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  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  Next

Comments 109951 to 110000:

  1. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    Re: Johngee (26) In order to measure change, you must first start with a baseline. Otherwise, you have no frame of reference and thus cannot measure anything ("Dude, you're lost"). With temperature change this starts with establishing the baseline. In Figure 1, all land surface temperatures for the months of May-July north of 20 degrees were calculated to get an average for the years 1989-2001. The change from this established baseline is called the "anomaly". Anomalies can be positive (evidence of warming) or negative (evidence of cooling). A common convention on temperature trend charts is to express positive anomalies in red and negative ones in blue. Anomalies are used because it is then possible to compare widely diverse and separated areas (not fair to compare absolute summer temperatures in Atlanta, Georgia to those in Nome, Alaska). And to reduce noise in the data, increasing the accuracy. Temperatures are typically taken at about the 2-meter level, for a couple of reasons:
    1. Keeping sensitive instrument packages off the ground keeps them from getting stepped on 2. Ground releases temps more quickly than air; so by removing the gauges off the ground you minimize warming bias 3. Gauges are easier to maintain and service at eye level than when on the ground (just seeing if you're still with me)
    Hmm, what else?
    "Can anybody explain the apparent dramatic shift 10-15 years ago? Or can I not read the graph in this manner?"
    You must be referring to figure 1. Note the baseline is reflected as the 0 horizontal line on the graph. The blue areas below the zero line are from a time period when it was cooler than the baseline period. Red areas above the baseline are from a period when it was warmer than the baseline. Applying a line of best-fit to the totality of the graph (blue and red) shows the overall warming. Where that line crosses the zero line (i.e., breaks the surface) does not imply that temperatures dramatically shifted in any way (yes, it would be a mistake to interpret the graph in that fashion...use all the data). So, both graphs show consistent warming, with no decline at all evident in the overall trend (even in the last 10 years, counter to what "some" may say. The land area reflected in Figure 1 contains the majority of the non-tropic land area of the globe; and its where most people live. Daytime air temps, while setting many record highs, can only warm just so far. The real increase in temperatures shown in Figure 1 come from higher average nighttime temperatures, reducing the temperature variance range between highs and lows, increasing average temps and increasing overall anomalies from baselines. Temperature increases are greatest towards the poles (look up "Polar Amplification" sometime), where the coolest air offers the greatest room for change. Figure 2 is more interesting. By using a 12-month average, seasonal variability is removed. Since it's global (land and ocean combined), one can see that the cherry-picking of "North America is cooling" is exposed as the charade it is. The most interesting thing about Figure 2 is not immediately obvious. About 93% of the warming of the globe has occurred in the oceans. Yes, the land has warmed too, but the oceans (with their huge thermal inertial mass) dominate the global climate. The warming going into the oceans goes two places:
    1. Transported to higher latitudes where the extra heat gets released into the colder air, warming the Arctic (one source of polar amplification) and melting the ice there 2. Through the mixing layer into the deep ocean (temporarily sequestering it...this comes back later to bite our descendants in the a**, but that's a later story)
    Warming is largely driven (in the absence of any change in warming inputs from the sun since 1970) by our greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is the control knob) not being in equilibrium with energy inputs. GHG gases slow the rate of heat release at the top of the atmosphere (primarily the troposphere; this also explains the observed stratospheric cooling). As long as there is a net gain in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, continued warming is inevitable (as reflected in the Mauna Loa CO2 trend data). The warming is predicted by GHG theory, multiple converging lines of evidence (not just temperatures and anomalies) shows it's there and the stratosphere is cooling: as predicted as well. And without the warming from greenhouse gases, there would literally be no liquid water anywhere on the planet, and thus, no life. Perhaps on certain blogs... And, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, even if CO2 releases by man were immediately reduced to zero and kept there for 30 years, the warming would still continue. And that's just due to the slow feedbacks. There exist longer ones which are still to come. Hope that helps (and doesn't depress the he** out of you like it does me), The Yooper
  2. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel (#179), for WHB you are correct that the ice breakup date is more significant than hunting. The venturing of polar bears you seem to want me to talk about is anecdotal and speculative. For all other "very high risk of decline" populations (Baffin, Davis, Kane, etc) hunting is more important than ice breakup. The exceptions are SHB and WHB. In Norwegian Bay the problem is too much ice so breakup would help. The concrete evidence is written in each link in the left column of the status table. Contrary to your assertion that I am wrong about the research not taking hunting into account, I never said anything like that. What I said was that the thread I linked to leaves out the most important current detriment to polar bear sustainability (except along Hudson Bay). Not mentioned, not explained, nothing. In fact some of your protests and explanations should have been part of that thread. The credibility of the CAGW argument as a whole suffers when important facts (the most important facts) are left out.
  3. Does more extreme rainfall mean more flooding? Answer: Not always
    Several points: 1. More dams are being built which means less flooding of lowlands. China, Brazil and probably India and hopefully Pakistian have/will make more dams which will reduce flooding. One hopes that various green agendas about non-dam building are weighed up with the human impacts, such as in current areas of Pakistan. 2. The idea that both droughts and floods will increase with global warming is too simplistic, and ignores the fact that in some or many areas, an increase in one of these partially cancels out an increase in the other. One doesn't walk from a desert straight into a wall of jungle. With increased warming, drought and flood-prone regions may merge closer together, which is a net positive effect. Distinctions between rainall zones - eg deserts to savannah to rainfoest may become less abrupt. Some areas of marginal rainfall will become less prone to drought with more rainfall regionally, and some areas with more floods will become less prone to flood with more droughts regionally-that is- some of the effects will cancel out and the net effect from global warming will be positive in these areas. 3. Flooding in marginal drought/dry regions, such as in most of Australia, actually produce a net benefit. It is only in regions which are already prone to high rainfall that increased flooding generally produces net negatives. However with more dams (eg Brazil, China), this can be largley mitigated.
  4. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Now that last picture makes a lot more sense than the previous image.About 2 to 3 tenths of a degree warming over 30 years seems very reasonable especially with the sun as active as it has been.Now that the solar cycles appear to be quieting I think we can expect some cooling for the next 30 years.Which is kind of unfortunate because I enjoyed the extra week or 2 of golf in the spring and autumn up here in Canada.
    Response: We explore the idea of whether the cooling sun might cause global cooling in "we're heading into an ice age".
  5. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Re: DMI North of 80 degrees Neven offered up a great observation about this yesterday on his blog:
    "When the DMI 80N graph starts shooting up we have a definitive confirmation that the water is freezing up big time. This is counterintuitive (love that word, by the way, just like 'circumnavigation'), but is caused by the water releasing its heat to the air so that it can freeze up. So, air temps shoot up when the waters freeze."
    If the remaining slush that passes for Arctic Ice Cap freezes in place with minimal compaction, Fall/Winter ice advection through the Fram will be significant. Re: adrian smits (18) The extreme Arctic Dipole Anomaly of 2007 caused an enormous amount of ice advection through the Fram Strait into the North Atlantic, where it then melted. And your agenda is showing. Re: adrian smits (23) If you think North America has been cooling for the past decade, you are very mistaken. Erroneous claims like this need a source. Got one? The Yooper
  6. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    On the robustness of the Paltridge reanalysis paper, I will will only point to a coming in press paper by Dessler and Davis in JGR which address this issue explicity, although there are many places to find this sort of information. I really can't make sense of the rest of your argumentation, no one else seems to be paying much attention, and it clearly does not derive from the relevant scientific literature so I'm just going to take it as an ill-supported opinion and leave it at that. For those who can't access this in press article, this is the abstract: //"A recent paper [Paltridge et al., 2009] found that specific humidity in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis declined between 1973 and 2007, particularly in the tropical mid and upper troposphere — the region that plays the key role in the water vapor feedback. If borne out, this result suggests potential problems in the consensus view of a positive water vapor feedback. Here we consider whether this result holds in other reanalyses and what time scale of climate fluctuation is associated with the negative specific humidity trends. The five reanalyses analyzed here (the older NCEP/NCAR and ERA40 reanalyses and the more modern JRA, MERRA, and ECMWF-interim reanalyses) unanimously agree that specific humidity generally increases in response to short-term climate variations (e.g., El Nino). In response to decadal climate fluctuations, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is unique in showing decreases in tropical mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity as the climate warms. All of the other reanalysis show that decadal warming is accompanied by a increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity. We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long-term specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons. First, the newer reanalyses include improvements specifically designed to increase the fidelity of long-term trends in their parameters, so the positive trends found there are expected to be more reliable than in the older reanalyses. Second, all of the other reanalyses except the NCEP/NCAR assimilate satellite radiances rather than being solely dependent on radiosonde humidity measurements to constrain upper tropospheric humidity. Third, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis exhibits a large bias in tropical upper tropospheric specific humidity. And finally, we point out that there exists no theoretical support for having a positive short-term water vapor feedback and a negative long-term one. "//
  7. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    Well I'll worry about Jupiter when we have to make our mass migration from the late great planet Earth to a more hospitable part of the solar system ;-)
  8. Does more extreme rainfall mean more flooding? Answer: Not always
    Very interesting post. It is too bad that it cannot be extrapolated generally. Do many floods get caused by rapid melt of snow in spring? That might occur more often in an AGW world. My impression is that rapid spring melt has happened in the US midwest, but I have not seen any clear linkage to AGW.
  9. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    nealjking @43 Err yeah. Case three is that its Winter and there is no sun for 6 months. Scientists dont believe that we'll have an ice free Arctic all year around so its entirely reasonable to expect any heating that happened during the summer months will entirely be lost as the refreeze happens. Additionally there is now the possibility of a net heat loss from the oceans. I see you also believe the radiative heat loss is dependent on a difference of temperature between the atmosphere and the water. You should probably check your knowledge there :-P So I think the negative feedback of open oceans radiating heat is very relevent to an article that quotes it as an example and is considering runaway heating.
  10. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Adrian, this is more current (RSS MSU data) for the lower troposphere: Trends are for 1979-July 2010. You can get more at their web site here.
  11. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Adrian, the DMI data are from the ECMWF model, they are not observations. And there are four seasons in the Arctic, funny how WUWT focus on temperature trends in the short summer months. Go here. The image that I posted are in fact observations made by a satellite between 1981 and 2001. The image is from NASA
  12. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Albatross what kind of strange art is that satellite picture?If I'm not mistaken North America has been cooling for the past decade.Your picture shows 1.5 degrees of warming.whats this picture from? The late cretaseus lol pardon my spelling
  13. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Sea ice melting occurs because of warmer sea or air temperatures. Air temperatures north of 80N may be below those needed to cause sea ice to melt but does that mean sea temperature must be similarly below that required to melt sea ice? I don’t think so.
  14. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Adrian, winds, of course, also play an important role. The climate system is a complex and dynamic system that is undergoing rapid changes. For example, in the Arctic the thinning of the sea ice is making it more susceptible to unusual weather patterns such as the dipole anomaly over the Arctic, and to wave action. These dipole anomaly events over the Arctic have happened many times over the 32 yr or so satellite record, you might want to ask yourself why the ice extent, area and volume did not drop this low prior to 2007. All is not well with the Arctic ice, despite what some "skeptics" might be trying to say.
  15. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Adrian... You would watch Dr Barber's lecture that Dappledwater linked above. It's quite interesting. What you read on WUWT is way off the mark. Why they so tenaciously hold to that idea that the arctic ice is recovering I have no idea. But here is a researcher who has been working on this issue for 25 years. He is someone to listen to. Early in the lecture he says that in the 1980's he was skeptical. In the 1990's he estimated the arctic would have ice free summers by 2100. In the late 90's that became mid century. Now he says between 2016 and 2030. If you're waiting for warmer arctic waters to convince you, hang around a little while. They're coming. The REALLY dramatic part of his lecture is where he's talking about trying to locate the thick multi year ice. They literally had to travel for 3 additional days through "rotten ice" to locate the MY ice. Really great lecture. I recommend it. I'd love to see Anthony Watts to do an arctic trip with Dr Barber.
  16. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    The GISS shows extremely hot temperatures in the high arctic when they don't even have any sensors up there at the same time that the DMI is showing below normal temperatures in the summer and they are the ones who are actually measuring the temperature up there.whats up with that?
  17. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    From my understanding as the the supposed great melt of 2007 was happening NASA was reminding people that it was being caused by very unusual wind conditions in the arctic that pushing the ice south to warmer water where it could melt
  18. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Adrian, most of the incoming energy during the short summer seems to be being used to melt ice. Anyhow, do some reading on polar amplification. Also, those DMI are for north 80N, they do not represent Arctic temperatures. That label is highly misleading. I do not know of any reputable climate scientists who says that the Arctic has not warmed significantly in recent decades. Look at this satellite data:
  19. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    If there is now more open water near the north pole than there was in the past that should be reflected in the temperature record for the summer time when most melting is happening .Again the DMI shows no warming....still waiting for a reasonable explination.
  20. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    adrian smits at 08:31 AM on 15 September, 2010 So tell me why does the DMI from Denmark show almost no summer time warming in the arctic.Whats up with that? Its not like the Danes arent a bunch of greenies. = = = = = = = = = = This would be the graph that shows rapid and very strong warming in autumn and winter?
  21. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Adrian: Can you provide a reference to your claim that DMI shows no warming? If you are refering to the graph WUWT likes to show with little warming north of 80 degrees, that is easy to explain. It is entirely ice bound that far north. The ice limits the surface temperature in the summer. As long as it is mostly ice covered the temperature will stay the same. AGW causes the ice to melt faster, not the temperature to rise. Increased heat from AGW is shown by the ice getting thinner. The maps this summer, including today's Cryosphere Today , show much open water near the pole. This was not open water in the past. As the ice continues to thin we will see more open water. WUWT picks that graph so they can deceive people who do not understand how phase changes in ice control the temperature. Last winter it was warm at the pole. The winter temperatures are affected by AGW now, the summer temps will go up once the ice melts out.
  22. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @PDA: "What evidence would you find convincing of a human fingerprint on global climate change?" I already tried asking that question (or one quite similar) and didn't get an answer. I think this says a lot about Baz's intentions in posting these contrarian opinions.
  23. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "The Earth hasn't continued to warm significantly. I'm happy to accept bumps in temps along the way, but we have had 10 years now of remarkably stable temperatures." Only if you cherry-pick time frames. You have to realize that, if the last 10 years don't show "significant" warming, they also don't show "significant" stability. In fact, it shows *nothing* significantly. So your statement (that we've had remarkably stable temperatures) is just as incorrect as claiming there's been statistically significant warming over the past 10 years, significant cooling over the past 6 years, and dramatic warming since the past 4 years (even though the trend for the last 10 and 4 years has been positive, and the last 6 is negative). In other words, you cannot claim that we are in a cooling or stable period, because the signal-to-noise ratio is too low. Ergo, as long as you continue to make this claim you will be wrong (from a scientific point of view). "With increasing CO2 we should surely see that mercury rising, shouldn't we Guy? What's happened to the heat?" ...but we *are* seeing that mercury rising: Here are the trends for the last 10, 5, 4 and 3 years "Albatross. Quote realclimate again and I'll counter with Lord Monckton!" ...except Lord Monckton has been caught fabricating facts, while RealClimate hasn't. Careful, your bias is beginning to show... "JMurphy. Not worthy of a response, I'm afraid. But if you want to re-write that in a more-polite manner, then I'd be happy to." That's rather convenient, isn't it? We've shown you where you made a mistake (after you admitted yourself you weren't "rational", a strange admission to make in a scientific thread), and yet you insist on repeating the same debunked claims. How should we treat you, exactly?
  24. It's not bad
    Re: Johngee (37) Dude, ya gotta warn people when posting a link to a video with Monckton testifying in from of Congress!!! You owe me a new keyboard. ;) Re: Johngee (36) Another game-changer; Caldeira has been predicting this for some time (don't have the links handy, but Lord Google Scholar finds much). Tropical forests will continue to be carbon sinks, but temperate & boreal forests transition to net carbon emitters with rising temps (multifactoral reasons). A suggestion: links to papers are appreciated, but it is customary (and just good form) to preface with a summary of understanding of what to expect. This goes double with videos with Monckton... Re: Johngee (35) See above comment about good form (and remember: always book good money on the T-Rex vs people). Make sure to watch the entire Alley CO2 Biggest Control Knob lecture. The Yooper
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Eric: "That "single" population is the worst by percentage, but smaller populations like Western Hudson Bay can't sustain a harvest of 44 out of 1000 either." That is a bit above the 2-3% that is considered sustainable, but nowhere does it claim the number reductions are due to hunting alone. In fact, details about the WHB region seem to indicate that most of the decline is due to climate change, not over-harvesting: "Between 1987 and 2004, WH declined from 1194 (95% CI = 1020, 1368) in 1987 to 935 (95% CI = 794, 1076) in 2004, a reduction of about 22% (Regehr et al. 2007). In particular, the survival of cubs, sub-adults, and old bears were negatively correlated with the date of breakup, i.e., the earlier the breakup, the poorer the survival and conversely. Before 1998 the subpopulation had apparently remained stable (Stirling et al. 1999), indicating that, prior to the onset of a decline brought about by the negative effects of climate warming, the annual harvest of approximately 50 bears had been sustainable." http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/populations/western-hudson-bay.html "The deceptive part is that populations are declining as a whole because of hunting as the primary factor." You haven't established that as a fact. Please provide concrete evidence that the biggest cause of overall declining numbers is over-harvesting. "Climate change is secondary along with other factors" That's not what the research you linked to suggests. "especially when you count climate change as a benefit for some sub-populations." How are polar bear populations benefitting from climate change, exactly? Do you have evidence for this, or is it one more of your faulty assumptions? "The deceptive part is that the entire hunting discussion is missing as if it doesn't exist." Actually, as I've shown above, the research *does* take hunting into account. Only, there's no indication that the hunting by itself had a negative impact on bear population, while it's becoming increasingly clear that climate change does. In other words, you've been shown wrong. The right thing to do at this point would be for you to admit it so we can all move on. Also, I'm noting you (once again) completely ignoring the reality of bears venturing further inland than before (and increasingly foraying in human settlements).
  26. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    So tell me why does the DMI from Denmark show almost no summer time warming in the arctic.Whats up with that? Its not like the Danes arent a bunch of greenies.
  27. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    @papertiger: Jupiter's internal heat source is not hot enough to completely override solar irradiation (the ratio of internal heat to solar irradiation is about 1.7, IIRC), but in any case the equator gets a lot more irradiation than the poles; both end up being pretty much the same temperature. "There is virtually no mixing across the belts and bands of Jupiter for a super-storm to inhibit." Perhaps not, but there is a heat exchange between the poles and the equator. "Unlike the stuff these guys are selling" Which guys are you talking about, exactly? Is this another snide comments suggesting pro-AGW scientists are charlatans? In any case, you miss the central point: there is no observational basis confirming that Jupiter is heating up due to solar irradiance (which has been on a decreasing trend for the past decades).
  28. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    "Quote realclimate again and I'll counter with Lord Monckton" Umm, a reference to realclimate is to the opinion of working, publishing climate scientists, carefully referenced to published works. You seriously believe that Monckton's fantasies are of equal worth? You value clueless amateurs over publishing professionals?
  29. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Michael sweet - well you did warn me not to bother. I see what you mean. Sigh. Johnd - guilty as charged - I only gave BOM site cursory look. And while I find the idea the that BOM network is better for climate than the global radiation network laughable, I do agree that physics should work at the BOM sites. And it does. The ground is much more efficient radiator than air, so even when no inversion takes place, the boundary layer will have overnight minimum lower than air above. If you insist on using the BOM network, then to see the effect of backradiation, you need to compare data where backradiation is different. Use humidity as proxy for backradiation. Compare rate of overnight cooling from approximately same temperature between time of high humidity and low humidity. You really need hourly data to do this properly but temperature min/max range between say Alice Springs and Northern Queensland should you give a crude idea.
  30. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    The distance from Jupiter's north pole to south pole is shorter than the distance from terminator to terminator (across the equator). This means that there is less intervening matter between the proposed heat source (the planet's core) and the cloud tops over the poles, then there is over the equator. Jupiter's poles should be warmer then the equator, if the sun doesn't drive Jovian weather. The author says "It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat." Prior to the emergence of the second and third Great Red Spots on Jupiter, the planet's ability to mix heat was closely studied during the 1994 impact of comet Shoemaker Levi. There is virtually no mixing across the belts and bands of Jupiter for a super-storm to inhibit. But there are these new super storms. These great storms are anti cyclones, high pressure areas of heat pushing up from the center, rather then low pressure storms like our hurricanes. Think of them like the turkey timer that pops out when the bird is done. It's not a matter of computer models. You can see Jupiter's "turkey timers" in a backyard telescope. Unlike the stuff these guys are selling, Jupiter has global warming you can see.
  31. It's not bad
    and why not... http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/g093lhtpEFo
  32. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    just because we cannot attribute warming to anything else, doesn't leave CO2 etc. does it? Is correlation causation? In fact, there is no correlation though, is there? No, correlation is not causation. Greenhouse forcing is not merely correlated with warming, it has certain characteristics which can and have been experimentally shown to account for warming. Satellites have measured less heat escaping to space at the wavelengths which are known - through proven principles of physics - to be absorbed by GHGs. Instruments on the Earth's surface have measured thermal radiation commensurate with that absorbed energy, showing that it is being added to the energy balance of the Earth. With increasing CO2 we should surely see that mercury rising, shouldn't we Guy? What's happened to the heat? Ocean heat content is still rising. So as I'd said before, merely looking at a small portion of one set of data is not sufficient cause to conclude that warming is not occurring, or that the current state of understanding is wrong. what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?...Is it, for example, a 10-year long downturn in global temps, or a 10-year period of reduced ocean temps? I think we settled on a period of 15-20 years. We're 10 years into that. As noted, ocean heat content is not decreasing, so even your assertion fails on its face. As I'd also said before, the understanding of global climate change is based on multiple converging lines of evidence. Even if one were to posit that a five- or ten-year drop in surface temperature measurements was statistically significant, you'd still have to contend with the other lines of evidence (ocean heat content, downward radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths, faster warming at night than during the day, etc.) which indicate warming. So your question has been asked and answered. May I be permitted a question of my own? What evidence would you find convincing of a human fingerprint on global climate change?
  33. It's not bad
    and this http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/08/bbb.html
  34. It's not bad
    Hello all, Just to throw this into the mix... http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/uE6at2IEUOU
  35. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd has not bothered to read Spencers' home experiment showing backradiation so he does not understand the basics. He feels it is better to keep an open mind. The temperature of the backradiation is less than the temperature of the surface. That is why you get the temperatures you see in your chart. It is exactly what is expected. The total backradiation is higher than the sun because it is emitted from the entire atmosphere and the sun is a point source. Spencer describes it as 30-75 degrees colder. Yes Johnd, it is confusing that a colder atmosphere can warm the surface with backradiation. Read the links to Spencer where he explains the effect. The backradiation keeps the surface warmer than it would have been, but does not provide heating in the way you seem to be expecting. I see you are over 100 posts on this now and still have not been able to get the basics. Another 100 or so and it will be a contest with the waste heat thread.
  36. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    mfripp - A simpler explanation, courtesy of somebody else here who I can't find a reference to at the moment. A glacier isn't static - snow constantly falls at the top, turns into ice, moves down the glacier, and melts or breaks away at the bottom. Think of this as a queue for concert tickets. The line is 100 people long, with 10 people a minute arriving, and 10 people a minute getting their tickets and entering the show. The makeup of the line is constantly changing, but stays at 100 people long. Now change conditions - a few more (5 per minute?) people start to arrive for tickets, but another gatekeeper comes on shift and an additional 10 people per minute enter the show. That means every minute the line shrinks by 5 people, and after 20 minutes the line is gone. It's not a phase transition, but a change in rates that previously balanced.
  37. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    mfripp - That's an excellent question on what difference does a few degrees make. The reason why it makes a difference is because when you look at glacial growth and shrinkage, it's not a phase transition all by itself (crossing 0C, starting to melt the ice cube), but rather a change in relative rates. Glaciers are constantly accumulating mass at the top - snowfall compacting into ice. Slight warming actually increases this rate, as it's more likely to snow around 0C than -20C; more water in the atmosphere for snowfalls. This ice then moves down the glacial valley, driven by pressure from above, lubricated by meltwater at the bottom, limited by back-pressure from the ice at the lower end of the glacier. At the end of the glacier (terminus) pieces constantly melt, break off (calving or splitting off large chunks). The rate at which this occurs depends on the air temperature at the lower end of the glacier and upon the water temperature. If a glacier is 'static', or not growing or shrinking, then the accumulation and melt/break-off rates are identical. Warming increases the accumulation rate under many conditions (more snow, as above), but greatly increases the melt rate at the terminus. When the rates are out of balance, the total mass of the glacier changes - it shrinks under warming conditions. This is accelerated by factors such as increasing calving and break-offs at the terminus of the glacier reducing the back pressure on the rest of the glacier - it starts to slide faster down the valleys, pushing more ice into the warm terminus. Increased meltwater along the course of the glacier has the same effect - speeding it's movement towards the terminus, the warmest area. So - it's not a phase transition, but rather an adjustment of the accumulation/reduction rates of the glacier that affect its mass with temperature. Is that helpful?
  38. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    At some point, could you explain why a 3-5C temperature change is the difference between glaciers and heatwaves? I believe the data that the difference between ice ages is about 3-5C. I just don't understand. If the temperature outside is 3-5 hotter or colder, then I barely notice the difference. Unless the glacier happens to be on the edge of melting, then why does the small temperature change matter? This is one of the arguments in my office that I am having trouble answering.
    Moderator Response: Good question, and the two responses are good, but please move to a more appropriate thread.
  39. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    Dutil (#4): What is your source for this information? It has been known for years that there is some internal energy source, but that it is that big sounds doubtful. There is no fusion going on even at the core, after all.
  40. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Trueofvoice 172: No, it does not, but 95 years of that was rising solar factors. Only since 1975 (according to Tamino) have we been significantly influencing the climate. [From this site: Early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity. However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975] VeryTallGuy... "1) You do accept that the earth is warming and that the surface temperature record supports this 2) You don't accept that the earth will continue to warm In order for these not to be in contradiction (the point of the article) you need to 1) Reconcile the current warming with something other than an anthropogenic source 2) Predict that the alternative source of heat has or is about to stop." 1. Surely (in science) just because we cannot attribute warming to anything else, doesn't leave CO2 etc. does it? Is correlation causation? In fact, there is no correlation though, is there? 2. The Earth hasn't continued to warm significantly. I'm happy to accept bumps in temps along the way, but we have had 10 years now of remarkably stable temperatures. 0.40 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.42 0.40 0.32 0.44 0.49? (2010) How so - against ever-increasing emissions of CO2 and methane? Why isn't the temperature rising Guy? This is exactly why I came on here. I wanted to know what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?...Is it, for example, a 10-year long downturn in global temps, or a 10-year period of reduced ocean temps? I think we settled on a period of 15-20 years. We're 10 years into that. Not only that but there's been no cooling from any volcanism in that 10-year period. With increasing CO2 we should surely see that mercury rising, shouldn't we Guy? What's happened to the heat? I'd love to hear your response! Albatross. Quote realclimate again and I'll counter with Lord Monckton! JMurphy. Not worthy of a response, I'm afraid. But if you want to re-write that in a more-polite manner, then I'd be happy to.
  41. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    ansliss has hit the nail on the head: 'skeptics' using this argument are rejecting the sure evidence and accepting the extremely dubious. It is bizarre to think that we can know the climate of the distant planets so well, and not know our own. Such behavior is a very strong indicator that they are not interested in the truth in the first place. They are only interested in vaguely plausible arguments encouraging them to believe what they already believe; or worse yet, to hoodwink others into believing what they themselves know is false.
  42. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    @Graham: How about this for the bullet point answer: "What happens on Jupiter, stays on Jupiter."
  43. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dappledwater #215 Way beyond my expertise I'm afraid, I'd be bound to get all sorts of things wrong, like claiming spurious accuracy for data, making wide reaching conclusions not supported by other datasets, err.... Seriously, I'm a very, VERY long way from being qualified to post on OHC. Interested to hear what an actual expert would say though.
  44. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    ClimateWatcher... I have to say that I think your excessive use of charts and diagrams is not contributing to your arguments. It's more of a distraction. I'm personally curious about your perspective but find the charts break up the flow of the conversation. You might try imbedding links instead. There is a link at the bottom of the page for the proper technique for doing this. Just trying to be helpful.
  45. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    This from NOAA-NODC: "A second XBT Fall Rate Workshop* will be held August 25-27, 2010 in Hamburg, Germany." Wonder what their findings were?
  46. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    CBD @ 7 - Prof Barber's talk at the Polar Science Conference. His lecture starts at 12 mins.
  47. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    OT, but can we please refrain from using the word "harvest". Not to be pedantic, but wee harvest things that we plant like crops and trees in plantations (i.e., not old growth). We most definitely do not "harvest" polar bears. It is a polar bear hunt. This term has slowly crept into the literature overt the years (thanks to industry reports if I recall correctly), to the point that even conservation and wildlife biologists are now using it. Sigh.
  48. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    @ Daniel Bailey Me again! I've copied bits of your explanation with extra questions... 'Both use a baseline of 1989-2001...' Is this baseline an average temperature for this period? If not, how is this baseline calculated? '...and use anomalies instead of temperatures...' Hang on, what is an anomaly if it isn't a temperature. Is an anomaly a temperature above or below the baseline reference? If not how is an anomaly classified? '...to reduce weather-related noise in the data. Both are surface-layer (2-meter)...' You mean ground surface temperature readings by this? 'Figure 1 shows that, in the 40 years of data shown, land temps away from the tropics have warmed in the last 10 years relative to the other 30 years of data.' Yep I see that. I also see that a line of best fit would show a warming trend for the 40 year period. Can anybody explain the apparent dramatic shift 10-15 years ago? Or can I not read the graph in this manner? @mikemcc 'Johngee - It's a plot of the difference between the calculated global average and an average of those temperatures recorded from 1989 to 2001' Is that kind of what I'm saying above or am I way off? '(if you look at the 'area under the graph' for that period it will average out at 0.0 anomaly). It's showing how the calculated global temperature has changed with respect to that period. The period chosen is arbitrary, though it helps to use the same comparison period as everyone else to make comparisons easier.' Woa there... my calculus is good enough only to regognise that's what your talking about!! The big C is my next mathematical mission... should I choose to accept it :o)
  49. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    CBDunkerson, the site says that in various sub-populations hunting is a problem (e.g. Davis Strait), and warming in others (e.g. WHB). Clearly if the total harvest is sustainable, then climate change is too on a total basis (since it is only a factor for some sub-populations). The deceptive part is that populations are declining as a whole because of hunting as the primary factor. Climate change is secondary along with other factors especially when you count climate change as a benefit for some sub-populations. The deceptive part is that the entire hunting discussion is missing as if it doesn't exist.
  50. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    CBDunkerson... "Barber's point was that the satellites estimates were showing incorrect results for that area... which was proved by direct observation." Isn't this what we call "ground truthing?" The manual, first person observation for validation of satellite data.

Prev  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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