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  2490  2491  2492  2493  2494  2495  2496  2497  2498  2499  2500  2501  2502  2503  2504  2505  Next

Comments 124851 to 124900:

  1. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    HumanityRules, Berényi Péter, I see that you're fully signed on with Watts et al and their reckless campaign of degeneration and destruction. Lacking a powerful, robust argument against the fundamental physics at play here, a scorched earth maneuver is of course their only bet. They'll burn the academy to the ground if that's what is needed to pursue their course. Inadvertently smashing individual careers and decades of well earned public trust in the benefits of science is no deterrent. The rot they're spreading will not automatically confine itself to whatever fields of inquiry they must attack. Your thought leaders may well succeed in their twisted and perverse quest, but success does not correlate well with correctness or justice, as we've seen time and again. I hope you've been very careful in thinking about the choices you're making here. There's a long future ahead of you, time for lots of regrets.
  2. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.<-i> -Albert Einstein
  3. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    You want to know what's really hilarious, Albatross? One of the primary sources of satellite temperature data is the University of Alabama, Huntsville-home of the well-known Skeptic Dr Roy Spencer. Now, if there was some collusion going on, you'd expect Spencer's data to be way out of step with GISS, RSS & other sources of temperature data (maybe showing a cooling trend over the last 30 years). Yet in fact there is virtually no discrepancy at all-so much for the conspiracy theories of the Denialist Cult. As for scientists trying to get rich. Yeah right, I've been working as a micro/molecular biologist for almost a decade, & will probably have to work until I'm in my 70's if I want to have a comfortable retirement. I doubt your average climatologist gets paid much more than me. So the idea that scientists are somehow "getting rich" off global warming fears is errant nonsense. Now skeptics like Lindzen, who charge the fossil fuel industry $2,500 a day for consulting services, are probably getting rich quick-but by fostering skepticism!
  4. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    On your updates. You say UHI is real, but don't say the same for microsite influences. And I guess the paper is refuting microsite influences. So placing thermostats over concrete has no affect? There is no need to rank stations because whatever you do to them seems to have no nett affect? The history of ranking stations by quality of station was all a waste of time? This one paper upsets what have been considered important practises for weather stations? On your second updates Watts has produced the following http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/surface_temp1.pdf Obviously prepared before the Mennes 2010 paper and based on the surfacestation.org project so I guess we now have both sides of the argument. But much of this argument is about the quality of the data set as a whole rather than individual stations.
  5. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    The same is true about the destruction of the Amazon HR. Its being destroyed *not* for the enrichment of the Brazilian people, but for the enrichment of Multinational Companies which thrive on either cheap timber or cheap, short-term pasture for cattle. The ordinary people of Brazil, meanwhile, continue to mostly live in abject squalor.
  6. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    HumanityRules, do you think for one second that those Multinational companies who thrive on the low-wage, low-tax, cheap resource environment of the Third World are in any way interested in seeing these regions benefit from any kind of economic development? No, much better to keep them poor in order to maintain profits. One way to keep them poor is to keep them dependent on very expensive, outside sources for energy & fuel, thus maintaining high levels of debt & diverting wealth *away* from raising the standard of living. The best way to ensure a better standard of living for countries like Bangladesh is not through burning more fossil fuels, but through (a) providing better education & higher paid jobs, (b) building better, more efficient infrastructure, (c) helping poor nations to generate energy using locally available materials & (d) paying these countries a more reasonable price for access to their resources. Of course this won't happen because it interferes with the ability of certain groups to MAXIMIZE PROFITS. These are often the very same groups who go around telling us that Global Warming isn't real!
  7. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Unfortunatley having read this paper I am forced to come to the dissapointing solution that if this is the best we can do then we are in trouble. Our cause is crumbling people
  8. The chaos of confusing the concepts
    Jacob, thanks for taking the time to respond to questions. Plenty for me to think about. I have a chaos book out of the uni library: "Non-linear ordinary differential equations" (Jordan & Smith), but the library also has the Strogatz book so I might do a swap.
  9. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    doug_bostrom, The complete paper trail on the 40% rainforest claim is explained here http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/corruption-of-science.html As you say you can choose to trust it or not. Just as an aside. Why shouldn't the "savannization of the Amazon" occur. In developed countries we have cut down most of our forest to provide land for wealth generation. Why shouldn't the Brazilians be allowed to do the same. Having said that the Brazilians have already protected 40% of the rain forest as wilderness, for that they should be applauded.
  10. Berényi Péter at 11:36 AM on 27 January 2010
    Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    doug, you don't need Anthony Watts to verify the Amazon thing for you. You can do it yourself, just follow the links. Looks like the peer review process was redefined indeed by IPCC. It is a serious issue, simple hand waving does not make it go away. And there is more to it. The forty percent figure in AR4 13.4.1 is almost as bad as the 80% Himalayan glacier loss in 28 years. In fact less than 10% of the rain forest is in some danger there because of logging, not "global warming". And even there not all the trees are gone, just up to 40% of them. This is the figure that made its way into AR4 in a contorted way via an unrefereed paper made up by a journalist and a lobbyist. Once again, not just due process is lacking, but truth as well.
  11. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    John, Perhaps as well as the specific sections you also include an overview or Gaia type section to include papers like this: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Rockstrom_etal_2.pdf
  12. Why does CO2 lag temperature?
    re #43 DonMorton There are two main fallacies (and some minor, but still important, ones). (a) The first is to include a graph of temperature change resulting from enhanced [CO2] that starts at zero (i.e. zero [CO2]). The earth has never experienced [CO2] levels below around 190 ppm, and obviously for a phenomenon (earth temperature) that has an (approx) linear response to logarithmic changes in [CO2], this will massively over-exentuate effects at the irrelevant low [CO2] levels that the earth has never experienced. Graphing the full range of [CO2] from zero makes the earth response to changes at the high end (e.g. doubling [CO2] from 270 to 540 ppm, say), appear insignificant. (However we can calculate these, according to empirically-defined estimates of the climate response to [CO2] as in footnote [**] in post #45 just above). (b) The second is to pretend that the earth's temperature response to raised [CO2] is instantaneous. That's just silly (does the water in a pan instantaneously come to a new high temperature immediately you turn on the heat?). So the "fits" of curves to empirical temperature measures on that odd web page must be wrong. One can only fit the data with some knowledge of the earth response times for temperature changes resulting from enhanced forcings. These aren't easy to define, but it's likely that the slow response times due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans means that 90% of the temperature response to enhanced [CO2] takes many decades at least. (c) Minor, but not less important, fallacies include the pretence that [CO2] is the only influence on earth surface temperature. It's very well established that man made aerosolic pollutants that reflect/scatter solar radiation back to space, are countering the warming effect of enhanced greenhouse gases. If one is trying to fit the earth temperature response to enhanced [CO2], one has to consider the other influences on earth temperature. (d) A generalized fallacy is the pretence that a relatively, but not that (!), complex system can be pared down to a level of over-simplicity such that all realistic relationship to the real world is lost...
  13. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    BTW, Berényi Péter's most recent post to this looks very impressive but it appears to essentially be lifted from Watts' site. Watts is engaging in hyperbole. Berényi Péter, you should perhaps not be so trusting. Even the comments thread at Watts' site pokes many holes in this latest unscandal.
  14. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Vinny, I think this is an interesting exercise. If a comparable or better database already exists then please tell...
  15. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Watts is busily burning the IPCC report at his site. I suspect this is a way of avoiding explaining to his followers why he dispatched them to waste time and passion ruining their own favorite theory, but he's got a number of reporters trained to realize they can do point 'n' click journalism from his site. Pretty nasty stuff, there. Watts and his bunch are extraordinarily eager and happy to sling mud. I hope the U.N does not allow itself to be stampeded by lazy reporters.
  16. Why does CO2 lag temperature?
    jdevlin, it comes down to the relative strength of the forcings and feedbacks. One also has to be careful with the use of the term "feedback", which in engineering terms can (but needn't!) convey a situation encompassing a self-reinforcing ramping of a system towards instability. In climate the feedbacks are perhaps more appropriately considered as "amplifications", and they tend to move the situation (earth average temperature) towards a new equilibrium state. So focussing specifically on the earth temperature -> CO2 -> temperature relationships. (a) empirical evidence supports a response of atmospheric CO2 levels to earth temperature changes, that is of the order of 13-15 ppm atmospheric [CO2] response per 1 oC of change in earth surface temperature. That can be determined from the well-characterized response of atmospheric [CO2] to earth temperature changes during glacial-interglacial cycles (see para 3 in post #42). (b) empirical evidence supports an earth surface temperature response to changes in atmospheric [CO2] equivalent to ~ 3 oC per doubling (or halving in a cooling direction) of [CO2]. This value includes all of the relatively short-term feedbacks associated with increased water vapour concentrations and earth albedo responses to melting ice [see *] below. In the long term (many hundreds or thousands of years), the earth's response to changes in [CO2] levels may be larger than this. (c) So we could consider the glacial to interglacial transition during the period 15000 to 10000 years ago. The earth temperature rose by around 5-6 oC globally, and the atmospheric [CO2] levels responded by rising from around 190 ppm (glacial) to 270 ppm (interglacial). One can calculate from a 3 oC earth surface temperature sensitivty to enhanced CO2, that the CO2 should give a "feedback" warming of ~1.5 oC [**]. (d) This is all mixed in together, since the slow release of [CO2] from the oceans during the ice age transition reinforced the warming during the entire slow transition. The ~1.5 oC from the [CO2] feedback, is mixed into the 5-6 oC of total temperature rise. (e) However if we were to seperate out (in time) the warming from the CO2 response, we might imagine the situation where we had a sudden earth temperature response of 3 oC (say) at the end of a glacial period. The atmospheric CO2 levels would rise slowly (as CO2 was "flushed" out of the oceans) and would rise from 190 ppm to around 235 ppm [15 ppm change per oC as in (a) above]. We can calculate (see [**]) that this will induce a further warming of around 1 oC, which would flush a further ~ 15 ppm of CO2 from the oceans (235-250 ppm) which would give rise to a further temperature rise of 0.3 oC, which would lead to a further 5 ppm [CO2] rise.......and so on. So you can see that this forcing/feedback response doesn't lead to a self-reinforcing "runaway" effect. It actually converges towards a new equilibrium state with both raised [CO2] and raised temperature... --------------------------------------------- [*] As the [CO2] rises the atmosphere warms, and the atmospheric water vapour concentration rises resulting in an amplification (positive feedback) of the warming. Likewise the combined [CO2]/water vapour warming of the atmosphere melts sea surface ice reducing the earth's albedo (reflectance of solar irradiance), and this additionally slightly amplifies the [CO2]/water vapour induced warming. Lumping all of these fast (water vapour)/fastish (fast ice albedo response) gives a combined climate sensitivity to raised atmospheric [CO2] of around 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric [CO2] [**]. These feedbacks can be analyzed in a similar manner as (e) above, and similarly converge to a new equilibrium temperature (rather than a "runaway" effect), such that the earth surface temperature is largely governed by the solar irradiance (largely constant), atmospheric [CO2], and ice sheet coverage, with additional influences from continental land mass arrangement and ocean/wind currents (and in the modern world, other greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants). [**] delta T = (ln([CO2]final/[CO2]start))*3/ln(2) where delta T is the change in temperature at equilibrium in going from atmospheric [CO2]start to [CO2]final (e.g. from 190 ppm in an interglacial period to 270 ppm in an interglacial): delta T = (ln(270/190))*3/0.693 = 1.52 oC
  17. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Eureka! Thank you Albatross, your comment made me find the real reason why scientists are colluding so badly: it's not for money, it's not for power, it's just because they can do almost no work, they just confirm other's results. It's a shame, you lazy scientists ... N.B. Before being quoted out of context, IT'S JUST A JOKE! ;)
  18. The chaos of confusing the concepts
    Not much chaos in Crowley et al paper. Insted, it would be appropiate as a positive impact of global warming: "(Presumably, future society could prevent this transition indefinitely with very modest adjustments to the atmospheric CO2 level.)" ;)
  19. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Re Riccardo @89 "But, to reassure your "uninformed skepticism", other groups use different processing and the differences in the final results are minor." Correct. The results obtained by the NCDC, JMA, GISS and CRU are all in very good agreement despite treating the analysis and processing of the SAT data quite differently. Then again, they are all colluding don't you know-- as are those scientists overseeing the MSU data, radiosonde data, OHC data and sea ice data and....(please read with sarc). If only I had a dollar for every case of Dunning-Kruger and AGW I come across on the web...
  20. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Jpark, Sigh, any luck with those other global temp data yet? No? Thought so. The global SAT data are robust, deal with it. I, for one, am becoming quite tired of people using the "I am open minded" or that "I am here to learn" charade, all while simultaneously trying to obfuscate and derail the discussion. The content of your posts reveals your true intentions, and it is clearly not to understand the science. Riccardo @90 hit the nail on the head. The planet has been in a net energy imbalance since the fifties and consequently the atmosphere and oceans are warming, even at a time when solar forcing is decreasing and negative forcing from antrho aerosols is on the rise. The main culprits for the observed warming psot 1950 are GHGs. This is still very early days in this experiment, yet we can already see some disturbing signs (loss of Arctic ice, loss of ice on WAIS and greenland, and even the EAIS, worlwide retreat if glaciers, more flooding events, more heat waves in certain regions like Australia etc.). Also consider that we will easily surpass doubling of CO2 levels, in part, because of the actions of people like Pielke Jnr&Snr, D'Aleo, McIntyre, Watts and their cohorts-- their goal is to confuse and delay, sadly you and others are falling for their deception. The "arguments" of these self-proclaimed 'skeptics', when held to close scientific scrutiny are shown to be nothing more than beguiling. Finally, your "skeptisism" seems to be unidirectional-- which ivalidates claims of being a true "skeptic". So how about subjecting Watts et al. to your scrutiny?
  21. The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
    Phillip64: Already handled by IPCC, which has apparently learned the danger of leaving smoldering piles of BS laying about unextinguished: "The January 24 Sunday Times ran a misleading and baseless story attacking the way the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC handled an important question concerning recent trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters. The article, entitled “UN Wrongly Linked Global Warming to Natural Disasters”, is by Jonathan Leake. The Sunday Times article gets the story wrong on two key points. The first is that it incorrectly assumes that a brief section on trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters is everything the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has to say about changes in extremes and disasters. In fact, the Fourth Assessment Report reaches many important conclusions, at many locations in the report, about the role of climate change in extreme events. The assessment addresses both observations of past changes and projections of future changes in sectors ranging from heat waves and precipitation to wildfires. Each of these is a careful assessment of the available evidence, with a thorough consideration of the confidence with which each conclusion can be drawn. The second problem with the article in the Sunday Times is its baseless attack on the section of the report on trends in economic losses from disasters. This section of the IPCC report is a balanced treatment of a complicated and important issue. It clearly makes the point that one study detected an increase in economic losses, corrected for values at risk, but that other studies have not detected such a trend. The tone is balanced, and the section contains many important qualifiers. In writing, reviewing, and editing this section, IPCC procedures were carefully followed to produce the policy-relevant assessment that is the IPCC mandate." MORE: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/statement_25_01_2010.pdf
  22. Berényi Péter at 08:25 AM on 27 January 2010
    The chaos of confusing the concepts
    It's funny. We may be on the verge of a serious glaciation, deeper than any of the recent ice ages and much more permanent. I would not like that, not even in ten thousand years. The last time most of Europe was under ice, it was damn cold and dry where I live. Biodiversity has definitely improved since then. Also, I don't think carbon dioxide would be a remedy. The albedo discontinuity at the edge of the ice sheet they are talking about is very real. Ice is white in the visible and pitch dark in IR. It is the same for the snow which is all over the place right now, making the nights chilly. I have no choice but to generate carbon dioxide by destroying some methane, otherwise the family, including the kids would get frozen. "For the best-fit run, transition to the large Eurasian ice sheet occurs shortly after the present. Our results therefore suggest that the actual climate system may have been geologically close (10^4­-10^5 yr) to the final phase of a 50-Myr evolution from bipolar warm climates to permanent bipolar glaciation. (Presumably, future society could prevent this transition indefinitely with very modest adjustments to the atmospheric CO2 level.)" Vol 456 | 13 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/nature07365 LETTERS Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability Thomas J. Crowley & William T. Hyde http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley/crowley_Nature08_iceages.pdf
    Response: I'm not sure I'd call between 10,000 to 100,000 years as being "on the verge of a serious glaciation". The forcing from orbitally forced albedo changes is quite small compared to the forcing from CO2 and operates over geological time scales as opposed to the dramatic response of climate to CO2 that happens over decades.
  23. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    jpark, it's typical that people understand only what they want to understand. I hope that your understanding of that blog post allows you to understand the its bias (Pielke only quoted himself) and some of the more evident mistakes he made. If not, i should go back to my first sentence and think that you would not understand any rebuttal of his post.
  24. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    sbarron2000, mathematically (and i'd say logically) the choice of the baseline is totally irrelevant. It's hard for me to understand your surprise that there is "a lot of geospatial averaging". Isn't a global "geospatial average" exactly what we are looking for? It is described in details because, you know, it's a scientific paper and it's customary to describe the data processing. But, to reassure your "uninformed skepticism", other groups use different processing and the differences in the final results are minor. Beyond this, Menne et al. are comparing two different datasets and the most important thing is that they use the same method for both.
  25. Why does CO2 lag temperature?
    I am impressed with the quality of the contributions to this topic but it is a struggle for a non-scientist like myself to fully grasp the complexity involved. Apologies therefore for my question from ignorance but it is this: if temperature leads CO2 AND CO2 leads temperature, what stops this being an endlessly self-reinforcing cycle?
  26. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    sbarron - I agree, looking at some of the temp charts the anomalies are so huge I cant believe they can be statistically significant. But I may be missing something. I hope I have an open mind too. But this is the skeptical skeptics site..
  27. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    I think I have found something of an answer - something I can understand at any rate.. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/roger-a-pielke-sr-comments-on-the-ncdc-talking-point-response-to-the-report-“is-the-us-surface-temperature-record-reliable”by-anthony-watts/
    Response:

    Note that the blog post you link to, dated from July last year, is not responding to Menne 2010 but a report posted on the NCDC website.

  28. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Menne 2010 says "The geographic distribution of stations that fall into the two categories is shown in Fig. 1 (note that just over 40% of the 1218 total USHCN Version 2 sites had available ratings)." A quick glance at surfacestations.org shows that they have ratings for 78% of the total 1221 USHCN stations. Why does Menne 2010 not use those other 38%? They are leaving almost half of the station data that has been collected unaccounted for in their study. And why 1218 vs 1221 total stations? Also, according to surfacestations.org, 61% of the stations have a temperature error of > or = to 2 degrees C, and 8% have a temp. error of > or = to 5 degrees C. Doesn't that put a pretty wide error band on the anomaly results, too? Can you draw meaningful conclusions from data when 69% of your stations have a minimun error of 2 degrees C? I guess if you just take averages for the anomalies, you could consider the error to be washed away for purposes of the results, but I'm not sure that's "scientifically" accurate. Is that why there are no error bands on anomaly results? I realize I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm interested, and have an open mind. ;-)
  29. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    JC: 'I would be quite happy if you were to take the time to find more papers showing contrary results to papers currently listed. I appreciate the feedback you provided on forest growth and crop disease. It's not a competition to see who gets the biggest list but an effort to portray the state of the science.' I don't think that's possible with a tabulation like this. It's not a worthwhile exercise. I provided forest-growth and crop-disease info solely to make that point. The only way that listing single studies could work would be if you could somehow provide studies that were the most representative of the current state of the science in each area of impact - and surely no single individual knows enough about the enormous literature of anthropogenic climate change to be able to do that. Crowd-sourced offerings from commenters aren't the solution, either. How can you know that we know what we're talking about? (And how can your readers?) You have said that you'll use synthesis papers (overviews, reviews) when they become available instead of single studies. That's a better approach but you'd still need to be seriously well-informed about all aspects of the literature. Recent syntheses are available for several of the slots currently occupied by single studies in your tabulation but you haven't used them. Why is that? Possibly because the field is too large even when synthesized by experts. Ideally, you need to recruit a vast international organization packed full of experts in many different fields organized into various teams to evaluate the various claims made by the enormous literature and present an honest, informed picture of the whole thing. Oh. That's been tried. And it failed to be objective. Never mind. It's the best there is. Do you honestly think your blog can do better?
  30. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    I guess we are all waiting for a riposte..til then http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/
  31. There is no consensus
    In the section "Scientific Oranisations Endorsing the Consensus", there is a broken link. I believe the link http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ (NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies) should be http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen/gwdebate/
    Response: Thanks for the link. However, upon reflection, I've removed that link - it's not so much an official statement by the GISS organisation as the opinion of James Hansen, a GISS employee. I'm not sure if NASA or GISS have published an official statement on climate change.
  32. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    I'm not a climate scientist, and I don't really care to recreate the work done by Menne. But what is the effect of all of the things he does to the temp. data before he creates his anomaly chart? From Menne 2010, at page 5... "Specifically, the unadjusted and adjusted monthly station values were converted to anomalies relative to the 1971–2000 station mean. The anomalies were then interpolated to the nodes of a 0.25° × 0.25° latitude– longitude grid using the method described by Willmott et al. [1985] -- separately for the good and poor exposure stations. Finally, the interpolated maximum and minimum temperature anomalies were grid-box area weighted into a mean anomaly for the CONUS for each year as shown in Fig. 2." What is the effect on the data when it is "interpolated to the nodes of a 0.25° × 0.25° latitude–longitude grid?" Further, the "interpolated maximum and minimum temperature anomalies were grid-box area weighted into a mean anomaly." What do these mean, and what happens to the data once you do it? I'm a layman, but I think this is a lot of geospatial averaging of the monthly anomalies and the mean anomaly which goes on prior to actually making our comparisons of temperature anomalies, right? Why was this done? What is the effect of doing it? Would the results be different if you didn't? Just skeptically thinking out loud here. ..
  33. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    Marcus at 22:02 PM on 24 January, 2010 Marcus, do you see that because the 1960's, 70's and 80's temperatures are included in the "average" temperature by which your anomaly are calculated, comparing those anomalies to the 1990's and 2000's temperature anomalies is mathematically a little misleading? The change in temperature for the 80s has already been taken into account in establishing the baseline, so it is artificially low when compared to the 90s and 00s. This is the kind of thing that makes me skeptical. Those facts as presented are misleading, whether it’s intentional or not. I won't argue that it’s not getting warmer. I think it is. But how much warmer and why are big question marks for me.
    Response: "I won't argue that it’s not getting warmer.  I think it is.  But how much warmer and why are big question marks for me."

    Note that the choice of the baseline period (eg - 1960 to 1990) has no bearing whatsoever on the temperature trend. As you say, the trend or "how much warmer" it's getting is what we're interested in when we look at temperature anomaly. And of course, you're correct that one of the most important questions is why it's getting warmer.
  34. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    Sorry. I keep finding these one at a time. The link for Smith 2006 gets a strange "cookie" error (my browser is set to accept cookies, but the site complains of an error). I believe a better link for Smith 2006 is http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html
    Response: No need to apologies, many thanks for spotting all the broken links (the pitfall of linking to external websites). I've updated all three links here as well as on the hockey stick page.
  35. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    The Huang 2000 link is also broken (gets "Access forbidden" error. I believe the correct link is http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf
  36. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    Mann 2008 link above is broken. I believe the correct link is http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
  37. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    JPark, re #71 (really, are you just here to randomly throw out red herrings?) The article by Richard Foot in the very, err, "reputable" (not) Vancouver Sun is consistent wityh other misinformation that they have published on AGW. This is the same Foot who was fawning over the "maligned" McIntyre a while ago. Foot also makes extensive reference to D'Aleo et al. Also, Foot does not even know how to cite James Hansen (not Hanson as Foot claims)! Wonder which denialists website he got his ideas from? Also, the Canadian Arctic is warming rapidly (as per Environment Cnada data; 1.7 C per 62 years [years with data to date] for Arctic Tundra and 1.3 C for the Arctic Mountains and Fiords), so by excluding those Arctic data GISS are actually underestimating the warming, not overestimating it. There are many reaosns for excluding certain data, reasons that Richard Foot, you and D'Aleo et al. seems to not be able to grasp. Jpark, let us for a second assume that the instrument-based SAT record is rubbish (it is not, as has been demonstrated over and over again, but whatever). Now, go and look in the long-term trends in oceanic heat content (no UHI there), trends in global radiosonde network (RATPAC) and trends in global satellite MSU data (RSS, UAH take your pick)-- no UHI or microclimate problems there either. Now look at the long-term trends (30-yrs) and compare them with those of the instrumented global SATs. Then please get back to us with the trend data from all four datasets (RSS, UAH, GISS, RATPAC).
  38. Scientists can't even predict weather
    The link above to Hansen 2007 is broken. I believe the correct link is http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
    Response: Thanks, that's the problem with linking to external websites - they change. I've updated the link and many thanks for pointing this out.
  39. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    to tadzio: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot
  40. Berényi Péter at 03:05 AM on 27 January 2010
    Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability Chapter 13: Latin America 13.4 Summary of expected key future impacts and vulnerabilities 13.4.1 Natural ecosystems http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1 "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas" You can follow IPCC peer review process on this paragraph at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/ar4review_access.html Both First & Second Order Draft Comments worth reading. Unfortunately it's impossible to cite or quote them. However, I can tell you that there is nothing in the reviews concerning 13.4.1 except some anonymous insistance in Second Order Draft (expert) Comments to increase the perceived probability of savannization of the Amazon with no reference whatsoever. Still, there is a reference in the text itself to Rowell and Moore, 2000. WWF/IUCN Global Review of Forest Fires Prepared by Andy Rowell & Dr. Peter F. Moore http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf It is not a peer reviewed paper, but a pamphlet sponsored by NGO pressure groups. Still, Rowell and Moore may be respected scientists. Are they? It depends. Andy Rowell is an award-winning freelance writer and investigative journalist specialising in environmental and health issues. http://www.tcij.org/about-2/teachers-and-speakers/andy-rowell Dr. Moore is a Policy Analyst & Forest Fire Management Specialist with high-level policy and analytical skills and a strong understanding of government administration. http://www.ifmeg.com/CV/Dr%20Peter%20Moore.pdf Enuff said. Still, the core claim, savannization of parts of the Amazon basin can be real. Not due to global warming perhaps, but landuse change. Triggered by increased demand to alcohol for fuel as a renewable energy source. One sets the forest on fire, plants sugarcane, manufactures fuel, sells it and takes the money. It's as simple as that. If the net result, after leaving the land alone once again were savannah or forest regrowth, we do not know, at least not based on IPCC AR4. There might be refereed scientific literature on the subject, but it was not utilised in this case.
  41. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Data from Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT) Station ALOHA. Seems biological, biochemical and biophysical data has been collected from 1980's to present. One paper identifies acidification of the ocean http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf Several others have identified increase in primary production and biomass of plankton http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/61/4/457 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JC003730.shtml The biomass increases are seen at depth which has seen greatest increase in pH (small point is Turley paper in ocean acidification peer-reviewed? It appears to be a DEFRA (UK government) publication)
  42. On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
    November 2008
    Some folks have commented that becuase I’ve posted my “How not to measure temperature…” series, that I’m only focused on finding the badly sited stations. While they are a dime a dozen and often visually entertaining, actually what we want to find are the BEST stations. Those are the CRN1 and 2 rated stations. Having a large and well distributed sample size of the best stations will help definitively answer the question about how much bias may exist as a result of the contribution of badly sited stations. Since the majorty of sttaions surveyed so far seem to be CRN 3,4,5 with CRN1,2 making up only 12% of the total surveyed stations thus far, it is important to increase the sample size.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/24/a-note-to-wuwt-readers/
  43. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 23:08 PM on 26 January 2010
    The chaos of confusing the concepts
    Steve It is not an easily understood subject, and in this discussion forum I will only expand on what I wrote. Anybody who is interested in real learning needs to read a good textbook, like "Nonlinear dynamics and Chaos" by S.H. Strogatz or perhaps this online book: http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/c1/book.html Seasons are probably a very minor global temperature regularity: just plot every 6th global temperature of the monthly averages - all you get is the well-known global warming curve. Seasons are not a proof that global climate is not chaotic. The 'not-chaotic' statement should have been after I mention Stefan-Boltzmann's law. The trained eye really requires a record of periods of unpredictable oscillations to say anything. It could be a small fraction of a chaotic oscillation - but before anyone makes that leap they find it is strongly prevented by the records (even just the Hockey Stick) and the radiation physics. There are two overall possibilities of chaos: 1. Either heat is trapped or moving around on global scale - and the best illustration is the autonomous fluidity of air in the weather. For the climate El Niño is the incredible Hulk of such phenomena - but it has its origin in the weather. 2. The external forcings vary chaotically. A chaotic Sun variation of 10% over 10 years will undoubtedly lead to chaotic global temperatures. Note that turbulence is not the predecessor of deterministic chaos. Turbulence is not a deterministic system i.e. the trajectories cannot be plotted with confidence and no simple equations can describe them. Consider the stunning power of radiation physics: It can explain the Earths surface temperature, greenhouse effect included, to about 288K -+ 10K or an error of 3%, perhaps much lower depending mostly on the variations in the general albedo term. BTW: I can easily see how the T^4 term for the radiated power can make one think that the radiation can fluctuate wildly for a small temperature change. However, T^4 is almost linear for the temperature interval from 280K to 300K. The surface albedo, greenhouse gases, aerosols and clouds are mostly described by the radiation physics, and they almost explain the 4K variation in the ice cores. Also, the error bars in the IPCC report are about the error in the understanding of their effect on radiation. The expected stochasticity/chaos is then bootstrapped by the records in combination with the level of understanding of the present state. Or less concisely: What is unknown is perhaps only -+1K or less, including chaotic external forcings as well. That is where chaos has been confined historically and that is why I mention the oceanic climate indices in my post. The most reasonable expectation must then be, to first order, that this is what we can expect in the future. Runaway feedback effects in the global temperature of e.g. crossing the bifurcation point at 450 ppm CO2 are not ruled out. It is just not chaos.
  44. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    At present extreme weather has the greatest impact on lives when it strike the poorest. The only thing that will change that is greater wealth in the poorest countries. The surest route to wealth for these people is unrestrained economic development. There is no attempt here to calculate the death/quality of life from trying to counter global warming through contracting economic development. I'm not sure if there are peer-reviewed papers on this topic, it doesn't seem a priority amoung many global warming scientists.
  45. The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
    This error was trumpeted yesterday in the overwhelmingly skeptic Daily Mail in the UK; but the article went on to link the inclusion of the WWF report to the wider issue of whether climate change was responsible for natural disasters. How have they managed to do this? And how should this disinformation be countered? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html Note the poll added beside the article...
  46. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Marcus, resource scarcity may well cause the collapse of a civilization but it's not the only possible outcome. It's all up to the impact of the change and to the choices the society makes.
  47. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    HumanityRules, that's the benefit of burning fossils fuels, not global warming.
  48. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Benefits of global warming. Well if we put it down to the last 150years of burning fossil fuels then were to start..... 1) General improved living conditions of all of humanity. Not a peer-reviewed statement but no less wrong. I heard a beutiful statement today "the people of Bangladesh in 100 years will have the same quality of life as presently enjoyed in the Netherlands". Again non peer-reviewed but a better asperation than doom for us all. (the more progressive amoung us might demand it comes quicker)
    Response: "the people of Bangladesh in 100 years will have the same quality of life as presently enjoyed in the Netherlands"

    Actually, 100 years from now, as Bangladesh is such a low lying country, it is one of the regions that will be worst hit by rising sea levels (Dasgupta 2007).
  49. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Another analogy Riccardo. The Anasazi were also faced with the same warming event the Mayans faced. For them it caused a decline in the size & number of available trees for construction. Yet even as their available resources became increasingly depleted, they actually became *more* opulent in their consumption patterns. Again, sound familiar? You see, climate change or not, our world is increasingly facing shortage of a number of key resources-water, oil & even coal. Yet instead of curbing our consumption, we're *increasing* our consumption. That's a recipe for societal suicide-much as occurred with the Anasazi, who have disappeared-leaving behind only their huge stone houses!
  50. Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
    Riccardo. The Mayans were faced with ever increasing droughts as a result of a much, *much* slower warming period. Eventually it wiped them out as a civilization. Yet I bet that, if you could go back & ask them if they thought these droughts might mean the end of civilization as they knew it, they probably would have answered "no"! I sometimes feel its the same today, that we're so convinced that modern Western Civilization can never end, that we're walking-open eyed-towards our own destruction!

Prev  2490  2491  2492  2493  2494  2495  2496  2497  2498  2499  2500  2501  2502  2503  2504  2505  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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