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  2249  2250  2251  2252  2253  2254  2255  2256  2257  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  Next

Comments 112801 to 112850:

  1. Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Solomon: It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another." I doubt if you will find many here who would disagree with that but, unfortunately, most so-called skeptics use such 'over-interpretations' as a basis for their beliefs. By the way, could you post a link to that quote from Solomon ? Also, that paper has been discussed on this site before (here, where you only made the briefest of interventions), and the pertinent statement about it is this : The paper doesn't draw any conclusions regarding cause, stating that it's not clear whether the water vapor changes are caused by a climate feedback or decadal variability (eg - linked to El Nino Southern Oscillation). The radiative forcing changes (Figure 3 above) indicate that the overall effect from stratospheric water vapor is that of warming. The cooling period consists of a stepwise drop around 2000 followed by a resumption of the warming effect. This seems to speak against the possibility of a negative feedback.
  2. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:28 PM on 16 August 2010
    Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
    Solomon: It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.
  3. Eric (skeptic) at 22:27 PM on 16 August 2010
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    In post 61, sailrick projects temperatures based on 2 or 3 times warming feedback of water vapor on top of the increase from CO2 (sensitivity). Sailrick claims a 30 year delay of temperature rise to CO2 increases. Did the oceans expand enough over 30 years to show that kind of heat storage? Finally sailrick acknowledges that extremes are increasing. But that means that the negative feedback is already kicking in (even before it should). Catastrophic warming from water vapor feedback (multiples of 2 or 3) only works if the water vapor is evenly distributed, not concentrated so as to produce record rains.
  4. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:20 PM on 16 August 2010
    Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
    "w tym kontekście" - "in this context", of course, sorry
  5. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:17 PM on 16 August 2010
    Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
    “... like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.” “The slope of NCDC (NOAA) for the past 13 years indicates a warming of a mere 0.08°C although the graph ends during the ongoing El Nino.” I recommend of this very interesting analysis. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming: “However, the trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly FLAT since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, halocarbons, and N2O), raising questions regarding the understanding of forced climate change, its drivers, the parameters that define natural internal variability, and how fully these terms are represented in climate models.” “the decline in stratospheric water vapor after 2000 should be expected to have significantly contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend in the past decade, and stratospheric water increases may also have acted to steepen the observed warming trend in the 1990s.” That, however, even if the warming is still present, this is it: "Flattening" ... because “stratospheric water vapor ...” ... but on the “stratospheric water vapor” we have no influence. Here you have the greatest impact Quasi Biennial Oscillation. Because the QBO affects [short wave radiation] ozone - steam - high clouds. In this way (short wave radiation), we “arrive” at: “Oceans for instance -- because of their heat-storage abilities ...” from Victor de Vries comment - on this website - The role of the Sun “Another point is that shortwave radiation penetrates deeper in the ocean as longwave radiation does (this effect gives the typical blue light in deep waters).” “The oceans absorb most solar energy in the tropics. The small zenit-angle results not only in a high net radiation but also in a deeper penetration of UV-light, and the ozone layer is thinner around the equator.” Very interesting (w tym kontekście) is the change in temperature in the tropics:
  6. It's the ocean
    Seemingly some more explanation is necessary. It is obvious that atmospheric infrared radiation hits the oceans. But if and to which extend that results in a warming of the ocean is a completely different question. For example it is quite obvious that one of the results will be an increase of evaporation which can result in a net cooling. Then there is the question of penetration i. e. how far can infrared radiation penetrate the water to warm it. As some reports claim a warming of the oceans down to 700 meters this quite clearly can hardly be explained by exposure of the surface to increased infrared radiation. Anyway I see the main weakness of this theory in the missing attempt to rule out alternative causes. Tom Dayton: Your experiment needs some more elaboration. 1. How to make sure that the only source of heat comes from the atmosphere above as I doubt that a glass provides enough insulation for that. 2. How to sip some of that beer (assuming that to be an adequate measurement method) without inducing currents within the liquid which will scramble up and disturb the current heat distribution.
  7. Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
    Tony Abbott stated tonite 16/8/2010 on ABC Four Corners that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that there was an equal scientific arguement that co2 from humans was not responsible for the warming thats not happening. I think it has moved passed stopping or even slowing GW onto working out how to deal with it . this site has evolved into prob the best site for info on this subject THANK YOU !! to John and ALL who help him .
  8. Berényi Péter at 21:33 PM on 16 August 2010
    Of satellites and temperatures
    #19 doug_bostrom at 09:31 AM on 14 August, 2010 sounds like a literature search is in order Yes. And guess what I have found. Atmósfera 23(3), 225-239 (2010) A neural network approach for temperature retrieval from AMSU-A measurements onboard NOAA-15 and NOAA-16 satellites and a case study during Gonu cyclone A. K. MITRA, P. K. KUNDU, A. K. SHARMA & S. K. ROY BHOWMIK Received August 15, 2008; accepted March 11, 2010 There is a nice description of the usual procedure used to recover temperatures from channel data, in this case the workings and input data used by IAPP (International ATOVS (Advanced TIROS (Television Infrared Observation Satellite) Operational Vertical Sounder) Processing Package) under 2.1 (Temperature Profile Retrievals Approaches - IAPP). You should read it. It's pretty much what I've said above (in #18). Three points should be stressed.
    1. On top of the 53.7 GHz channel a lot of additional data are needed to recover lower tropospheric temperatures
    2. RMS (Root Mean Square) error of lower tropospheric satellite temperatures recovered this way is 4-5°C relative to in situ measurements
    3. A NN (Neural Network) approach is an improvement over model calculations based on RTE (Radiative Transfer Equation)
    The situation is worse than I've thought for I happen to know a thing or two about Neural Networks (I've had the luck to work with them). The first thing to mention is that NNs has not much to do with actual networks of neurons in the brain*. It is a computational technique inspired by the ideas of the late Donald Olding Hebb, published in his famous book The Organization of Behavior, 1949 (although Warren S. McCulloch and Walter Pitts reached similar, but more exact results as early as 1943 with networks of formal neurons of a kind). Neurophysiology has made some advance since then, therefore a sharp distinctions should be drawn between the concepts of ANN (Artificial Neural Network) and BNN (Biological Neural Network). The work of these distinguished scientists is based on the former one, that is, ANN computations of a special kind. It is basically just another way of multi parameter curve fitting. It is not science per se, but a clever last resort engineering solution in cases when one does not have a clue what to do (like decoding handwritten text or speech). The scary part is it gives better results than models based on sound atmospheric and radiation physics (still not good enough though, RMS error being 3°C). It shows beyond doubt that satellite temperature measurements are not measurements of temperature at all in the traditional sense of the word, just some (remote) proxy to it and that some essential ingredient is still missing from climate science. I'd reckon it's the role water plays. Its atmospheric distribution is highly irregular, based on images like the one below it can even be presumed to be fractal-like in nature. Calculating averages over fractals can be tricky (depends on model resolution). Some more reading: Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics Vol. 35, August 2006, pp. 286-292 Study of temperature and moisture profiles retrieved from microwave and hyperspectral infrared sounder data over Indian regions Devendra Singh & R C Bhatia Received 27 July 2005; revised 10 March 2006; accepted 4 April 2006 ------------------- *It is absolutely off-topic here, but shows a possibility (among many) how far off ANN may be from BNN. Some might enjoy it, anyway. The case that mammalian intelligence is based on sub-molecular memory coding and fibre-optic capabilities of myelinated nerve axons By R. R. Traill Originally Published (1988) in Speculations in Science and Technology, 11(3), 173-181. Republished online (June 2009) by Ondwelle Publications, Melbourne — and by Gen.Sci.J. — with permission from Springer Verlag
  9. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Doug Bostrom posted national records beaten during this year on another thread, and has made a reference to them also on this thread. I have a reflection concerning national records. The source for those data is Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog. The following claim is made in the blog: "These nations comprise 19% of the total land area of Earth. This is the largest area of Earth's surface to experience all-time record high temperatures in any single year in the historical record." The first quoted statement is right; the second is at best dubious. Is one national record really comparable to another? Is it correct to add areas of nations? Russia is the world's largest country. It now has a new national heat record. So far, so good. Cyprus (and also the minuscule nation of Ascension Island) also hit a new national heat record this year. Now, if you would divide Russia up into pieces as small as Cyprus, you would find that not all of these almost 2000 pieces have set new records. Maybe 10%, maybe more, but certainly not the total area of Russia. However, the whole area of Russia is counted in as part of the 19%. On the other hand, USA is also a large nation. No national (or state) heat record was set (so far) in 2010, so 0% of USA is counted. But some U.S. states are much larger than Cyprus. Maybe, if you divided up for instance Alaska or Texas into smaller pieces (like Cyprus), you would find a new local record somewhere? That would add to the total land area percentage figure. In short, to claim that a certain percentage of the total land area of Earth has experienced all-time record high temperatures, you would have to divide the total area into reasonably small parts (probably much smaller than Cyprus but bigger than Ascension Island's 88 km2). Then you would have to investigate the temperature history of each one. Nations are in this respect in most cases too big units (or in a few cases even too small), to form a valid base for a statement like the one quoted at the top.
  10. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Uh, oh - looks like the House of Lords are the next to be threatened with a Monckton writ : Comment on WUWT, which starts off : "I’m intrigued that so many of the bed-wetters, hand-wringers, and wolf-criers who populate the Church of Canutism are so mesmerized by my status as a member (albeit non-sitting and non-voting) of the House of Lords. For these, here is a copy of a letter I sent earlier this week to the Clerk of the Parliaments:"
  11. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I don't know if Bob Carter would be high on my list of good sources of climate information. "Climate scientists continue to respond to badly flawed, politically driven, papers by those who deny the strong evidence for humans affecting climate in ways that portend major future disruptions". "Such papers have confused the public debate, but increasingly scientists are stepping up to provide strong refutations. Last year, John McLean, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter, published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research using a mathematical procedure that eliminates long term trends to claim that there is no long term trend in global temperatures." http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/too-bad-to-be-believed.html "How Low can you Go?" April 3, 2010 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/how-low-can-you-go/ McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter that is not clearly shown in this graph and only discovered through analysis of the original data is that the mean values of the weather balloon and satellite data during their period of overlap differ by nearly 0.2°C. Splicing them together introduces an artificial 0.2°C temperature drop at the boundary between the two. In other words, they "hide the incline". http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=171 and http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiot-of-week-bob-carter-data- pervert.html
  12. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Mizimi @ 15 "If that trend continues in a linear fashion, then by 2108 the GMT will be 15.8C assuming all other things remain equal. Not impressed" Why not? Thats well within projections of climate scientists. If the global mean temp is now 14C, and we have already increased temp by 1C in industrial times, and you add your 1.8C difference to that, you get 2.8C change since the industrial revolution. In addition, you are assuming constant rate of CO2 emissions. Without mitigation efforts, CO2 emissions will increase over the coming decades. Current projections for global temp rise average about 3C and within a range of 2-5C . The lower end are conservative estimates. We will likely see 2C even with mitigation efforts. These projections do not take into account any amplification from releasing of methane from melting Tundra or the seabed. We are now experiencing the warming and climate change from emissions of 30 years ago. You haven't seen the effects of our current emissions yet. 2.8C change in GMT will bring catastrophic climate change. At 1C change, the glaciers, ice caps and sea ice are already melting, seasons and weather have changed and extreme weather is increasingly frequent, to name just a few observable signs of global warming that is already upon us. 1000 year heat wave in Russia is a sign of how the climate is changing. No you can't attribute any weather event to climate change, but these extremes are more frequent. The last decade had twice as many record highs as record low temperatures. The record high to record low ratio has been increasing for three decades in a row.
  13. Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
    If the prospect of influencing climate by geoengineering CO2 out of the atmosphere is bleak, so must be the strategy of just reducing our industrial emissions. This seems to me to be a vindication of the need for geoengineering to reduce the damage which is already in the pipeline. No strategy is perfect, however the seeding of stratocumulus or cirrus in conjunction with GHG reductions might provide a reversible, solution if anything went badly wrong, unlike pumping SO2 into the stratosphere. Seeding clouds in conjunction with improved climate models might provide some spatial control as well. I am surprised no-one has looked into the possibility of removing methane and tropospheric ozone by geoengineering as well, since reducing these gases might help to achieve the reduced forcings necessary.
  14. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    "Of satellites and temperatures Guest post by Ned There are a variety of rumors floating around the "skeptic" blogosphere involving claimed problems with satellite temperature measurements. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion on this point." http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=307 "Global Warming has stopped" video good clear debunking of this meme http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/07/global-warming-has-stopped.html Global cooling -"3 levels of cherry picking in a single argument" http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=270
  15. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Phil Jones NEVER said that there had been no warming since 1995; He only said that 15 years was too short a time span to have 95% statistical certainty for the warming trendline. It was actually 92%+ statistically significant. If you ask the same question, starting with 1994 instead of 1995, you get 95% statistical certainty. And that number is more or less arbitrary as a benchmark, anyway.
  16. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    304 is the number of consecutive months we have now had with temperatures greater than the mean for the 20th Century. Thats every month in the last 25 years. Every single year from 2001 onwards has been warmer than every year prior to 1998. According to the NOAA, May 2010 was the hottest May on record. Also: June was the hottest on record July was the hottest on record new records this year for: The warmest March and the warmest April The warmest January to April period The warmest January to May period The warmest March to May period The warmest Jan through June period Warmest 13 month.......................... . The NSIDC gives us the latest Arctic sea ice maximum on record (March), and The rate of Arctic sea ice decline through the month of May was the fastest in the satellite record. 2005 had (by far) the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record at the time. It is now the 4th lowest (and likely to become 5th this year) 1997 was (at the time) the warmest year on record. It is now 12th. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/303/
  17. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I think John Cook and Peter Sinclair's contribution to communicating climate science to the educated layman has been indispensable. However, there comes a point of diminishing returns where the best mode of communication to the remainder of the public might not be an entirely rational one. Politicians have realised since time immemorial that mindless rhetoric and appeals to the core values and fears of the people are far more effective than hard facts. Deniers understand this better than the 'good guys' and it may be necessary to take the gloves off to reach the multitude of people. So perhaps the best way to communicate with these people is not by explaining climate change in technical terms, but to emphasise the effect of climate of migration patterns, the increased chance of their beach residence being flooded by increased storm intensity and to emphasise our need for energy security with the onset of peak oil.
  18. Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
    For a simple method, easily verifiable by lay people, just average each 5 years or decade for the last few. Using Hadley data (a few months old since I haven't updated the values I keep in Excel) the results for the last few decades are: (anomalies in degrees Celsius) 1970 – 1979 = -0.0772 1980 – 1989 = 0.0843 1990 – 1999 = 0.2307 2000 – 2009 = 0.4041 For 5-year averages: 1980 - 1984 = 0.0596 1985 - 1989 = 0.0856 1990 - 1994 = 0.1544 1995 - 1999 = 0.3070 2000 - 2004 = 0.3968 2005 - 2009 = 0.4114 Calculated using annual values. I don't know how valid the method is, but there has been no global cooling or flat-lining since 1998 using this simple calculation.
  19. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    A couple of meteorologists in the commercial weather forecasting domain look at weather statistics for this year: Wunderground's Rob Carver Weather Channel's Stu Ostrow Ostrow makes some interesting remarks on the nature of our reliance on expertise.
  20. Newcomers, Start Here
    But what about marmots??
  21. Newcomers, Start Here
    This discussion on elephants, zebras and wolves is part of the reason why I generally avoid the use of metaphors in trying to explain scientific concepts. I know metaphors are a valid and powerful communication tool but on blog discussion threads, they go pear shaped so quickly and before you know it, we're not discussing the original issue at all.
  22. Newcomers, Start Here
    Leaving aside the fascinating discussion of domestication, the reason we think climate isn't like an elephant with a thick hide that will run off and do its own thing, is because climate is a physical phenomena, subject to the laws of physics. Applying those laws to describe climatic phenomena (including weather) works remarkably well. (eg the links in here
  23. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    That's interesting, GC. Some time ago I read that a number of defunct submarine coaxial cables were being volunteered by owners for use w/a seismometer network and some other data collection tasks. One was to be attached (if I remember correctly) to a Japanese instrument platform to be powered by a saltwater battery. Regarding subsurface factories, reminds me of the old Pete Seeger tune.
  24. Plain English climate science - now live at Skeptical Science
    Thanks for everything you're doing. A thought: it seems to me just from reading ads that big business has come around to accepting the reality of global warming. Has anyone done a survey of the stated policy positions of major corporations as they pertain to GW and AGW? (and what they suggest as solutions?).
  25. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    bats #88, Sorry for any confusion. My seismology reference was from personal experience with earthquake research. Predicting specifics from generalities is daunting in any field. I wasn't suggesting that you were denying consensus; that was a mild attempt at humor. Read any denialist site, they seem to find consensus threatening.
  26. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    @doug, Thank you. Secondly, I dont know what WUWT refers to and from your description I dont think I would be particular interested in finding out either.
  27. gallopingcamel at 12:59 PM on 16 August 2010
    Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    doug_bostrom, I seldom post on WUWT but recently they had a thread on using submarine cables for making scientific measurements. I could not resist adding a little bit of history relating to the river Thames and a 29 acre factory located several meters below the high water mark along its tidal reaches: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/old-telco-cables-wanted-for-climate-research/#comment-457360
  28. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    @muoncounter I can not tell weather or not youmisunderstood, what I wrote. If you understand what happens when a trend is superimpose to a cyclic signal then I don't understand the point with rephrasing what I wrote and pointing out things to me I already understand. Your reference to figure 2 doesn't make sense to me as I don't understand what it is you are trying to clarify to me. I am wondering about the explanation for the anomaly last winter and its relation to the explanation of the anomaly this summer. This is the anomaly for this summer (fig. 1 OP): And this is the anomaly for last winter: I find it interesting to notice that the anomalies have a similar pattern in both pictures. Is it then to much to ask if there exists a causal relation between these two pictures/pattern? And if it happens to be so why are they then attributed to different causes? Anyway, then you continue with comparing climate science with seismologists and earthquakes, and at this point I am completely lost in what your comment wants to clarify to me. Finally you end your first post at me with a comment that suggest that I would deny "scientific consensus". Whatever you mean with this would you like to point at what I wrote that made you think so? In your second comment you mention that you think La Nina is a distraction from "the big picture", but if that was the reason, why didnt you say so in the first place then?
  29. gallopingcamel at 12:40 PM on 16 August 2010
    Why I care about climate change
    doug_bostrom, We appear to have strayed into another topic. Let me sign off this thread (picking my words very carefully to avoid needlessly offending anyone). John Cook is to be commended for running a really classy blog; it must involve a great deal of hard work for very little material reward. It is clear that he is doing it because (from his perspective) it is a worthwhile cause.
  30. Newcomers, Start Here
    Thingadonta, Elephants are a perfect example of an animal that has never been domesticated. Asian elephants are trapped in the wild and broken to domestic use. Very few elephant calves are produced in captivity. Even now elephants kill more zookeepers in the USA than any other animal. Perhaps if you read Guns, germs and steel again you will notice that Dr. Diamond points this out. "Skeptics" alter the facts to suit their argument.
  31. Newcomers, Start Here
    Bringing this back somewhat on topic ... Note, though, that improved data hasn't led wolf researchers to conclude that wolf packs simply don't exist. The climate science analog would be Anthony Wolfie claiming that wolf packs don't exist, because insufficient data led to some erroneous deductions regarding the precise nature of social interactions within wolf packs ... And your 90%/10% rule would lead one to claim greater significance for the social interactions of the 10% of wolves living in zoos rather than the 90% living in the wild in packs, as being more explanatory of a pack's social structure ...
  32. Newcomers, Start Here
    You have quote mined rare instances of pompous Bureacrats riding around with Zebras from Wikipaedia, some of which later failed.
    Naw, there's just not much motivation to break zebras for riding or hauling, obviously it's easily done. You claimed it COULD NOT BE DONE, which is obviously false.
    Animals such as dogs have a strong social hierarchy
    As do zebras, two of three species of which have exactly the same harem social structure as do horses, which is exactly opposite of what you claimed. Actually, though, the "strong social hierarchy" you claim is actually quite weak in feral dog populations, and with modern DNA testing and satellite telemetry the "alpha male/alpha female" hypothesis for the social structure of wolf packs has broken down (look up David Mech). That hypothesis came from the study of wolves in captivity, typically not related to each other. Wolf packs in the wild are typically family groups, with the traditional "alpha male/alpha female" notion being replaced in modern thinking with "mommy and daddy tell us what to do", until the kids become about two or three years old, break off on their own, meet a suitable mate, and start their own pack. This helps explain why reintroduced populations in the western US have spread so rapidly, as the kids wander off looking for a suitable unoccupied territory. Much more flexible than the older notion that when alpha male dies, subordinate males fight for superiority (as is the case for harem animals like deer, elk, horses, zebras, etc). Modern telemetry has made it possible to study packs in the wild for lengthy periods of time and that kind of competition for "alpha male/female" is non-existent, or mostly non-existent, in wild packs. In zoos, of course, wolves need to sort out the hierarchy because they're tossed randomly together, like a bunch of human criminals in prison (where you see similar behavior which is totally unrelated to how normal human families or kin-based bands work). Anyway, argue against science all you want, scientists don't listen to you.
  33. Newcomers, Start Here
    #12Dhogza: If you read Guns Germs and Steel you will find that most animals can't be domesticated. <50% of those canditates avaiable for domestication are unsuitable for one reason or another, including the Zebra. You have quote mined rare instances of pompous Bureacrats riding around with Zebras from Wikipaedia, some of which later failed. Animals such as dogs have a strong social hierarchy. This can be substituted by authority from humans. Animals which do not have this heirarchy generally cant be domesticated. This is not in dispute. Elephants respong to authority, but some other animals do not. Some people think all anmals can be domesticated, (just like the Earth's climate). Jared Diamond lists the animals in his book Guns Germs and Steel which are unable to be domesticated for various reasons, despite the attmepts by pompous bureaucrats to parade through the streets with a zebra.
  34. Newcomers, Start Here
    This article makes a philosophical mistake which, if allowed to remain, will severely impair the obvious intent of getting people to understand the difference between real scientific skepticism and the outrageously false version of 'skepticism' that the so-called "climate skeptics" practice. That mistake is: asserting that "Genuine skepticism means you don't take someone's word for it but investigate for yourself." NOBODY has the time to do this. Not even professional scientists. Even they have to carefully "pick and choose" whether and where they will be skeptical. This is why I have always advocated a rather different distinction: 'irrational' vs. 'rational' skepticism. When you pick and choose well, that is rational skepticism. When you pick and choose based on the conclusion you WANT to be true instead, that is quite irrational. An example of the difference would be: it is irrational skepticism to claim that Newtonian mechanics is more accurate then Einstein's Special Relativity, rational to claim that his General Relativity might yet prove not the best theory to explain gravitation. In the climate context, it is irrational skepticism to doubt the figures and measurements showing average surface temperature climbing along w/ CO2, rational skepticism to doubt that we know by how much it will climb. Similarly, it is irrational skepticism to hold out the hope that water vapor feedback will prove to be negative when we most need it to be so (thus limiting the rise in temperature), or that biological systems will adapt to the rising CO2 by radically increasing the rate at which they absorb carbon out of the atmosphere, using these unlikelihoods as grounds for doubting the predictions of harsher living conditions for all because of global warming (aka climate change).
  35. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Bat, not picking on you, the "media" thing has been mentioned a couple of times here. My general point is, the farther we go from the original source of information, the more ambiguity and even error is introduced. There are a number of hyperventilating media treatments of this year's weather available, best ignored. WUWT's own presentation is another kind of emotional response, for that matter. Sure, we might get a few quotes in a newspaper treatment, but why bother in this day and age when we can tap directly into an agency's own description, without the noise introduced by reporters and editors? It's probably fair to say I introduce my -own- slant here, but my objective in the post is centered on helping people see how short term weather fits into a statistical perspective and how it might -not- fit in an easy way when shoved by new influences. What moved me to do this post was in fact how the calm and collected people at NASA-GISS and WMO have responded to this year's weather, how the weather protrudes from statistics enough to warrant comment; it's a notable year in terms of weather statistics. What I can do to maintain some shred of objectivity is to stick w/"official" sources, publish quotes that include qualifiers such as the onset of La Nina, not select a week from July and use that as a way of imposing my own beliefs on readers.
  36. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    batsvensson, Did I misunderstand your prior comment to suggest some sort of one-sidedness in emphasizing summer heat vs. not emphasizing winter cold? My reference to Figure 2 here was simply to reiterate the longer term trend that jumps off that graph and seems to be very similar in most measures, as Ned demonstrated a week or two ago. I suppose I find the use of el Nino/la Nina to explain all anomalies in at least one part of '' to be a distraction from the big picture.
  37. Newcomers, Start Here
    #21 scaddenp hear hear Michael
  38. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    @doug_bostrom "As to "media", rather than refer to such a source instead it's of course better to go to the horse's mouth" I am a bit confused to who this refer to, but since I posted a "media" quote just above I feel targeted. If it was nor directed to me then please ignore my question below. Why do you think a climate scientists opinion (in this case the head of climate change advice at the Met Office) in this matter if published in news media is not good enough?
  39. Newcomers, Start Here
    Would another useful addition to the comments policy be a "No assertions without backing links"? Without this, discussion isnt much better than a pub political argument. By insisting on backing data (both sides), then the debate is illuminated by the collective knowledge of papers and data sources; not to mention finding for themselves where their knowledge of the world is flawed.
  40. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    michael sweet:
    In addition, Goddard counted pixels and weighted blue the same as red. A cursory scan of the data shows that the red is higher than the blue is low (note that the lowest anomaly is -3.7 while the highest is +5.8
    That's typical. He also never weights pixels at different latitudes to adjust for projection distortion.
  41. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    @skywater at 07:04 AM on 16 August, 2010 Thank you for pointing that out, I stand corrected. And according to the MET office there seams to have been no extreme records broken at all.
  42. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    @muoncounter I dont understand your comment. What is the point you are trying to make?
  43. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Dhogaza, It was of course a post from Goddard. I checked some weekly maps from NASA here and they show a lot more variation than the monthly data. It would be easy to show either more or less warming. As Doug said, it is important to have a reliable authority to explain the data. The overall pattern, of course, becomes more obvious as you average more and more data. In addition, Goddard counted pixels and weighted blue the same as red. A cursory scan of the data shows that the red is higher than the blue is low (note that the lowest anomaly is -3.7 while the highest is +5.8).
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 07:20 AM on 16 August 2010
    Newcomers, Start Here
    Pete Ridley@17 That would be why I have spent quite a lot of time recently at WUWT trying to help Ferdinand Engelbeen explain that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. There are some skeptics (such as Roy Spencer) who accept the basic physics, but argue that there are negative feedbacks that limit climate sensitivity. However, there are also plenty sich as Richard Courtney, Arthur Rorsch, Robert Essenhigh and Tom Segalstad, who can't even accept that the rise in CO2 is antropogenic, and there are plenty of "skeptics" out there who appear happy to embrace their arguments, even though they are obviously wrong to anyone with an ounce of common sense. The fact that this even needs discussion shows your representation of the skeptic camp is somewhat inacurate.
  45. Newcomers, Start Here
    Pete. Your evidence of what the "majority of skeptics think" please? I see many who try to fool themselves that the earth isn't warming. "catastrophic" is loaded political language. What the science predicts is how much climate change you will get for a given set of forcings including GHGs. "Catastrophic" requires a judgment. I mean, is it "catastrophic" if you an enhanced mortality of say 1million a year from starvation and war, but none of those are US or American citizens? The term has no place in the debate. You claim John distorts the debate in same way that skeptics do. What, cherry pick data, misrepresent the conclusions of scientific papers, put up fraudulent graphs, misrepresent physics? Show me where John does ANY of these. You cannot advance an argument by making assertions like you did in that post (and many others) without backing them up. John is scrupulous in providing sources for papers and data.
  46. Has Global Warming Stopped?
    fydijkstra at 05:48 AM on 15 August, 2010 The Akasofu reference is of course countered by a large body of peer reviewed work, and he admits he is not a climatologist. I have not seen any proposed mechanism for the “recovery from the little ice age”?, and to describe this (or other events) as “natural” without explanation or suggested “natural” causes seems disingenuous. Though there are some different views on the relative proportions of known natural and anthropogenic warming/cooling, very few scientists do not believe that there is a significant recent anthropogenic warming trend - with other effects superimposed. The current scientific mainstream view is that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the last millennium have generally fallen, that global temperatures in the past have been driven by a combination of orbital, solar and volcanic forcings, with various feedbacks operating. The industrial age has brought dramatic and accelerating increases in greenhouse gases, and also an abrupt reversal of the cooling trend. The solar and volcanic forcings still have an effect on climate, but the GHG forced component is now dominating other factors, see for example Lean 2010. The “Spencer” chart you refer to is actually from Loehle 2007, and several more comprehensive reconstructions have been done since which show that the Medieval Warm Period was most likely not as warm as currently (as you - and certainly Spencer - should surely appreciate) and which do not show obvious evidence of any periodic variations. Referring to Guiot 2010 we see that additional forcing (beyond the known natural factors) is needed to give anything close to the same NH summertime temperatures as in the “Medieval Warm Period”. Servonnat 2010 and other related papers reinforce this. Incidentally the tree ring divergence problem that Spencer refers to has been recently addressed by workers such as Buntgen 2008, Esper 2010, and others. The so called 1470 year cycle you refer to, and the modeling work ( Braun 2005) you cite, is to do with glacial period rapid NH warming/cooling cycles that have since been found to have precursor events in the Southern hemisphere and have (as far as we know) nothing to do with recent trends. The existence of any solar contribution to these glacial "cycles", or rather events, is still being debated, as for some of the events a solar explanation simply does not fit, and some of the isotopic analyses used to give proxies for the solar variations are being questioned in the light of new evidence (for example from the Voyager mission , see Webber 2010) which implies greater impact of local climate on Be10 isotope formation rather than a purely solar cause. You should also be aware that rising CO2 has also been implicated as a causal factor in at least some of these DO events, for example see Capron 2010. Given current very high or record 12 month rolling average temperature records, ongoing updated decadal trends or multidecadal trends, from independent sources, it seems unlikely that global warming has "stopped".
  47. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    #31: batsvensson at 06:58 AM on 14 August, 2010: FYI, Scotland (or the UK for that matter) did not set a new record low temperature last winter. A low of just below -20C was recorded, but it did not approach the all-time record low of -27.2C, set jointly in 1895, 1982 and 1995. I found it unusual that, despite truly remarkable synoptic conditionas at just the right time of year, the record was not even threatened, or that -20 wasn't reached more widely. Very interesting spot on the WUWT cherry picking michael, yet another example of them using selected data to push the wrong message...
  48. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    The map on WUWT is only for July 20-27, although it was posted on August 14. The map in figure 1 above is for the entire month of July. WUWT has apparently cherrypicked one week in the past six weeks of hot weather in Russia to make their claim that Russia is not hot.
    Without even looking at WUWT, I sniff the unmistakable odor of Steven Goddard ...
  49. Newcomers, Start Here
    Tut, tut John, there you go again with your misleading statements. You are way off beam with your “Climate skeptics vigorously attack any evidence for man-made global warming yet eagerly embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming”. The majority of those who are sceptical of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis do NOT reject the notion that humans case global warming. What we reject is the claim that there is convincing evidence that any such change is significant for global climates or that our continuing use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global climate change. You claim that you look at the science on this blog but do you distort it in the same way that you distort what sceptics stand for? Best regards, Pete Ridley
  50. Newcomers, Start Here
    RSVP at 18:34 PM said "Investigating for myself, I find the idea of GHG as a cause for global warming is not listed as a skeptical argument. Just as it says, "It's the Sun.", there should be an argument, 'It's greenhouse gases'. " " Therefore this site is not about being skeptical, rather it is about defining anyone who argues with AGW as being skeptical. Quite perverse." I think you have missed an important point. Mainstream science is done with skepticism as part of the process. As John said in the first paragraph- "Skeptical Science is based on the notion that science by its very nature is skeptical." Scientists are constantly questioning data and conclusions and looking for weaknesses in the science that need correcting. The peer review process is more of this. This is not what happens in climate change denial. Presidential science advisor John Holdren has spoken clearly on this subject. In his own words: "We should really call them 'deniers' rather than 'skeptics', because they are giving the venerable tradition of skepticism a bad name. As my original reference to 'the venerable tradition of skepticism' indicates, I am in fact well aware of its valuable and indeed fundamental role in the practice of science. Skeptical views, clearly stated and soundly based, tend to promote healthy re-examination of premises, additional ways to test hypotheses and theories, and refinement of explanations and arguments. And it does happen from time to time - although less often than most casual observers suppose - that views initially held only by skeptics end up overturning and replacing what had been the 'mainstream' view. Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace of the deplorable practices characterizing much of what has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat island effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to 'mass hysteria' or deliberate propagation of a 'hoax'. The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better - and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what’s wrong with them - are what I was inveighing against in the op-ed and will continue to inveigh against. The activities of these folks, whether witting in the case of the scientists or unwitting in the case of their gullible adherents, have nothing to do with respectable scientific skepticism."

Prev  2249  2250  2251  2252  2253  2254  2255  2256  2257  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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