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    johnd - change reflectivity is albedo. For change in this, try albedo effect. Trend is hard to be sure about but note the SCALE of the change. If there is any change its small.
  16. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    adelady at 10:18 AM, the soil is an excellent example to illustrate how the terminology is used in another field especially one where the subject is of concern to most participants, who do have a working knowledge or greater on the subject, and it is not just an interesting theory. Soils can be naturally acid or alkaline, however agriculture does generally cause soil pH levels to decline and only once a soil has reached a pH that determines it is actually acidic is the term more acidic used to describe a continuing declining pH. So, if the soil is alkaline to begin with and the pH begins to decline, the process is described as declining alkalinity, NOT as the soil becoming more acidic. Only once it has passed the neutral point do terms relating to acidity come into use and any further decline will be described as the soil becoming more acidic. If action is taken to counteract soil acidity, it is described as reducing or neutralising the acidity, NOT making the soil more alkaline. What more would you expect for an industry where the participants literally have their feet on the ground and don't take kindly to anyone who tries to call a shovel a spade.
  17. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Of course the TSI trend is accounted for by just the past few year's decrease. And in fact, the linear trends for most global measures of temperature since 2002 do indicate cooling: RSS_MT -1.29 K/century UAH_MT -0.25 K/century RSS_LT -0.15 K/century CRU -0.53 K/century CRU SST -0.46 K/century While these indicate warming: UAH_LT 0.37 K/century GISS 0.35 K/century
  18. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    Re: Agnostic (11) Were the precipitation to come down in the form of rain that would be a reasonable assumption. However, the vast majority of the precipitation still comes down as snow, just more of it. Glacier ice accumulation is a balance between the accumulation and ablation zones of a glacier. Increases in precip in the accumulation zone typically result in glacier advance. However if, due to warming air, the line of equilibrium advances higher up the mountain, the glacier could still have a net mass loss as the percentage of the glacier in the accumulation zone dwindles (even if it is thickening due to increased precip). If the accumulation zone contains less than 60% of the area of the glacier at the end of the melt season, it is in decline (mass loss). Go to Maury Pelto's site for a very clear explanation. The Yooper
  19. What's happening to glaciers globally?
    The article state that “there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation and thus glacier ice accumulation”. I thought that precipitation in the form of rain assisted glacier ice to recede not increase. Am I wrong?
  20. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    johnd, Even pH7 isn't "neutral" unless conditions are exactly right. More acidic and more alkaline are terms commonly used in relation to soils even when the measurements don't cross 'neutral'. Acidification is a general term describing decreasing pH - it says little to nothing about the starting or ending pH values of the process.
  21. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Regarding ocean acidification... Sorry if this is really basic level stuff but googling around I find that CO2 is an acidic oxide. CO2 reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. So, if you add an acid to an alkaline solution are neutralizing the solution or are you acidifying the solution? Or are both terms acceptable? I know, I know, it's semantics. The net effect in the ocean is the same but I always say, "Words matter."
  22. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel at 09:14 AM, to be correct the oceans are becoming more neutral before they can become more acidic, a solution cannot become more acidic from being alkaline without becoming neutral first. So can you explain why "becoming more neutral" is not more correct than "becoming more acidic". Are you indicating that there is no problem with the ocean being a neutral pH?
  23. Should The Earth Be Cooling?
    Can it be clarified that the solar irradiance being referred to is that measured at the outer atmosphere and not that as received at the earth's surface. If it is the sun's output is being considered, that cannot be considered in isolation without taking into account any changes due to the effects of clouds, as clouds are a major factor determining the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth's surface, which is where it matters. With reference to the PDO, looking at it from the Australian perspective, it also cannot be considered in isolation without considering how it interacts with all other ocean and atmospheric patterns, in particular for Australia those in the Indian Ocean. Prior to the identification of the Indian Ocean Dipole,IOD, it was considered that the systems in the Pacific Ocean were the major drivers of Australian climate. Many people could not understand this as it went against what was readily observed, in that it was from the west that all weather originated from. However once the IOD had been identified it became clear that the systems in the Pacific Ocean were not nearly as influential over Australia as previously thought, and much of what had been attributed to those systems actually were due to systems cycling in the Indian Ocean. At times the systems on either sides of the continent complemented each other driving the nett effects higher, whilst at other times they tended to reduce the nett effects. Since this identification of the IOD the understanding of events that affect the Australian region, past and present, and indeed of all regions that bound the Indian Ocean has increased significantly, and I believe that studies are being done to re-evaluate whether those systems in the Pacific Ocean are as influential as previously thought, at least for this region. With regards to CO2, given natural processes are deemed to be accounting for half of the anthropogenic emissions, it has to be considered whether or not the natural processes have increased in response to the additional CO2 emissions, and if so what has caused this, or if nothing has driven them higher, what would be the effects of 2ppm CO2 being stripped from the atmosphere each year for the last 150 years since industrialisation began.
  24. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "I only brought it up to say I was unhappy with the term 'acidification' as it smacks of alarmism." So, let me get this straight: you're against using a term that is commonly used in scientific research because you don't like how it sounds in a particular context? The oceans are becoming more acidic, and less basic. It is affecting corals and crustaceans. "Acidification" is the right term, whether you like it or not. Seriously, your bias is increasingly showing. I'm beginning to doubt you were ever a "believer"...I think you're only claiming this in order to give yourself more credibility. Please continue not answering me, that makes my jobs of countering your irrational statements even easier.
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    johnd, I have already posted the following for Baz, but perhaps you too would welcome the opportunity to attend this symposium to help you out with your difficulty over acknowledging ocean-acidification : A consortium of institutions and organizations from Monterey, California has successfully bid to host the third symposium on The Ocean in a High-CO2 World in autumn 2012. The symposium aims to attract more than 300 of the world’s leading scientists to discuss the impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms, ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycles. It will also cover socio-economic consequences of ocean acidification, including policy and management implications. The symposium is the third in a series and will build on the successes of the Paris and Monaco symposia in 2004 and 2008, respectively. The Paris meeting was seminal in identifying the magnitude of ocean acidification for marine ecosystems and the outcomes of the Monaco symposium, focusing on the advances in knowledge of the affects on marine organisms, also made an impact on a broader audience through a Summary for Policymakers and the Monaco Declaration. It is obviously UN-based and, therefore, automatically suspect, political and biased (according to so-called skeptics) but anyone who prefers to listen and learn, rather than claim to be able to tell the experts where they are going wrong, should be up for this.
  26. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Rob Honeycutt (251) You were mostly spot-on. The central, upper part of the EAIS IS gaining mass; it just so happens that the mass-loss from the outlet glaciers in the coastal part of the EAIS more than offsets this gain. Considering the mass-gain at the center, that's a lotta ice lost along the edges to get a net loss. I know! The ice lost along the edge adds to the "Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing" meme... The Yooper
  27. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Daniel... Good catch. I misstated based on the older satellite data which had the EAIS slightly gaining mass.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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?
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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?
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. It's El Niño
    Ken. So do I but Erl apparently does not.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

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