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  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  Next

Comments 110401 to 110450:

  1. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    johnd - to quote you: "...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." However, the table you point to, the BOM data, clearly indicates that the 'minimum air temperature' and the 'Terr min' are measured at different times - at 9AM and at the coldest portion of the night. They are not comparable, although you seem to indicate they are - at least, that's how the question read to me. The ground temps will not cycle as fast as air temps, so I fail to see any issues with this data in regards to the physics of back radiation.
  2. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    Wow, record warmth? This is just the warmest lately.
  3. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    Another note for John, We should consider revising the 1998 is the warmest on record in light of this new result...
  4. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    This will be a great resource. I wish they would do this every year... or at least combine with hadley...
  5. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Great post. The "skeptics" are trying to demolish the edifice of AGW, and will chip away wherever they can. An army of eager beavers hacking away at granite with toothpicks, slapping each other on the back and cheering when any piece of dust is dislodged. Don Quixote had nothing on them. Their endeavour and bravery are to be admired!
  6. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Eric "Sensitivity is the largest area of uncertainty" Be that as it may, the degree of uncertainty with regards to CO2 sensitivity is relatively small. Considering the potentially catastrophic effects of AGW, and how politically-motivated contrarians use uncertainty as a tool to delay any action to mitigate it, I wonder what point is served by focusing so much on uncertainty values.
  7. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    I'd just come here from a skeptics site, and was trying to make sense of the title, "European reanalysis confirm record warmth". For a second there I thought it was going to be an article about how warm the Medieval Warm Period really was!
    Response: Once I'd finished the article, I tweeted it and thought, well, that title doesn't make much sense, so I fleshed out the tweet with "European reanalysis of global temperature confirms record warmth in 2010". Thought about retitling my blog post with a more clear headline, decided against it mainly due to laziness. Will do the job properly now...
  8. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    John, you left all the meaty bits out of the press release. "Temperature anomalies vary from one year to the next because of the natural dynamical variability of the climate system" "The global anomaly declines slightly in the very latest 12-month average, due to a recent shift toward La Nina conditions in the tropical Pacific and relatively low temperatures over tropical and southern hemispheric land areas, which offset last month’s high northern hemispheric temperatures."
    Response: I would've thought the year-to-year variability was pretty obvious from Figure 2 :-)
  9. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    barry@55 said, CoalGeologist, for what it's worth, Watts has been promising for a couple of years now to submit a paper that re-examines the temperature record based on the surfascestations project. Hitherto, his publications (not peer-reviewed) have pointed out the problems but not crunched the numbers. Apparently, the paper is soon to be submitted. But you're right that he has made all sorts of pronouncements without doing a proper, comprehensive analysis, or even a half-arsed one. I think surfacestations.org is a good project, minus the rhetoric, and hope that his paper gets published. IMO, Barry is being a bit too kind to Watts and Co. If Watts and Co. were serious, they would have been crunching numbers from the get-go, adding data from each new surface temperature station as as soon as it was surveyed. There is simply no good reason to procrastinate on the data crunching until their "survey" is entirely complete. The temperature gridding/averaging process is not all that difficult conceptually -- basically it's a tedious programming slog. It's a straightforward task that any reasonably talented science/compsci/engineering undergraduate student could tackle. The surfacestations project was established over 3 years ago. It is quite telling that after over 3 years, the surfacestations folks still have not completed a straightforward number crunching task that a smart college student could easily do in, say, three weeks!
  10. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    The central issue is TIME. Human activity is responsible for emitting CO2 in decades at a rate which would “naturally” occur over tens of thousands of years, speeding up consequential effects, most significantly rising temperature. Rapidly rising temperature amplifies the effect of CO2 emissions by thawing land which releases greenhouse gases, by melting sea ice which reduces albedo by warming and acidifying seawater and by increasing the speed with which glaciers and ice sheets melt. The prognosis is that air and sea temperatures will continue to rise as will sea levels and both will do so with increasing rapidity. The effects are likely to be an increase in the incidence and severity of climate events, loss of fresh water provided by stable glaciers and the erosion and flooding of coastal land. The effects on the human population, I leave to your imagination.
  11. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    @ Dan Satterfield One the first rules of writing articles about technical subjects for the general public is to define all acronyms the first time they are used. For example, insert "(UAH)" immediately after the words, University of Alabama at Huntsville" in the first sentence. Also, the graph is also meaningless unless the reader knows what "RSS" and "UAH" mean. Insert the definitions into the graph. Some readers will only look at the graph and not read the text.
  12. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel (#89), sensitivity is the largest area of uncertainty, not the smallest. Temperature accelerates and decelerates in time scales of multiple years, decades and centuries. To assume a constant sensitivity and assign a linear temperature increase to a linear CO2 increase is difficult at any of those time scales although decade averages (2000's > 1990's > 1980's) works at the moment (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_101.gif) muoncounter (#90) I have seen proxies for meridional versus zonal jet, so it would be interesting if someone has tried to correlate that to either geomagnetic changes or GCR changes (I realize those are different) or UV changes since I believe there are proxies for that as well. Marcus (#93), not a linear trend but a poorly fitted linear model. So poorly fitted it is quite obvious when placed side by side like barry did (#32). When the model has sensitivity changes over the course of years and decades, those need to be explained. A linear fit to CO2 would have a much lower slope and is pretty much linear from the physics (back radiation increases). The extra slope alleged to be WV feedback is produced by highly nonlinear processes and cannot be extrapolated (i.e. weather changes as the world warms). The "clouds" themselves (papers linked from #90) are a highly nonlinear dependency and in light of other terrestrial influences the correlation disappears over recent decades.
  13. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Wow Eric, that's weak-even for you. Delta T might fluctuate on a year to year basis, but there is still a LINEAR TREND over a multi-decade time frame (of roughly +0.16 degrees per decade). By contrast, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that neutron counts have any underlying positive or negative trend-which is what would be needed if they were to be having any long-term impact on temperatures. The "trend-line" is pretty close to y=0x-which is effectively a horizontal line. Also, in what way is the *fact* that clouds both trap outgoing Long-Wave radiation & reflect incoming short-wave radiation a "red herring"? Its completely relevant & also seriously damages your entire premise-which is probably why you're trying to call it a red herring. The reality is that, as much as you try to obfuscate, the link between clouds & the long-term global warming of the last 60 years is extremely tenuous-if not completely non-existent, yet you'd prefer to accept this idea, rather than the much stronger AGW theory-simply because the former sits well with your so-called "skeptical" outlook.
  14. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @BP References to James Jay Lee are a sure sign you're not interested in the science, but rather the political side of the debate. The point is not to scare people, the goal is to have a good idea of the potential risks we are facing so we can attempt to mitigate them. That is the reasonable thing to do. What is *not* reasonable is to tarry in taking action by claiming that we do not know enough, arguing there's no more warming (when looking at very short time frames) or trying to find a plethora of unlikely scenarios to explain something that's rather straightforward. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is still one of the fundamental laws of survival...
  15. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    BP - why do think I suggested that you look at CITES of the paper, rather than the paper? You think this problem is unstudied, unsolved and unsolvable? Firstly, using CRM - do you believe that these are developed without reference to empirical principles? Also cloud parameterization uses both CRM results AND observation results. The problem with reliance on observational results is that you cannot extrapolate with much certainty outside the range of observation parameters whereas a model from basic principles allows more confidence. I am sure you would be highly critical of parameterizations that extrapolated from observations. Also NS. Do you suppose that if NS turns up in engineering, we are forced to shrug shoulders and walk away? Of course not - there is massive toolkit for dealing with NS. And yes, this can involve trading confidence for solutions at boundaries for information loss within. And by the way, surely most of thermodynamics is laws of averages, (eg pressure, temperatures), for which there are fundamental problems doing derivations from true equations at all scales. I'd say most of the whole science of chemistry fits this as well. So are you really looking to understand limits and skill of models, or looking for excuses to dismiss them as fits another agenda?
  16. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    #61 CoalGeologist at 11:48 AM on 12 September, 2010 Finally, as a scientist, I find your references to a "scare" and your use of the term "debunk" to be extremely offensive. Sorry for that. With the debunk thing I was just paraphrasing dana1981, the author of the article above. As for scare some people, like the late James Jay Lee are already scared out of their mind. "That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!"
  17. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    #43 Tom Dayton at 11:54 AM on 12 September, 2010 BP, scaddenp is quite correct in his astonishment at your statement that "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." No, he is not. Here is the paper he has referenced: J. Atmos. Sci., Volume 59, Issue 12 (June 2002) pp. 1917–1942. A Prognostic Parameterization for the Subgrid-Scale Variability of Water Vapor and Clouds in Large-Scale Models and Its Use to Diagnose Cloud Cover Adrian M. Tompkins The first thing to note is that there is nothing mysterious about "first principles". They are just the most thoroughly tested core of physics presented in a manner that is consistent and understandable. By "tested" I mean gazillion of actually performed experiments and careful observations, any of which could have falsified these principles, but failed to do so. Their understandability is also an indispensable criterion, because in certain directions human understanding has demonstrably more power than any algorithm. Of course understanding needs some algorithmic preprocessing of its input to be able to kick in, but then performs something no (Turingian) computing can ever do. Among other things this ability is in its prime in debugging. The preprocessing I have mentioned is for transforming the proposition to be understood into a very special (recursively modular) form. With some irreducible representations it simply can't be done, so there are things unattainable for us indeed. A computational climate model, which is transparent in this sense is still to be built. But back to your astonishment. You have probably heard of the Clay Institute's Millennium Prize Problems. These are extraordinarily hard and important mathematical problems, with a one million dollar prize for each (must be the least easy way to make a million bucks). Now, among these problems we can find the existence (or the lack of it) of well-behaved solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equation for reasonable initial conditions. These equations describe the motion of fluid substances, pretty basic stuff for e.g. GCMs, so the truly astonishing fact is that the science is not settled at all, not even the science of basic mathematical tools. And the existence problem of solutions to incompressible fluid motion is just the tip of the iceberg, there are many more unresolved tidbits around turbulent flows. Rather expensive wind tunnels are not maintained by mere accident in an age of supercomputers. And now let's see what Tompkins did. He has recognized the fact GCM performance depends not only on average humidity in grid cells, but also on finer details of its distribution inside the cells, that is, on higher moments like variance and skewness (or kurtosis, although he fails to mention this one), just like I was trying to show you above. Then, at least to my astonishment he proceeds as follows: "From the brief review of statistical schemes it is apparent that a widely varying selection of PDFs [probability density functions] have been used. One reason for this is that it is difficult to obtain generalized and accurate information from observations concerning variability [of humidity] down to small scales" Difficult, indeed. The traditional approach in cases like this is to consider the difficulty as a challenge and start working on ways to overcome it. It is quite astonishing how often this kind of attitude has been proven to be fertile. But instead of aiming for actual data, he is trying to circumvent the problem by resorting to a CRM (Cloud Resolving Model). That is, instead of going out and having a look or two at what's going on in nature, he applies another computational model, this time on a smaller scale. "The first aim of this paper therefore, is to use a 3D CRM, on domains on the order of a climate model grid box but also with relatively high horizontal resolution, to assess whether a generalized function form exists that can describe the total water variability" It would not be such a serious problem had he not called running a program an experiment and program output data. "Examination of the PDFs every half hour throughout the experiment proved them to be very similar in characteristics, since the computational domain was sufficient in size to continuously contain an ensemble of clouds, and the initial conditions were a realistic field of clouds in a state of quasi-equilibrium. The data at the 65 536 grid points are divided into 200 bins of equal width [etc., etc.]" Of course Gedankenexperiments were always legitimate tools of the scientific inquiry, but they are not substitutes for actual experiments or observations. Traditionally they were never used to settle the science, but to uncover holes in existing theory (to be filled later by either reshaping the theory or collecting relevant data). Note the CRM he has experimented with has the same Navier-Stokes equations in its belly, also gridded, therefore unable to handle sub-grid processes of its own. As flows tend to be turbulent down to microscopic scales (have you ever seen the fine threads of cigarette smoke?) and turbulence generates fractal structures, this model also has to be parametrized. In 3D flows (unlike in 2D ones) energy in small-scale eddies never gets negligible by shrinking through many orders of magnitude (this is the very reason behind the mathematical troubles). So. Water vapor distribution statistics presented in this paper are neither rooted in first principles nor in actual observations, they just hover in thin air (they do what vapor is supposed to do after all).
  18. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd - the question you need to ask is how fast would temperatures have dropped if there was NOT backradiation. Perhaps look at what happens on moon - okay not that fast because there is some heat capacity in the atmosphere. How about noting that temperature drop slower on a cloudy night? Now why is that? Instead of constantly referring to BOM stations with measurements in service of agriculture, why dont you look at a station where backradiation IS measured and you can see it. (eg Alice Springs). As to clouds, well dont forget clouds are both positive and negative feedbacks. In a stable climate, clouds are about the same. The question on actual interest is, as the earth warms from GHG increase, will clouds be a net positive or negative feedback and if so, by how much? While I am aware that there are speculative papers pushing for large negative feedback, this is incompatible with empirical measures of climate sensitivity. However, this is changing the goalposts - are you satisfied with the existence and effect of DLR (backradiation) yet?
  19. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    #88: "the more important effect of increased GCR is less water vapor and more uneven water vapor." How do cosmic rays reduce water vapor? If water vapor is reduced by cloud formation, the GCR=>clouds science is far from settled. The 2002 article you cite discusses geomagnetic variability; that is the earth's magnetic field: "We have suggested a link of processes generated by geomagnetic forcing that is followed by dramatic shifts in the atmospheric circulation patterns." If so, there is a long geomagnetic record in the seafloor; was there any attempt to correlate the two over the long term? The magnetic field affecting GCR flux is the solar/interplanetary field, which is not the same as the geomagnetic field.
  20. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    OK, let Eli again put on the bunny believes Roger Pielke Sr. deelybobbers, take a deep look at the OHC record which tells all, and ask, where is the last solar cycle?
  21. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    @ Ken Lambert Re my posts 153 and 181, strike the 2nd and 3rd questions I had posed. I had erroneously read “land” instead of “land ice.” Speed reading has its drawbacks.
  22. Using Skeptical Science to improve climate literacy
    Politicization has transformed the climate change debate from one based upon scientific evidence and reason to one that is strongly influenced by political and social ideology. I may eventually encounter an ardent AGW “skeptic” whose politic leanings are not evident, but it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps you’ve written off certain people as being beyond the powers of reason, but even if you have, I’m still concerned about the ones in the middle, who are legitimately confused by [apparently] contradictory information. I don’t know what sorts of techniques you are teaching for finding reliable information, but as in so many other aspects of politics, many people seek out information that will tend to confirm the beliefs they already hold, and they tend to trust sources who share and express their particular world view. It strikes me that any effort to improve the level of understanding of scientific issues must at minimum identify the intrusion of politics into science as a problem, and ideally find ways to minimize its impact. I feel that if people are alerted to the risks of political ideology influencing scientific interpretations, they will be better able, and more inclined, to distinguish real science from political ideology-based science. I realize that this potentially cuts “both ways”, but there’s actually very little evidence of politics in real climate science. Unfortunately, one element of the “world view” that lies at the core of much AGW “skepticism” is an inherent mistrust of “ivory tower” intellectuals and the “government” (where the term government refers to an entity that is something other than of, by, and for the people). This attitude has filtered down into our culture to such a degree that even some of those who don’t fully subscribe to it are not prepared to reject it outright. In other words, the notion of conspiracy between scientific community and the government, or the notion of scientists as incompetent bumblers is credible enough that it has some traction. This tends to tip the scales against science from the outset. Finally, I think it’s essential to separate the treatment of climate change into four sub-issues: 1) documentation of contemporary climate change and it’s impact on both human civilization and natural ecosystems, 2) attribution of climate change (What is the evidence that contemporary climate change is being caused—either largely or partly—by human activities, 3) climate forecasting (What is the future impact of climate change likely to be if we take no action? and 4) response and remediation (What can and should we do to address this problem. What will the costs be? Can we afford it? etc.) These topics are all interrelated, but tend to become hopelessly muddled in how this topic is approached. Notably, it the first three topics fall within the domain of science. Only the fourth belongs in the realm of politics. Unfortunately, considerations regarding response & remediation (#4) tend to color scientific treatment of #1, #2, & #3. Your statement, "Of course, it has been shown many times over that presenting an audience with a graph of increasing global temperatures is not overly successful in motivating action on climate change." indicates that you tend not to distinguish these issues. I think it's important to do so.
  23. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    @ Graham Wayne and John Cook: Recommend that you invite the authors of the two papers cited by Daniel Bailey in post 189 to participate in this comment thread.
  24. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    wingding, when a scientist says that creationism is more scientifically grounded than evolution I'm sorry, but it is just NOT "baseless" to suggest that they might not be entirely objective. Consider Spencer and Christy in their own words. The one indoctrinating Sunday school kids in 'anti environmentalist' rhetoric and the other arguing that evolution is unfounded science pushed by non-Christian religions. Yes, when presented with overwhelming evidence of errors they have adjusted their results. Yes, other than the evolution bit, they accept the basic fundamentals of science. That this makes them 'the reasonable skeptics' is a very sad commentary on the nature of the debate.
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    "Regardless of the linear CO2 increase, temperature is not increasing linearly nor is it "accelerating"." What time frame are you using to make that assertion? Looking a temperature graph that goes to the beginning of the 20th century makes it clear the temperature increase is indeed accelerating. We also know that, during this time period, the only factor that has consistently gone up (and not followed a cycle) is CO2 concentration. We understand the mechanics CO2 plays in the atmosphere, and you even claim that you believe AGW is happening. I guess I'm just trying to see your point. It seems to me you're focusing on small areas of uncertainty in order to discredit the potential threat caused by man-made climate change, but perhaps I'm wrong...
  26. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel (#84), I'm not obfuscating, just trying not to oversimplify. I have never argued against AGW ever and argued for it many times at other forums. What I am arguing about since my first post on this thread is oversimplifications and unsupported extrapolations on the part of CAGW advocates. One of those is that temperature is increasing linearly or greater in large part to CO2. Regardless of the linear CO2 increase, temperature is not increasing linearly nor is it "accelerating". Another is that sensitivity to CO2 warming is a constant, it certainly is not. It is controlled by weather which in turn is externally controlled to some extent. Essentially what happens is the small warming from CO2 creates a temperature increase and the potential of a water vapor increase. What happens with water vapor is controlled by evaporation (increasing, but nonlinear) and weather (anything but linear). The evenness of water vapor determines the amount of increased back radiation (more = more). That's all that really matters, not clouds (except as weather), not the ideal and local C-C relationship (not applicable). The evenness of water vapor depends on things like UV (more UV = less even). muoncounter (#87), yes, although low (warm) cloud tops are generally cooling the more important effect of increased GCR is less water vapor and more uneven water vapor. Other magnetic effects like this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X1W-4636620-5&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=332603dbc7afa1ed28d75a9191d575f3&searchtype=a are linked seasonally to NAO. For example last winter's strongly negative AO and NAO and low solar activity are probably linked. One of the primary climate sensitivity results is more uneven water vapor. The presence of these external factors is why paleo studies can't bound sensitivity unless these factors are also measured through proxies.
  27. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Couple of recent papers (published online today in Nature Geoscience) that provide further evidence that a greater level of uncertainty exists in the quantification and transport of OHC than is perhaps being characterized by RPSr. Opposing decadal changes for the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
    M. Susan Lozier, Vassil Roussenov, Mark S. C. Reed & Richard G. Williams Published online: 12 September 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo947
    Available (ok, paywalled) here. "But this simplified picture of what is known as meridional overturning circulation (MOC) has been brought into question by a paper suggesting that, in the past 50 years, ocean circulation closer to the Equator has grown weaker, whereas the northern waters have flowed more strongly." "They found that, rather than the rate being the same everywhere all the time, as was expected, the rates in the subtropical and subpolar regions were different and showed distinct changes over the 50-year period. Synopsis here. Oceanography: Sea change
    Agatha M. de Boer Published online: 12 September 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo963
    "The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation delivers warmth to high latitudes and carbon to depth. Historical temperature and salinity records call into question the traditional view that these waters form a single coherent conveyer system of currents." Available (also paywalled) here. The Yooper
  28. Same Ordinary Fool at 05:12 AM on 13 September 2010
    A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    ...Which leads to...We should be grateful that two climate skeptics are in charge of a set of global temperature measurements. Other skeptics and deniers are compelled to accept that global temperatures are increasing, because they're saying it.
  29. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    #81: "The rest of the time and space, the cloud effect from GCR might not have much affect." But the GCR->clouds => cooling is the core the Svensmark argument. Are you saying that might not have much effect? "and other magnetic effects other than GCR. Although complex it is not useful to say since there is no linear trend in the past we have to ignore them or consider them to be random fluctuations. " What does that mean? Magnetic effects (ie, solar and interplanetary field strength are fundamental parts of the GCR model. What are the other magnetic effects, linear or otherwise, on climate?
  30. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    General thoughts not aimed at this article or anyone in particular: Roy Spencer and John Christy are real skeptics and real scientists - a far cry from greenhouse-disbelieving psuedo-skeptic blog types. They argue that climate sensitivity is low. That's perfectly valid if they can argue the case scientifically. Spencer published a paper recently on the matter so his ideas cannot be obviously wrong and he must be contributing to the field. Yes there was a UAH satellite correction, but records sometimes encounter large errors. That's science. You shouldn't read conspiracy into it. As such their honesty is unquestionable. I disagree with them on climate sensitivity, I think the charney sensitivity range is more likely because that is what model and paleoclimate studies of sensitivity invariably show. But it's perfectly fine for scientists to challenge this with new ideas. If they can convince countless scientists that their idea is right then I would inevitably change my mind too. Spencer and Christy fit this role. All I am saying is that bashing Spencer and Christy is baseless and resembles the typical scientist-bashing behavior seen at WUWT imo.
  31. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Pielke says, "his metric (the OHC) is accepted by most climate scientists (including Jim Hansen) as a robust measure of global warming." No-one here is necessarily disagreeing with that Roger, you are arguing strawmen again-- the real problems are measuring OHC it properly and over a sufficiently long period and depth, not to mention merging the XBT and Argo data. Also, it should not be viewed in isolation or panacea of data observations at this time, especially given the caveats and know issues with the Argo data. I also recommend reading DrTom's post @150. Dr. Pielke, maybe you could influence/lobby some policy makers to get DSCOVR launched?
  32. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Dana1981, More contradictions can be found here (and in some of the in-line links): http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/03/contradictions.html
  33. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Dana1981, I have read your post again carefully, and the examples from WUWT that you cite are under the label of 'flip-flopping', not contradiction. I concur with you labeling them as that. DOn;t be intimidated by the uncritical WUWT followers-- you have a solid case, that is very easily supported by even a cursory perusal of WUWT. What they also do not point out at WUWT is that many of these factors are oscillations (PDO, ENSO, AMO, solar cycle etc.) and while some of them can certainly modulate global temperatures on a short to intermediate term, they are now essentially noise superimposed on a long-term warming trend arising from enhanced GHG forcing. Those internal climate modes cannot alone explain the marked warming that the globe has seen, nor can they explain the planetary energy imbalance. The hypothesis at WUWT and by most skeptics is to throw out a myriad of (often weak) hypotheses and see what sticks. While all of WUWT's arguments may not be contradictory, there are certainly many logical fallacies, contradictions and flip flopping going on. I find it laughable that Mosher claims Anthony believes that some kind of hitherto undiscovered "Svensmark effect" exists that will counter the increasing radiative forcing of higher GHGs. What is remarkable about that statement is that if the stated effect is/was indeed so important/critical, why is it not detectable or not manifested itself in the data? Sounds more like wishful thinking than science to me. Anthony certainly has a lot of unscientific posts in the "you name it category" I would like to know what the connections are, if any, between WUWT and FoS. Maybe Steven Mosher can help in that regard?
  34. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Eric: "The also have and will easily override CO2 warming and may make it moot at some point in the future." That is opinion (one that is biased against AGW theory) and not fact. You failed to address the point that there has been no increase in GCR or neutron count. Ergo, this cannot be the cause for the current increase in temperature. Most of your argument is simply an attempt at obfuscating the issue. It is not too different from Baz's "we simply don't know," i.e. an argument against the possibility of knowing due to the complexity of the system. This misses the point, however, that we *do* know an increasing amount of energy is being redirected downwards by AGG in the atmosphere, as shown by satellite and ground-based observations. Learning more and making more precise analysis is a good thing, and in that sense you are contributing to the debate. However, to claim that AGW isn't happening because we don't know the workings of all the minute details is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. It's like ingesting a toxin and claiming that you may not die because we don't understand all the inner workings of the body's immune response...
  35. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    The reason the troposphere is not warmoing as quickley as the rest of the atmosphere is because it contains the methane gas layer within it. gas distribute in opur atmosphere according to weight. methane lies right next to water vapor and is at the required prssure to get its leg on with oits ability to take up heat into its moleclues in order to form its hydrate in the sky. this hydrate formation is what causes lightening they discovered in 2007. During hydrate formation of ice crystals or hail if the moisture in the clouds(water vapor) is great enough, it grabs all the positive ions and this creats electricity. All our DOE money should be going to devlop this source of power . . .water and methane and pressure and in te interim tidal power to replace fossil fuel until it can be im[plmented. That's the plan and the only plab that can save us.
  36. Philippe Chantreau at 02:18 AM on 13 September 2010
    A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    No Robert, please don't. That's the kind of garbage spewing all over from sites like WUWT or CA, we don't need that here. Everybody should refrain from implying or suggesting anyting. I've been guilty of it in the past myself and I'm not proud of it, it should not be welcome on this site. This posts does a decent job of presenting some facts, let's leave it at that. Each can have his/her own opinion as to what the deeper significance is, keep it to yourself until you have something really solid to substantiate. What's more interesting, IMO, is that it provides an instance of models vs data in which the models were right. That is one characteristic of models based on physics. When data don't agree, it is ground for looking more closely at both, but well established physical models must not be considered worthless only because on set of data comes along that happens to disagree with model expectations.
  37. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    I'm not going to make any accusations pertaining to the reasoning behind the error not being discovered... but I have to say that I bet mears et al. off the record had some very interesting things to say...
  38. actually thoughtful at 01:59 AM on 13 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz @77 - if you are used to posting/reading at WUWT you might think "We just DON'T know" is a valid statement. However, this site is dedicated to an honest scientific debate, and very knowledgeable people post and comment here regularly. And of course the key - all posts here refer back to the peer-reviewed science that is the gold standard for scientific knowledge. Statements like "We just DON'T know" may be valid for you and your pet mouse. But not for the poster/comment writers on this site. So please, ask a question or two about what YOU don't know and follow through on the reading you are directed to. You too can KNOW what is happening to our physical world, and why (and know where there is some uncertainty too - no where near as much as the ideological propaganda coming out of sites like WUWT would have you believe, but some around the edges - thus the need for more research).
  39. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Who are the world's leading experts on ocean dynamics? Have any of them reviewed Dr. Pielke's assumptions about the distribution of heat within the total ocean system?
  40. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    Their first report, with the rubric ”Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites”, was published in Science in March 1990, and showed a rather high level of self-confidence. Here are some interesting quotes: ”Our data suggest that high-precision atmospheric temperature monitoring is possible from satelite microwave radiometers. Because of their demonstrated stability and the global coverage they provide, these radiometers should be made the standard for the monitoring of global atmospheric temperature anomalies since 1979.” ”Various computerized climate models, which predict future changes through time-dependent equations representing physical processes, can now be evaluated with accurate global temperature measurements.” ”These improvements should facilitate more informed policy decisions concerning the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas production.”
  41. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus@58 Try here as well: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/deutsche-climate-threat/
  42. Roger A Pielke Sr at 01:21 AM on 13 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    actually thoughtfull - The new information this Fall, so I have been told, is an updated best estimate of ocean heat content changes by specialists working in this research area, presented as close to the present as possible. This metric (the OHC) is accepted by most climate scientists (including Jim Hansen) as a robust measure of global warming.
  43. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    A man walks 10 miles on day 1. He walks 20 miles on day 2 and stays in place on day 3. His average movement was 10 miles per day, but it is not WRONG to say he isn't moving on day 3. Climate is a complex chaotic system which is very difficult to measure. Even if there is a long term average warming due to CO2 emissions it is perfectly reasonable that timelags and the nonlinear natures of the feedbacks and forcings can cause short term cooling or cessation. Global warming as measured by atmospheric temperature is a relatively small signal in a complex noisy and chaotic system. Atmospheric measurements of temperature are indirect measurements of global warming and require complex modelling and tremendous effort to determine. We can only see the global warming signature as an average over a long time period. Dr. Pielke is simply pointing out that warming is a measure of net heat into the system and that an accurate measure of heat can directly measure global warming on a much shorter time scale. You can argue as to whether the ocean data is sufficient or accurate enough (just as the skeptics due about the atmospheric data) to draw conclusions which are robust without casting aspersions on Dr.Pielke's integrity. Dr. Pielke's statement that according to the data he was analysing, a 4 year period of time shows NO warming of the globe is a scientific statement based on a reasonable assessment of the scientific data being analysed. I believe that a scientific paper is generally written with the assumption that the reader has knowledge of basic concepts and terminology. Dr. Pielke is really being e castigated for saying that global warming stopped for 4 years when he should have said (for the sake of those with limited english profficiency) that the globe did not warm during those 4 years.
  44. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    181. Ken Lambert: For everyone’s convenience, I am repeating my post of Badgersouth 153. 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? My first question was specific to the specific data “reckoned” by Dr. Trenberth. Let me rephrase the question to remove any ambiguities. What is the source document for Dr. Trenberth’s “reckonings? Has this document been peer reviewed?
  45. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus (#66), on your first point, no linear trend in neutron counts, the effect of neutron counts on clouds is highly nonlinear, see my first link in #63. You also claim "delta T is linear" while neutron counts are cyclical. Delta T is not linear thanks to many natural internal and external factors, but the lack of cycles in delta T is a valid point. More on that later. On your second point, the highly nonlinear relationship between clouds and neutron count along with other nonlinear relationships between clouds and other natural factors particularly ocean current cycles will eliminate the possibility of a linear change in clouds. Your third point, the "net effect" of clouds is zero, is a red herring. In my second link in #63, the effect of clouds varies mainly according to what's underneath them. What you didn't address is the lowering of water vapor by GCR-induced clouds. Global average water vapor depends mainly on sea surface temperature and the annual cycle. Local water vapor is diurnal and there are many local factors. Here's one paper on water vapor: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281996%29009%3C0427%3AIVOUTW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 In it the 1983, 1987 and 1992 El Nino peaks show up clearly. The 1987 peak is suppressed even though the El Nino was strong than in 1992. A plausible reason for that is the uptake of excess water vapor by GCR nuclei in 1987. There could be other reasons for the difference as well. The sea surface temperature dominates and the neutron count effect, being nonlinear, will only show up at some latitudes under some conditions. The rest of the time and space, the cloud effect from GCR might not have much affect. Other effects come from UV (various including ozone) and other magnetic effects other than GCR. Although complex it is not useful to say since there is no linear trend in the past we have to ignore them or consider them to be random fluctuations. The reason is that since they influence weather nonlinearly they influence sensitivity to CO2 and will do so differently as CO2 warming increases. The also have and will easily override CO2 warming and may make it moot at some point in the future.
  46. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (76)
    "My 'problem' is that we don't know if the positive feedbacks will overcome the negative ones. We DON'T know!" Where to begin... IF positive feedbacks were overcoming negative ones, then we would expect to see indicators of a warming world, right? And we would then expect to see a warming signal in the data, right? We would also like to see a physical response by millennial repositories of ice located around the world, right? Like these, maybe: Glacier visual evidence 1 Glacier visual evidence 2 Glacier visual evidence 3 This becomes tedious. Much further evidence regarding yearly multi-gigatonnal mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet, The West Antarctica Ice Sheet and even the East Antarctica Ice Sheet exists elsewhere on this site alone. Multiple examples exist that demonstrate that the warming forcings have been, and continue to this day, exceeding the negatives by quite a bit. There is no "If" or "We DON'T know!" So to pretend that "We DON'T know!" becomes a specious argument refuted by simply opening one's eyes and looking at the totality of the available evidence. I have a higher opinion of you than that, based on reading some of your comments. Perhaps I missed some emoticon thingy (Poe's Law). If so, deepest apologies. The Yooper
  47. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    argh, "first sentence should read "this calculations only takes into account ..."
  48. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    Ken Lambert #47 this calculations only takes not account the impact on incoming short wavelengths. As far as energy balance is concerned, the net effects is what matters.
  49. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    John Christy and Roy Spencer have been quite vocal on the web with theories and never-proven affirmations which really cast a big shadow of doubt on their scientific intentions - their mistake described above has fueled the denier movement for like over 10 years and they are now promoting (on the web) equally strange theories, so I would also recommend this post - Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?
  50. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    andreas #42, ClimateWatcher #44 andreas - not a silly question at all. The Earth's warming imbalance from a combination of AG CO2GHG warming and cloud and direct albedo cooling is supposed to be +0.9W/sq.m. Your calculation of a 1% change in albedo (say 30 to 31%) makes a difference of 1366/4 x (0.70 -0.69) = 3.4W/sq.m. - much greater than the purported CO2GHG forcing of 1.66W/sq.m (IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4). What this does to GCM's which are cycled forward to predict in 2050 or 2100 is a very good question.

Prev  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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