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  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  Next

Comments 110251 to 110300:

  1. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    From the "State of the climate in 2009" report that I linked to earlier: "Strong small-scale spatial variability in OHCA fields is associated with the western boundary currents in every gyre, as well as the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (Fig. 3.5b). The difference in the combined estimates between 2009 and 2008 (Fig. 3.5b) illustrates the large year-to-year variability in ocean heat storage. Of course internal ocean dynamics, such as advection and heave, certainly play a significant role in many of these changes but for purposes of comparison only, they reach or exceed the equivalent of a 95 W m-2 magnitude surface flux applied over one year (~3 × 109 J m-2)." And "Three different upper ocean estimates (0–700 m) of globally integrated in situ OHCA (Fig. 3.7) reveal a large increase in global integrals of that quantity since 1993. The interannual details of the time series differ for a variety of reasons including differences in climatology, treatment of the seasonal cycle, mapping methods, instrument bias corrections, quality control, and other factors. Most of these factors are not taken into account in the displayed uncertainties, so while the error bars shown do not always overlap among the three estimates, these estimates are not necessarily statistically different from each other because the error bars are likely unrealistically small. Even so, errors are too large to obtain reliable trends over a few years." Dr. Pielke, if you read anything, please read that very last sentence.
  2. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    KR at 12:18 PM, obviously we are not talking about investments, it is about budgets, but it should be obvious that the terms borrowed are appropriate. The heat content of the land and oceans is fixed in that it only changes slowly over time, and if the theories of deep ocean currents are correct some of that heat has been accumulating over very long periods of time. On the other hand the heat content of the atmosphere is readily accessible and responds rapidly both to release and re-absorb heat. The BOM chart I linked to earlier that compiles data relating to measuring evaporation shows this in the soil temperatures that remain very stable, only changing slowly as seasons progress. However the air temperatures show wide variations daily as indicated by the maximum and minimum temperatures recorded at each station. In your last post you referred to the idea that back radiation reduces the ability of the ground to radiate heat. If we refer to the BOM data table again it shows however that the "Terr min", Terrestrial minimum temperature, being the lowest overnight temperature measured at ground level, is always lower, often considerably lower than the minimum air temperature, whilst always considerably higher than the soil temperature immediately below the surface. Can you explain how back radiation allows this to occur in light of your explanation.
  3. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Re: Badgersouth (164) While I would not wish to speak for Dr. Pielke, as a former Department of Defense employee perhaps I can offer a bit of insight into the 2nd question you have. Operational depth and location data of the Navy's sub fleet will always be classified, for obvious reasons. However, some of the info you seek may be available to researchers submitting a FOIA request. A well-constructed FOIA request, delimited properly, should return some info. The extent to which data is collected and of what nature (continuously or periodically) will also be classified. Worth a shot. The Yooper
  4. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke: Does the US Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines routinely measure the temperature of the oceans at depths greater than that measured by the ARGOS system? If so, is this database in the public domain?
  5. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    "the physics gets lost in the process. Equations governing averages can't be derived without being able to handle the true equations at all scales. " Pardon? This is an extraordinary statement, flying in the face of both experimental and theoretical evidence in the modelling area that I work in. Can you please explain further what you mean? For the water vapour question, there appears to be a huge literature (eg look at cites for A,M. Tompkins 2002) but I know little about it. Why not ask say Gavin Schmidt directly about it instead of guessing? I would agree that all models are wrong, but some are useful. GCMs have been shown to have considerable skill however in many areas.
  6. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel - "I quickly found out it was an impossible task as most contrarians ended up belonging to many of the (mutually exclusive) categories over a period of time." I sadly found that many "skeptics" are view the problem through a political lens. Changing their mind would involve changing their values which just isnt going to happen. Its worth refuting disinformation for the sake of other readers but that's all. The contradictory nature has at its bottom a determination that nothing should change. When you are just looking for an excuse for inaction rather than truth, then ANYTHING will do. They have no problem with "it not happening/its not us/its good for us" because all of those argue against change. It makes me deeply pessimistic about our future.
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Hi, I spend a a fair amount of time alerting skeptics to their internal contradictions. To do this PROPERLY you have to have the exact skeptic saying the contradictory thing. So lets see how you did with WUWT. June 2009: global warming was blamed on the sun. WRONG: This article is a repost of a NASA study: " NASA Goddard study suggests solar variation plays a role in our current climate" The suggestion is NASA's suggestion not Watts. Although watts does write the following: "Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes. [NOTE: there is evidence of solar impact on the surface temperature record, as Basil Copeland and I discovered in this report published here on WUWT titled Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends - Anthony]" His interest is in sun spots more than TSI. while I think its bunk. Its hardly ACCURATE for you to cite this as "WUWT" blaming the "SUN". they are posting a NASA article. July 2009: it turned out global warming was caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. THIS is Watts citing Another article: "“Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean”" That article is by australian researchers. He also notes a REBUTTAL by trenberth. So, again, you dont have a SKEPTIC saying two different things you have a skeptic POINTING OUT that two papers say different things. HARDLY a contradiction. If one scientist says A and another says -A, then the fact that I point this out does not foist the contradiction onto ME. September 2009: back to the sun. AGAIN, you miss the mark. This is a repost of an opinion piece and it is called out as an opinion piece. Its an opinion piece offered by someone other than Watts. Now watts ALSO posts pieces by me, but we dont share opinions. Does he "catch" or get infected by an opinion by merely posting it? Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” Posted on September 10, 2009 by Anthony Watts UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony December 2009: no wait, it turns out CFCs are the major culprit You are WRONG AGAIN: This is a repost of an article: "Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming" The tactic goes like this. The skeptic points out "conflicts" in the science. he doesnt own those "contradictions" by pointing them out. NOW, they do say contradictory things, as you note, BUT you have to be better at this game of catching them than you are. It does not ay to be a lazier thinker than the person you are criticizing January 2010: hello, we're back to El Niño as the major driver of climate WRONG again. This is watts refering to Bob Tisdales work, If you want to catch somebody in a contradiction you have to cite THEIR WORDS and their beliefs.
  8. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke @160 I believe that you have answered “yes” to the question I had posed in Badgersouth 158. Here’s a follow-up question: In your expert opinion, why is the upper ocean warmer today than it was 50 years ago?
  9. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke @160 Your lengthy response to a very straight forward question that I posed in Badgersouth 158, concludes with: "Using this value of 0.6 W/m2 for the upper ocean, please calculate the expected accumulation of Joules that should have accumulated in the upper ocean since 2005. Also present evidence that the Argo network and associated satellite altimetry measurements are too poor to diagnose heating of this rate." With all due respect, I am not obligated to calculate anything or present evidence about the ARGO network and associated satellite altimetry measurements. I am neither a colleague of yours, nor a student of yours.
  10. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    Bibliovermis und ClimateWatcher Thanks for your help. Not so trivial and silly as I thougt. In the bibliovermis' link I found a lot of citations, where I can dig deeper. If I had knew, it's a sceptic argument, I had used the "search" field, sorry. But one thing, bibliovermis. The absolute value of albedo is not so important, it's the change, that's correlated to a forcing. And yes, Dana1981, you are right, my question was OT, it's another forcing, not solar.
  11. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz - disproving that humans are the dominant cause of the current global warming would basically require changing our understanding of basic physics. I recommend my post on quantifying the human contribution to global warming. If you read that, you'll see the basic physics upon which man-made global warming is based, and that's what would have to be disproven. There are open questions, such as how much the planet will warm in the future, how cloud feedbacks will change in response to global warming, how much we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and so on. But the human cause of the current global warming simply isn't going to be disproven.
  12. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    andreas - the solar radiative forcing is proportional to the change in TSI. A constant TSI yields zero solar radiative forcing. The radiative forcing from albedo changes is a different question with a different formula, and one that I have not researched, so I can't answer that question.
  13. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Eric (Skeptic): First of all, we are all skeptics here. Science and skepticism go hand in hand. Being a skeptic, however, doesn't mean that one doesn't believe AGW theory: it means they have looked honestly at the scientific evidence and can form a logically-sound argument as to whether they agree with the statement or not. The fact of the matter is that the current evidence all points to AGW being real. Thus, the logical position for a true skeptic is to acknowledge that AGW theory is almost certainly correct, and that it is the contrarian viewpoint we should be increasingly skeptical about... Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm a bit puzzled by one of your arguments: "As just one example, the neutron count has only very recently reached new highs http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif and this will affect clouds and weather and sensitivity, likely lowering it." First, it doesn't seem from looking at the linked graph that there is any kind of long-term increasing trend in neutron count. Second, what exactly do you base yourself when you claim a high neutron count (which seems to coincide with low sunspot numbers) affects cloud cover, weather and climate sensitivity? A link to peer-reviewed science would be nice.
  14. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz: "Anyway, that aside, what I want to know (from those that hold the warming faith) is, what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?" Falsifying or proving something wrong doesn't give an answer for how the climate works. That's your problem. In science, it isn't acceptable to be just in opposition. General Relativity did not falsify Newtonian Physics, it built on it and filled some holes. It is your attitude that is incorrect. It may be OK in politics (actually it isn't), but it isn't acceptable in science.
  15. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "Anyway, that aside, what I want to know (from those that hold the warming faith) is, what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?" Okay, first the choice of the expression "the warming faith" pretty much destroys any pretense of impartiality on your part. This site is for scientific discussion, try to "play nice." Second, it's pretty easy to falsify AGW theory. If AGW wasn't happening, then we wouldn't find an increase in outgoing longwave radiation (or downward radiation) at the wavelengths of greenhouse gases that have seen their atmospheric concentration increase due to human activity. Observations that didn't show such an increase would pretty much disprove most of AGW theory. Thus, it can be falsified. Of course, that says nothing about climate sensivity values, which seems to be the point you're making in your opening statement - before moving the goal posts to "AGW theory isn't falsifiable" in the *same* comment (thereby proving the article's point...)
  16. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    "The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling." That is not supported. For one thing there is no long term record (30+ years) of albedo. For another, the linear trend of the period of record actually shows a decreasing albedo (warming): Also, we have no basis of knowledge on what albedo was or how it varied before the age of satellites. Further, I have texts which put earth albedo at 29%, 30%, and 31%. The moon reflection people put it at 29% Guess what GISS AOGCM uses? 33% Our knowledge and use of earth albedo is obviously much less precisely known than the 1% cited by andreas.
  17. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @beam me up scotty (35) A certain constituency certainly is - and resent all science even as they tap away at their computers, in warm lit rooms posting stuff on the internet claiming that science is corrupt and produces nothing of value. Some of the reason for this is that some (maybe only a few) actually have an alternative, constructed reality including ufology and technologies beyond the reach and understanding of current science... it's an odd little world. Should also be pointed out that a large group who are anti the economic impacts of AGW ameliorate policy are hugely pro-science as they generate a huge part of their wealth from it --- oil, power production, air travel (Hi Michael O'Leary) etc. The "Merchants of Doubt" documents how ever very good science and scientists can be used in this way. Again - and on-topic for this article! - In both these cases the proponents are not being contradictory in their own worlds. The science, as discussed here, isn't at being technically approached. It's the work of folks which is judged right or wrong based on how it agrees with their respective agenda, not in it's own right.
  18. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    I'd written a post a while back listing the ways climate skeptics are contradictory and hypocritical - and not just on the science. For example, you can't believe both that markets solve all problems and that a CO2 price will destroy the economy. They also said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so. We got up to 55 contradictions: http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-of-hypocrisy.html
  19. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Barry: *golf clap* I would like to say that the incredible work done here at Skeptical Science has helped a lot in whacking moles further. The best deniers can come up when I provide links to this site are that John Cook is a "cartoonist," admittedly one of the strangest Ad Hominems I've ever heard. I once tried to categorize deniers/contrarians/political skeptics on the late news aggregator site Digg by putting them in four categories: a) Those who believe the world isn't warming; b) Those who believe the world is warming, but argue it's due to natural causes; c) Those who say that AGW exists, but it's on too small a scale to be a cause of worry; and d)Those who agree AGW exists, and is serious, but argue adaptation is better than trying to change our ways. I quickly found out it was an impossible task as most contrarians ended up belonging to many of the (mutually exclusive) categories over a period of time.
  20. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, I'd suggest reading several of the article on this site to get a basic grounding in the science. For instance, this article should help to start to explain why your question about falsifying man-made global warming is a non-starter. To disprove human warming of the climate you would have to find the entire science of spectroscopy to contain fundamental errors, explain why the planet is not a frozen ball of ice (since the greenhouse effect would have hypothetically been disproven), explain away thousands of scientific observations and measurements which show that humans are warming the planet, and otherwise rewrite about 200 years worth of science. In short... it isn't going to happen. Which is why 'sceptic' scientists don't dispute that humans are causing global warming... only HOW MUCH warming will result.
  21. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, it's interesting to ask these questions. The current rate of warming is about 0.2 degrees per decade and the noise on the data has a standard deviation of about 0.2 degrees (taking the annual figures). If you use (for example) excel to plot this as modelled data then you can see how likely it is for a 5, 10 or 20 year period to show net cooling. Why not try it ? It's easy to do and it will show you that what scientists say is correct: that significant periods of apparent cooling can be expected and that climate should be considered over a 30 year period. If you do it yourself you'll believe the results. Come back and tell us what you find ? (Hope that was pleasant enough ?)
  22. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr Pielke @156, With respect, I am in no mood to play games. Please answer the question, instead of answering my question (about PMEL and Hadley estimates of OHC) with a question. I am also curious to know what your answer is to my question earlier about what you think global OHC values will be (relative to current estimates) circa 2030. Thank you.
  23. Roger A Pielke Sr at 03:56 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badgersouth - From all of the available evidence, time slices for today compared with 50 years ago clearly indicate that the upper ocean is warmer at present. Also, the OHC time changes is by far (~80%) the largest reservoir of global warming and cooling and can be used to diagnose the annual average global radiative forcing in Watts per meter squared. The challenge to the IPCC modeling community is what should be expect for the coming years. Jim Hansen has written (in 2005) the following - see http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F09%2F1116592hansen.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F21%2Fupdate-on-jim-hansens-forecast-of-the-global-radiative-imbalance-as-diagnosed-by-the-upper-ocean-heat-content-change%2F "Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.” Using this value of 0.6 W/m2 for the upper ocean, please calculate the expected accumulation of Joules that should have accumumlated in the upper ocean since 2005. Also present evidence that the Argo network and associated satellite altimetry measurements are too poor to diagnose heating of this rate.
  24. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (36)
    "what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?"
     This is the short version of what we know:
    1. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere, all else being equal, will raise that planet’s surface temperature. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). 3. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958, 1960, etc.). 4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming. 5. From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH MSU, RSS TLT, borehole results, melting glaciers and ice caps, etc., etc., etc.). 6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide (r = 0.874 for ln CO2 and dT 1880-2008). 7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess, 1958). 8. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind).
    In order for man-made global warming to be falsified, a physics-based alternative would have to exist (and survive scientific scrutiny) that explains the multiple lines of converging evidence we see that also explains why the physics of greenhouse gases works in every instance except for those GHG's produced through the activity of man. Decades later, no such theory is forthcoming. As far as trends emerging from the noise (weather vs climate) see here. Obfuscation (waiting for surety) is pointless. By the time "all" would be satisfied (and some denialarati never will be) it will be too late. So it comes down to risk management. Try this: you are given a pistol. You are told it "may" contain a bullet and that you are to put the pistol to your head and pull the trigger. You ask about the surety of that "may", right? Is 1:6,000,000 a safe risk? 1:6,000? 1:6? Science tells us that the world is warming (NAS) and that human-released CO2 is likely (90%) causing it. The gun is to our head and we are pulling the trigger... Wasn't that pleasant? The Yooper
  25. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr Pielke, Thanks for the link to your article, an interesting read. It seems, however, to back up the point I made. There is no discussion of the time period necessary for signal to outweigh noise, and the error bars (quoted as "plus or minus one standard error") are about 5x10^22 J. On this thread you assert that one month's data is a "snapshot" which allows the earth's heat balance to be reliably calculated, yet the error on this timescale is a heat flow of 5x10^22J/month, or 6x10^23J/yr, which is well over an order of magnitude larger than the figure your article compares from Hansen (1.39x10^22J/yr). Surely this clearly shows a monthly snapshot is not meaningful ?
  26. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke: Do you agree or disagree with the statement: “The warming trend in OHC dominated earth’s heat balance during the past fifty years…” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above statement is from: 1. Introduction [2] We have previously reported estimates of the variability of the ocean heat content (OHC) of the world ocean [Levitus et al., 2000, 2005a]. The warming trend in OHC dominated earth’s heat balance during the past fifty years [Levitus et al., 2001] and the trend has been attributed to theincrease in greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere by Levitus et al. [2001] and Barnett et al. [2001, 2005] among others. Source: “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,” S. Levitus,1 J. I. Antonov,1 T. P. Boyer,1 R. A. Locarnini,1 H. E. Garcia,1 and A. V. Mishonov1 Received 31 December 2008; revised 26 February 2009; accepted 18 March 2009; published 11 April 2009 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009
  27. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Evening all. Apparently I am a 'sceptic'. What I am sceptical of is that the predicted warming will occur as a result of the increase of CO2. I believe we don't know. Well, that's not just a belief, of course, but a fact - we DON'T know. As a sceptic I don't recognise the panel of excuses on the left of this site. Some of the points are valid, some are not - to actually make as statements. I find very many comments made from both 'sides' very silly, unconstructive, and poor science. Anyway, that aside, what I want to know (from those that hold the warming faith) is, what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified? Is there a recognised criteria which would make, for example the owner of this blog, to state "Whoah, that shouldn't happen if man-made warming is true". Is it, for example, a 10-year long downturn in global temps, or a 10-year period of reduced ocean temps? We all know that climate change is real - climate changes. We all know that there will be blips in warming or cooling. But what if that 'blip' lasts 10 years? Is that valid? Or should we wait another 20 years after that? Try and be nice, it makes for a pleasant conversation.
  28. beam me up scotty at 03:11 AM on 12 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    One wonders if climate skeptics are skeptical of science in general, and perform open heart surgery on themselves.
  29. beam me up scotty at 03:01 AM on 12 September 2010
    Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    We will need to invest in carbon capture technologies. Carbon Capture (mother nature style)
  30. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus (#30) and barry, painting a linear trend in sunspots is pointless since sunspots are only a proxy for a variety of solar phenomenon which themselves only affect weather indirectly and then weather modulates the sensitivity for CO2 warming. As many people have pointed out in this forum, more unevenness of water vapor causes less back radiation from WV and less sensitivity, the cloud changes are secondary but also modulate back radiation and albedo (please don't whack the albedo mole, he is not important). As just one example, the neutron count has only very recently reached new highs http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif and this will affect clouds and weather and sensitivity, likely lowering it. Another example is UV that BP pointed out, with its affect on weather (regional temperature changes probably caused by modulation of the jet stream, likely lowering sensitivity by increasing meridional flow following an increase in UV). When I say sensitivity I mean the amount of added back radiation from WV for a given amount of added back radiation from increased CO2. Note I don't say "added WV" since hypothetical "average" increases in WV don't matter, only the weather-controlled distribution of WV matters.
  31. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    BP @ 12 IIUC the UV radiation is so weak, that it's not even measured in mW but in photons/second. So although it may vary by large percentages, what amplification method turns less than mW at the edge of the atmosphere into Watts lower down?
  32. Climate Models: Learning From History Rather Than Repeating It
    hi, can I suggest an ultra-basic version? Skeptical criticism of climate modelling undermines the overall skeptical position. The case for using computers to predict future climate is founded on todays climatic instability. Perhaps, some skeptics lambasting climate models, are without realising it, arguing that the climate is less predictable/stable than science currently forecasts. The logical destination point for such an argument would to be a lot less skeptical of AGW. OK Somebody tell me where Ive gone wrong.
  33. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    The albedo effect and global warming (argument #90)
    The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.
  34. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    Daniel: Bingo! This is the aspect of CO2 that I think very few people truly understand -- love is fleeting, but CO2 is forever. Many people think we can cut CO2 emissions and the warming they cause will subside in a few months or a year. To me, the truly scary thing is what happens if we somehow find the political courage to do a quick phase-out of coal. We'll still be dealing with (by then) likely 420 ppm of CO2 (or even more), but we won't have the cooling effect of the sulfate aerosols, so we'll suddenly kick CC into overdrive. We've painted ourselves into a very tight and nasty corner. Unless we figure out the climate equivalent of painting a working door onto the wall at our back (ala countless cartoons), this is going to be a very difficult situation to deal with.
  35. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    Nice summation, Michael. People need to think of CO2 as "The Terminator" of forcings, because it operates 24/7/365, and it's effects will never, ever stop in our lifetime. The Yooper
  36. Roger A Pielke Sr at 00:55 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    VeryTallGuy - Thank you for your very good question. I chose a month time period since an expert with this data (Josh Willis) presented uncertainty estimates on this time scale; i.e. see the figure in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf
  37. Roger A Pielke Sr at 00:50 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatross - Regarding "Maybe Pielke can explain to us specifically why he chose the NODC OHC data over those data provided by PMEL and Hadley...." please present what is their estimate of accumulation of heat in the upper 700m of the oceans since 2004, and what does this equate to in Watts per meter squared.
  38. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    I like mucking around with the interactive graphs at woodfortrees. Solar v Temps Solar, CO2 and Temps Temps v PDO Global 'cooling' since 1998 (using statistically significant periods) And if your interlocutor likes working with periods that are not statistically significant, then it's good to let them know that global warming restarted with a vengeance in 2006! ;-) I ginned these up a couple of weeks ago and saved them, and because of the deep fascination with alleged cycles at WUWT, I tried to make sure solar data ran from peak to peak (or trough to trough in this case). Just for fun, of course.
  39. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Is the code for the computer programs used by NOAA to compute the OHC for the 2004-2009 time period error-free? Has it been vetted by an independent review?
  40. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Has the methodolgy developed by NOAA to compute the OHC for the 2004-2009 time period been thoroughly vetted? If so, by whom and how?
  41. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    RSVP - I don't know, perhaps we should resume debating whether the Earth revolves around the Sun and whether or not it's flat. Or we can realize that at some point, when there is overwhelming scientific evidence against a certain concept, it's time to acknowledge that it's incorrect and move on. There simply is nothing to the UV warming theory. It's a small fraction of total solar irradiance and only impacts local temperatures and climate, not the average global temperature. And nobody is assuming solar output will remain completely constant in the future. Then again, it's only changed by about 0.1% over the past several hundred years, so it's pretty safe to assume it won't be undergoing any radical changes, either.
  42. What caused early 20th Century warming?
    #39 "And I echo what kdkd said in #31: all this stuff can be estimated without estimating this 'equilibrium TSI'." No it can't muoncounter. All the 'anthropogenic forcings' in Fig 2.4 IPCC AR4 and repeated by Dr Trenberth's famous paper in Figure 4, are relative to a baseline of 'zero' in AD1750. 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. Figure 1 from this thread (1713-1996) seems to suggest a baseline TSI at 1365.5W/sq.m, but who is to suggest that the solar forcing was 'zero' in AD1713 given the complex orbital cycles which vary the Earth's exposure to the sun over interglacial time scales. Is 1365.5W/sq.m the 'zero' baseline? The bit you don't seem to get is that the energy accumulation of the Earth system does not necessarily stop when the TSI is flat. This energy is the integral of the 'forcing' in W/sq.m wrt time represented by the area under the forcing curve which rises linearly with time elapsed. A constant 0.12W/sq.m forcing over one year is 20E20 Joules, which over a century is 2000E20 Joules. 5-6E20 Joules/year covers all the arctic ice melt, land ice melt and land heating (according to Dr Trenberth). So if for example the Earth was warming in AD1713 at a small Solar forcing of say 0.06W/sq.m (half the current IPCC Solar forcing number), and we assume the same shape of the TSI curve since then is offset by an extra 0.06 x 4 /0.7 = 0.34W/sq.m then that would add an extra 10E20 Joules to the Earth system for nearly 300 years which is an extra 3000E20 Joules - a big number - most of which must go into OHC.
  43. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Except, Eric, that your mob have no coherent moles, & so instead create illusory ones to keep everyone off balance. The reality is that your claims are not supported by the available evidence. The solar component is a major part of the energy balance of the planet, & can't be casually dismissed as you try to do, that we're still getting warming *in spite* of a significant decline in sunspot activity suggests that something else-very significant-is at play. Remember that we've had a downward trend in sunspot activity for THIRTY YEARS, yet each decade has been, on average, warmer than the decade before over that entire period. Even when sunspots are almost non-existent we still get a warming trend-where we actually should see-if anything-*cooling* (the correlation between PDO & warming for the last 30 years is less than 2% btw). Bottom line-accelerated CO2 warming with further acceleration/deceleration due to natural influences.
  44. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    152. Ken Lambert: You state, "Dr Trenberth reckons on a yearly imbalance of 145E20 Joules. He puts 2E20 Joules into land heat up, 1E20Joules into Arctic sea ice melt, and 2-3E20 Joules into Total land ice melt." Have Dr. Trenberth's "reckonings" been peer reviewed? In the contest of your statement, does "land" include both the lithosphere and the bioshpere? Does "land" also include surface freshwater?
  45. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    RSVP, it doesn't matter if you show a whole coherent community of moles, they will just pick one and whack it.
  46. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus (#11), it is best to take Riccardo's advice (#26) and give a complete picture by considering all the evidence and potential factors. One piece of evidence you left out was a deceleration of warming shown by satellite temperature measurements. Since they measure the troposphere rather than the surface they depict the strong 1998 El Nino nicely (much stronger than Karl realized when he wrote his report which turned out to be wrong). That same measurement shows that the recent El Nino was weaker (smaller relative peak) yet the running average will likely exceed 1998. That means there is warming from 1998 to present, likely from steady (not accelerated) CO2 warming. You considered only one solar factor of many and no terrestrial factors. One terrestrial factor you left out was positive PDO which may have changed to negative around 2008. The result of that factor is less heat in the ocean and more in the atmosphere where your surface measurements were taken. According to the Pielke thread that also confirms the deceleration in warming based on total heat in the ocean atmosphere system. Bottom line is steady CO2 warming with acceleration and deceleration due to natural influences.
  47. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatros, Ned, Badgersouth, Rob Honeycutt: You might want to check the numbers from my early Post #14 "Dr Trenberth reckons on a yearly imbalance of 145E20 Joules. He puts 2E20 Joules into land heat up, 1E20Joules into Arctic sea ice melt, and 2-3E20 Joules into Total land ice melt. Thats a total 5-6E20 Joules/year out of 145E20 Joules of supposed imbalance which must go somewhere in the system. Total ice melt and land heat up is only 4%. So where is the other 140E20 Joules/year? Dr Trenberth accounts for only 20-95E20 in the oceans (a wide range), 16E20 in reduced TSI (which should probably be deducted from the 145 to start with), and a "residual" of 30-100E20 Joules which is unaccounted for. It could be in the deep oceans or 'exited to space' - ie. it was never there to start with." Also go and read Dr Trenberth's Aug09 paper: "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking the Earth's global energy" here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf Ned - you are right about ice melt being a small energy sink; only 3-4E20 Joules/year for all arctic and land ice melt when the purported imbalance being absorbed in the Earth system is 145E20 Joules/year. According to the above paper: Global SLR is supposed to be about 2.5mm/year of which 2.00mm is mass or ice melt water and about 0.5mm is thermosteric rise from thermal expansion. Have a look at "Sea level rise the broader picture" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=80&&n=339 and particularly BP#19, HR#65, KL#68,#80. Dr Tom: Yes Argo is not designed for global OHC data collection and has been pressed into this service for want of a better system. It surely is vastly better that XBT and other sampling methods - but I think that Dr Pielke agrees with me and others on this blog thread that the best method would be a system of tethered buoys whic could read the same tile of the ocean and all collect at the same time (1200hrs GMT on the 1st of each month if you want seasonal and yearly snapshots giving almost continouus OHC measurement) How you transmit data from tethered buoys without them surfacing could be a difficult problem, and if you try a surfacing system similar to Argo with a 2000-3000m tether - there could be some difficulty there as well - but surmountable I would expect.
  48. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Roger, the point is how many time slices do you need spread over what period. True, the thermal inertia of the upper ocean implies that you do not need a continuous time record, but that assumes that currents moving large amounts of mass and energy, especially vertical ones, will not change rapidly. If you think four years is enough then you have to explain every wiggle that happens on a scale of a year or less. Further, as the bunny pointed out above, ARGO is NOT measuring the thermal content of the ocean, but the thermal content of the UPPER ocean and by differencing, the flow of energy into and out of the upper ocean from above (atmosphere) and below (lower ocean). Since differencing is really subject to falsification by random noise, it appears to Eli that you are selling a McGuffin.
  49. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    dana1981 #13 "Been there, done that, mole whacked" Is that a scientific attitude? ...and is it truely scientific to assume inherent solar stability into the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_variable_stars
  50. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    The point is not to find the single cause (which does not exist) that overall drives the climate, there are several known factors that in the short or long term influence it. Many (not all) skeptics use these factors to claim that there's more than CO2, which we all know. What they do not do is give a complete picture of the behaviour of our climate "glueing" together all the pieces in a coherent framework. In this way they are free to "attack" any single piece, not being bounded by the consequences on the other aspects of the large picture, as evidenced by dana81 in this post. This is why it's often pointeless to discuss with them and why i do not think it's appropiate to call them skeptics, although i still use this term for "political correctness".

Prev  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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