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  2498  2499  2500  2501  2502  2503  2504  2505  2506  2507  2508  2509  2510  2511  2512  2513  Next

Comments 125251 to 125300:

  1. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    I'm guessing that acid rain had a *lot* to do with the sudden decline in tree-ring width post-1960. It certainly doesn't prove any kind of global cooling post 1950. It does, however, highlight the need to use more than a single proxy for determining climate in the absence of direct temperature measurements
  2. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    John Cook: In the comment to the previous post, I said: "The Early XX Century Warming(+0,5ºC) peaked at about the same time than WWII(around 1940), then a slight cooling of about -0,1ºC followed until about 10 years when temperatures stayed nearly constant between 1955 and 1975. The Sun Activity instead continued to incrase until mid-1950s, when it began a slow decline. Remarcable is that temperatures peaked BEFORE Solar Activity (a whole solar 11-year cycle indeed!). This seem inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Sun is the main responsible of the Early 20th Century warming." Then I talked about the Aerosol Forcing hypothesis(sulfates,black carbon...), and concluded with the question: "Has anyone compared the Sulfate vs. Black Carbon emissions making timeseries-graphs like the one presented here? (I referred to the TSI vs. GISS Temperatures in the previous post) That will do a good to determine which forcing (Solar or Aerosols) had the greatest impact." John Cook, I am still waiting for your response.
    Response: The estimated radiative forcing from sulfates and black carbon are available for download from the NASA GISS website. Please feel free to make a time series graph (and if you do, let us know what you find).

    Line plot of showing separate radiative forcings, 1880-2003
  3. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    This exercise has not been solved for many decades. I don't think is going to be solved any time soon even by solar physicists, let alone we readers :)
  4. Scientists can't even predict weather
    The wave/tide analogy is a good one. Both are cyclic. Long term climate is also cyclic, not linear. The formula to convert radiative flux (RF) to surface temperature change is (ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter. This assumes ALL GHG forcing factors are equivalent despite that clouds produce negative feedback. Models that use a linear equation can only produce linear predictions based on recent trends. Even IPCC scientists say that GCMSs should be exercised on weather. http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820 The global energy budget (Kiehl/Trenberth) features high in the computations but the net positive radiative forcing is derived from Hansen's computer model. "GH theory (IPCC: Myhre et al.) tells us that the CO2 climate forcing from this increase equals 5.35 times the ln(ratio) = 0.035 W/m^2 Even if we escalate this by a factor of 3.2 to account for net positive feedbacks, as estimated by the IPCC model simulations, we arrive at 0.112 W/m^2 How do K+T arrive at 0.9 W/m^2 or eight times this value?" See http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-1493
  5. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Is there any connection between Solar Cycle LENGHT and Total Solar IRRADIANCE? If yes, what is the link between them?
    Response: When the sun is showing a long term warming trend, the solar cycle tends to get faster. Conversely, when the sun is cooling, the solar cycle slows. This is why the solar cycle 24 is taking so long to get started at the moment - because the sun is cooling at the moment. Why this is so, I leave as an exercise for the reader :-)
  6. Temp record is unreliable
    Gavin Schmidt has a brief response to the Smith & Coleman bizarre claims that the "real" temperature stations' data have been replaced by averages of unrepresentative stations' data, and that data have been destroyed. Gavin's response is to Leanan's comment #9 on 17 January 2010 in the comments on the RealClimate post 2009 Temperatures by Jim Hansen.
  7. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    RealClimate has a new post titled 2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen, subtitled "If It's That Warm, How Come It's So Damned Cold?"
  8. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    greenman3610 has a new video on the recent cold weather and its difference from climate.
    Response: I've added this to the skeptic argument "December 2009 saw record cold spells in Eurasia and USA".
  9. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Berényi Péter, "Anyone, who cares for climate models should welcome an opportunity to verify them against independent data sources." This time i fully agree with you. I'm not the only one, many scientists around the world are still working on this issue; they try to improve new measurements and to correct and homogenize old data. You will easily find a lot of papers on the dry bias and possible recalibration of radiosonde data. No one will throw those data away for sure. I'm not going to call a reality check surfacestation.org for two main reasons. First, the very idea of that site is that scientists are not aware of the urban heat island effect and the site change/alteration issues. It's not true; indeed, as people behind surfacestation well knows, there are a lot of ongoing adjustments of the raw data (which, though, they don't like). Second, in a unusual consideration of non-scientific issues, the NOAA analysed the data of just the "good" stations and found almost no difference. The whole story turned out to be a strong and surely independent confirmation of the quality of their dataset and analysis. I'm just sorry for the hundreds of people sent around the US taking pictures following a false hope.
  10. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    The models presumably include the solar forcing in W/m^2 from the TSI reconstruction- solar cycle length is just a proxy. Average TSI peaks in about 1960. Although there is yearly variation, there is not the same delayed correlation with the 1940's temperature peak, so the question of lag in the models doesn't seem to be relevant. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
  11. It's cooling
    Does this data only go back to 1950?
  12. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Actually, they do, but only for effects of CO2.
  13. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Donald Exactly. This article brought to mind the same question. That is, whether climate scientists include hysteresis in their models.
  14. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    It's interesting to note a peak in the solar cycle graph (a solar cycle minimum length) about a decade before the peak in temperatures around 1940. Is there any connection? The 1940 temperature peak (which from reading this site I seem to remember is not well explained by known forcings or the models) is sometimes ascribed to an artefact of changes in the method of temperature measurement in the 40's. The minimum solar cycle length in the 30's doesn't show up in the TSI reconstruction as a peak. Is the slightly delayed correlation just coincidence?
  15. A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
    There is much confusion about, why we are emitting more and more CO2 and yet always constantly 55% is absorbed. Then there is increasing CO2 in the air when temperature rises. But we see, ocean is absorbing despite increasing temperatures. How does this fit? If you have rather basic knowledge in physics and chemistry it is really easy to stitch these phenomenons together and understand, how the system works. let me explain. First, take, that the amount of carbon dioxide in the system Atmosphere+ocean+biosphere is constant. If that is so, the certain amounts of CO2 in the different subsystems is largely dependent on temperature. If it warms, more CO2 will move into atmosphere, if it cool, more into the ocean. This follows Henrys law. second, if you add CO2 into only one subsystem, the atmosphere, you disturb the equilibrium, with the result, that a constant amount of CO2 will leave the atmosphere and move into the other two subsystems, until equilibrium is reached again. Where the point of equilibrium is, is still dependend on temperature. So, if temps are rising, we will see a slightly decrease of the absorbed fraction of CO2. We are speaking here entirely of the biological carbon cycle. There is a geological too, which removes carbon out of all three subsystems, but here we talk about processes which take several 100 000 of years. I hope this makes it clear for some people how this works
  16. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    I do also love how those that are so quick to denigrate surface-based temperature measurements (because they don't say what they'd like them to say) are so quick to elevate radiosonde to almost exalted status-even though the same "issues" might apply. The difference is that, whilst ground-based & satellite based temperature readings are in close agreement, the radiosonde & satellite based measurements of humidity are *not* in agreement-at least as far as I can tell. Berényi Péter willingness to accept a single paper, based on what could be dubious data, says a great deal about his own political bias, IMHO.
  17. Berényi Péter at 14:13 PM on 17 January 2010
    Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    guys, it is indeed possible that sixty years of radiosonde data are crap. Even the air can go into one corner of the room any time leaving me in vacuum. It is possible, even if unlikely. I could compute its probability. Considering the immediate usefulness of moisture data, it is also unlikely that radiosondes measured naught. It almost falls into the "if I had three legs it would not pass unnoticed" category. It is even more unlikely that the undetected systematic error has a consistent downward trend over such a long timespan. However, all is not lost. If in doubt one can go back, build a replica of each moisture sensor used (goldbeater's skin, rolled hair, carbon hygristor or capacitive sensors), go to the lab and test their relative humidity response, temperature dependent time lag and all the other relevant features. The old instruments can even be tested in situ for any unkonw source of bias like UV radiation, aerosols or whatever. It is a calibration job that does not even require a climate scientist. In fact there are better educated folks to do such a job. I understand that some of the recalibration is already done in the NCEP dataset (i.e. correction for decreasing response time), but the downward trend still remains. Believe me, the old folks were neither fools nor lazy bastards. If they used an instrument, it did measure what it was supposed to. They checked it and re-checked it. There might be some caveats, but it is all documented, meticulously. A serious re-evaluation of upper troposphere radiosonde humidity measurements should be the highest priority job right now, just as Paltridge et al suggest. This dataset does not depend on any atmospheric model, the corrections, if any, should come from entirely different souces. The same can not be said about satellite measurements of upper troposphere moisture. The incoming radiation is a complex function of vieving angle and pressure, temperature and relative humidity values along an entire (possibly oblique) column of air. The inverse transformation is impossible without some model of the supposed vertical and horizontal distribution of these parameters. Moreover, clouds make it next to impossible to do the calculations. At the same time most of the weather is about clouds (Is it sunny? rainy?). I do not think the downward trend can be calibrated away as apparently Paltrige does not believe it either. He just dares not make this statement directly. Otherwise he would be accused of a "clear and explicit political bias". I can tolerate it for I'm not running for grant money, his case might be different.
  18. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    I've seen at least one paper which suggests that the correlation between solar activity & the global temperature anomaly has been low (approx. 35%) since 1950, with a further drop in correlation (approx. 22%) for the period of 1980-2000). Yet for the period of 1900-1950, the correlation between solar activity & the global temperature anomaly was a whopping 75%! For a correlation to drop so much, in such a relatively short space of time, would require some kind of very rapid change in some other component of global climate-any guesses which one (btw, the correlation between CO2 & the global temperature anomaly, for the period after 1950, is around 78%. In the absence of direct measurements, pre-1950, it's hard to do a good correlation for the period of 1900-1950. However, given the almost static CO2 levels in the ice cores which cover that period, I'd suggest the correlation would have been close to *zero*. Again, such a massive change in correlation in such a short space of time!)
  19. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Hope you don't mind me clarifying this, Chris (#28), but I've always been a little uncertain about the relationship between solar activity & CRF. As I understand it, increasing CRF leads to increased cloud formation which-in turn-leads to increased albedo & hence reduced temperatures-is that right? I also understand that decreasing solar output is strongly correlated to increasing CRF, because the suns output in some way deflects CRF's-again, am I correct in this? So what we're basically looking at here is a negative feedback loop-where reduced solar output directly reduces global temperatures whilst at the same time indirectly resulting in more cloud cover-which should also result in lower overall temperatures. If so, then I'd tend to think that CO2 must have an incredibly strong forcing to overcome such a *double whammy* (which is the scientific term for it ;) ).
  20. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    You know, this is why I love this site-because, as a scientist, most of the contributors here are able to direct us to Papers or other sources of information to back up the claims being made. At least here the likes of John P & nofreewind are simply an aberration in what is otherwise a hard-science web-site!
  21. 1998 DIY Statistics
    A similar demonstration of the issue is from an Australian political skeptic here. I almost understand statistics after that :)
  22. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Berényi Péter, "the data ARE definitive. Paltridge at al. may use a cautious language (otherwise they would risk rejection due to politically motivated peer review)." Don't talk about truth when there's such a clear and explicit political bias. This presupposition undermines what you say next. Why should i take your words and not those of the authors themselves? You do not give any reason at all to go beyond the warnig given in the abstract. Satellite data have issues, radiosonde too; research is going on. Scientists try to overcome the difficulties with more data and more analysis and this is science. Paltridge et al. did science, you did not, not a single tiny reason why one should not be cautious with radiosonde data. And that's why you are left with a declaration of belief like "the data ARE definitive".
  23. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Berényi Péter at 09:26 AM on 17 January, 2010 Thanks for your point-by-point response. The CO2 mixing problem you refer to indicates a inhomogeneity of C02 that is trivial compared to the gross amount of anthropogenic addition. I'm sure you realize that. In fact, given your lack of confidence in satellite observations, I'm surprised you do not dismiss it. However, you fail to address the central challenge for doubters, also my original point, which is that you need to replicate (for instance) your examination and critique of satellite data versus radiosonde data for a plethora of observations in other fields in order to dismiss what appears to be a coherent composite signal providing a good fit with anticipated changes driven by AGW. This is going to be a major challenge. Again, using your present example, you've found a single paper that you believe invalidates satellite measurements of atmospheric constituents. Many other findings are in contradiction to this paper. A compelling argument against so many other results is going to require a much more robust body of evidence. If that should be the outcome in this case, you're going to need to do the same thing in a number of other arenas. For example, what about Antarctic ice loss as measured by the GRACE instrumentation? You'll need to develop a coherent explanation for how that might be in error. You could work that from a PGR angle, somebody ought to better resolve that issue, but as it stands now GRACE measurements of Antarctic mass are another result that at present appears to validate predictions arising from models of AGW. Again, multiple investigators have found the same general result from GRACE data. There are numerous other examples, I'm sure you realize that.
  24. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Not really Berenyi Peter! a. One can hardly assert that the Partridge results are "definitive", when the authors themselves state that they are not:
    "It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."
    b. Your appraisal of Soden et al (2005) isn't correct. Soden et al use the High Resolution Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) to measure upper tropospheric radiance in the 6.3 micrometre water vapour band. So they are measuring water vapour, if indirectly, just like any spectroscopic measurement. They use two methods to determine their "signature" of upper tropospheric moistening. (i) Their detector (T12) is sensitive to changes in relative humidity. Since they don't detect a change over the period (1979-2004) they conclude that the relative humidity hasn't changed. Since the upper troposphere has unequivocably warmed during this period, the absolute humidity must have risen. (ii) Soden et al also obtained a signature of upper tropospheric moistening by comparison of the MSU T2 and the HIRS T12 radiances. The emission level for T12 increases with increased water vapour; that of MSU T2 is sensitive to changes in oxygen (which doesn't change significantly in a warming, moistening atmosphere). Thus in a moistening atmosphere the brightness difference (T2-T12) should increase with time. That's observed. These qualititive signatures of upper tropospheric moistening were quantitated by comparison with models. But the signatures of upper tropospheric moistening were spectroscopic measures atmospheric water vapour (in the manner that one generally uses spectroscopy to measure molecular composition/concentrations etc.). And these "early" observations have been reinforced by the subsequent work describing increased tropospheric humidity in a warming world I cited (and Riccardo linked to). c. Atmospheric CO2 mixing. Not sure what significance you ascribe to that. On annually-averaged timescales atmospheric CO2 is well mixed to the extent that it makes no real difference to radiative forcing. For example one could compare the ARIS picture you linked to, to the Mauna Loa data (or ocean surface averaged CO2 data) here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ...and find that at Mauna Loa the July 2003 CO2 concentration was 376 ppm (pretty much as in the picture you linked to); the sea surface averaged CO2 level was around 374-5 ppm and so on. We all know that the production of CO2 from plants and humankind has regional origins and this is bound to be represented as small variations in distribution in temporal "snapshots". So we don't expect to see instantaneously mixed CO2. But yearly averaged CO2 concentrations are pretty similar wherever these are sampled around the globe...
  25. Why does CO2 lag temperature?
    #38 Chris I like someone like yourself who at least keeps to the science. When I was at university, these were the things we were taught back in the 1980s-1990s. I am not nearly as familiiar with more recent papers as I am not an active researcher, maybe I could drag up some papers from my uni days. "the evidence increasingly supports slow reductions in atmospheric CO2 concentrations as the major driver of reduced temperatures that forced the onset of glaciations. This applies both to the Arctic glaciations of the late Pliocene [**], [***] (see above), [****],[*****] and also the onset of Antarctic glaciations 33-34 MYA [******]:" I am not a fan of this statement at all. C02 lags and follows temperature changes (e Vostok ice core) it does not intitiate them. It seems to me to be the recent scientific fad to attribute everything to magical C02. C02 also lags changes in oceanic circulation because these drag down temperature which then drags down c02 due to increased solubulity with cooler water, whether on decadal, millenial or million year timescales. The reverse largely occurs with increased oceanic circulation. This is why c02 follows T change in earth history (and also continental configurations eg Permo Carbonifeous glaciation, etc), but it does not cause it. The earth cooled around 33-34 MYA (Ive read elsewhere is was 37Ma) largely because of slow ocean circulation changes eg: 1. -the gradual closing of the Tethys Sea between Africa and Asia, which is still going on today with the gradual closure of the Mediterranean-the Tethys sea remnant-which will dry up completely in the next few million years- cooling things further as Africa and Asia completely join-which incidentally might initiate cause widespread glaciation similar to the Permo carboniferous, and also this gradual closing has cooled Africa from several mllion years ago leading to more Savannah, and the evolution of a upright ape on the plains-us-but that is another story. 2-The gradual increase in the Southern Ocean beneath Australia creating a strong polar belt which does not transport heat northwards.(I think the southern tip of South America also has somehting to do with this). The Isthmus of Panama closing and dragging down earth temperature was common knowledge when I studied at uni, I dont know where this common knowledge has gone since then. Scientific preoccupation with c02? re#37 The oceans do not 'add thermal energy to the planet', they simply distribte it differently depending on plate tectonic configurations and sea levels, which can change markedly over short geological time due to eg closure at the continental scale eg Isthus of Panama, joining of Arabian Peninsula and Africa etc, break up and formation of ice caps etc.
  26. Berényi Péter at 10:39 AM on 17 January 2010
    Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    chris at 07:28 AM on 17 January, 2010: Let's have a closer look at the logic of e.g. Soden at al 2005. "Here we use climate model simulations and satellite measurements to demonstrate the presence of a distinct radiative signature of upper troposphere moistening on interannual to decadal time scales" They use both climate model simulations and satellite measurements. So far so good. If satellite measurements do show increased upper troposphere specific humidity and the model predicts the same, then it survived, it is not falsified by this particular measurement. "The observed moistening is consistent with model simulations and correspond approximately to a constant relative humidity increase in upper tropospheric moisture" This is already slightly off the mark. There is NO observed moistening so far. How could it be consistent with anything? "We further demonstrate that without such an increase, the model would be unable to reproduce the satellite-observed radiance record" That's it. There must be an increase, for without it, the model would be unable to reproduce observation. Observation of what? Radiance. Mark me. Not upper troposphere specific humidity, but satellite observed radiance record. Suppose for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that the model is crap. In this case if it is unable to do something it does not demonstrate anything aside from the fact it was crap in the first place. If it has no relation to the real world, it is not surprising that it could not reproduce real world measurements. On the other hand, if we go with model prediction and allow it to increase upper troposhere moisture as it was programmed to do anyway and by this it mimics the satellite observed radiance record, it only means that we have found a rather complicated and expensive way to fit curves. Let's put it another way. If radiance is measured and there is no other way to derive specific humidity values form these measurements than through the model to be verified, then the specific humidity trend produced this way can not be used to verify the model. The two things are not independent. Suppose someone constructed a model with no upper troposphere specific humidity increase which could reproduce the same radiation signature. Would it prove anything about specific humidity trends in the upper troposphere? No. It would only demonstrate that Soden's logic is flawed, what we know anyway. Circular logic is wrong, because it is circular.
  27. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    re NewYorkJ and top article: Exactly so - we could make a rough quantitative analysis of the cooling contributions that are currently opposing enhanced greenhouse-induced warming: (i) solar cycle max-min give a lagged ~0.1 oC [*]. With an abnormally-prolonged minimum and a small decrease in solar output it seems reasonable that this is currently suppressing current temperatures below the 30 year trend by ~ 0.1 oC. (ii) analysis of ocean regime fluctuations suggests that the current regime (manifest in the negative phase of the PDO) which we've been in since around 1998 may be additionally suppressing surface temperatures by around 0.1 oC [**]. So a peculiar coincidence of well-, or reasonably well-characterised cooling forcings (solar cycle min; prolonged minimum; reduced solar output; negative PDO regime) is likely suppressing current temperatures by perhaps 0.2 oC below the 30-year trend. During the next 5-6 years we expect to "recover" 0.1-0.15 oC of that through the solar cycle "up-swing". The surface temperature has warmed with a max around 2005, and has been pretty much steady since then. Of course we can't say much about trends from a few years of data, but it seems that the CO2-induced warming is "holding its own" against a coincidence of (temporary) cooling forcings. In that light it's difficult (as you and John Cook suggest) to accommodate some of the uncharacterized proposals for contributions to surface temperature. If the cosmic ray flux (CRF) notion had merit, for example, this should be making its strongest cooling contribution since the CRF count has been right near its maximum value for the last few years [***]. Likewise if (as some suggest), the PDO index has made a major contribution to 20th century warming, the current negative PDO phase should be making a stronger cooling contribution than 0.1 oC…. .. however accommodating these contributions would require that the earth is significantly more sensitive to CO2 than we think (or hope)….or something else is countering these cooling contributions (….but what?) [*] J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006″, Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L18701. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Lean_Rind.html [**] K. L. Swanson, G. Sugihara and A. A. Tsonis Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change PNAS 106, 16120-16123 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract [***] http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/clmx/main.htm
  28. Berényi Péter at 09:26 AM on 17 January 2010
    Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Riccardo, the data ARE definitive. Paltridge at al. may use a cautious language (otherwise they would risk rejection due to politically motivated peer review). But the long term decrease of specific humidity at higher levels is pronounced and can't possibly explained away. Their claim "increases in total column water vapor in response to global warming do not necessarily indicate positive water vapor feedback, since very small decreases of water vapor in the mid-to-upper troposphere can negate the effect of large increases in the boundary layer" is based on sound physical principles. Except it is far from being sure that decrease in upper troposphere moisture is caused by "global warming" as such. It may be a more direct effect of increasing carbon dioxide levels. Satellite measurements of the same trend are unreliable. It is easy to see why. They are trying to detect minuscule changes against an increasing lower troposphere background humidity signal from far away. In cases like this, one would prefere in situ measurements. The Dessler at al. paper you cite speaks about short term feedback. That's a completely different beast. Paltridge at al. also discusses this question. Finally I don't think the norm in climate science should be any different from those of other sciences. It's truth, plain old truth. doug_bostrom: "I understand it's vital that you avoid talking about actual data and observations" I do understand that you don't understand I'm talking about actual data and observations right now. "be careful what you wish for, it may prove to be more confirmation of something you don't like" I wish for truth, not memes. If it's something I would not like, that's it. Wishes, fears, politics should be left to the general public. There is no other way to do science. "Got a cite on that?" Tons ARIS CO2 maps at the NASA site. NASA ARIS Mid-Tropospheric (8 km) Carbon Dioxide July 2003 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA09269_modest.jpg "your preconception is no amenable to change" My preconception is that philosophia naturalis should proceed by validating theory agains measurement. This preconception is not amenable indeed. Theoretically motivated dismissal of huge bodies of actual data is not the way to go. "Satellite observations are inconvenient if you're a doubter, so any chance to undermine our confidence in them will be seized" You get it wrong. I was talking about specific satellite measurements and I was not trying to "undermine your confidence in them". I have nothing agains satellites per se. But when the systematic error and/or the error bars are larger than the values to be measured, the measurement is useless, even if it cost a lot of money. You don't have to have any "confidence" in data. You should just understand the exact measurement process and confide in your own understanding. If you do that, it can't be "undermined". Data is an inconvenient(?) truth, agreed.
  29. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Kelly O'Day and Ned. Call me suspicious and cynical, but I'm guessing that "John P" is just an internet bot. Programmed to respond to key words and then instantly pasting in the same chunk of text. Often this technique is used to advertise porn sites, or via-gra sales, so using it for denialism seems about right. The reason? To ensure (I'm guessing) that every climate change thread anywhere in the world contains denialism material in order to make it seem that there is active debate - "see, the science isn't settled". On the other hand denialist sites, I understand, rarely allow any dissenting posts, conveying the image of overwhelming consensus that "the science isn't settled". If it was me I would delete this stuff, but the cleverness of it is that it looks just like genuine questions, and deletion would have denialists screaming censorship (as distinct from the culling that they engage in). I reckon perhaps the best tactic is simply to ignore anything that smells to high stratosphere. There is no debate on the core of climate change science, however much there might be on precise details. The situation is exactly like evolution where creationists seize on minor debates ("stochastic evolution" "sympatric speciation") to pretend the science is under question. Snow in Minnesota in Winter doesn't quite rise to the level of sympatric speciation as a debating point.
  30. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    NewYorkJ at 08:22 AM on 17 January, 2010 "I took a look at your graph. It did not contain a linear trend line. Just eyeballing it, I suspected that your assertion was wrong, so I plugged the annual numbers into a spreadsheet and added a linear trend line (a good exercise for you to do as well). The change has been about +0.5 C from that single station's period of record. Thus, your assertion is incorrect." A step very few will take, sadly, but thank you. For those with a powerful sense of curiosity but a limited budget, the spreadsheet included in OpenOffice makes NewYorkJ's example extraordinarily easy to follow. Put the data in a column, select the column, use the "insert graph" option, turn on a trend line. Voila. Caveat: OO is a powerful tool but for the relatively ignorant (such as myself) don't go too far with conclusions when so armed, heh!
  31. It's cosmic rays
    Thanks! I now see the quote (and will have my eyes checked).
  32. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Good post. I particularly like: "However, phenomena such as cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) may enhance the sun's impact. However, an increased effect from cosmic rays would only serve to magnify the effect of the cooling sun over the last few decades. Since 1975, global temperature has shown long term warming while at the same time, the sun has shown long term cooling. " Indeed. This would indicate that some other factors are to a greater degree offsetting the cooling effect of solar variation. John P (#3), "His 120 record actually shows a negative slope and Cooling" I took a look at your graph. It did not contain a linear trend line. Just eyeballing it, I suspected that your assertion was wrong, so I plugged the annual numbers into a spreadsheet and added a linear trend line (a good exercise for you to do as well). The change has been about +0.5 C from that single station's period of record. Thus, your assertion is incorrect. As others have noted, it's also the raw data, and does not include the homogenization step. Among denialist circles, this automatically translates to "fabrication".
  33. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    "John P has placed his exact same comment on [... various other sites ...]" That's frustrating. I come here because of the exceptionally high quality of the science reporting on the site, and the informed discussions particularly from commenters who are actively working in the field. When people spam the site with cut-and-paste comments, particularly ones from joke sites like WUWT, it degrades the quality of the discussion here. I would hope commenters would respect the hard work of our host, and treat the site as a place for sincere discussion, not for cut-and-paste propaganda comments.
  34. Why does CO2 lag temperature?
    Thingadonta, I don’t think the science supports your assertions, namely: “It is widely known within the scientific literature that the onset of ice ages from around 4+ million years ago was largely caused by oceanic circulation changes, particularly the closing of the Isthmus of Panama between N and S America.” and “All of this has nothing to do with c02” I’m curious to see what scientific literature you consider supports those, and perhaps you could give us some insight. I’d say that the science supports pretty much a diametrically opposite conclusion: 1. The difficulty with the closing of the Isthmus of Panama hypothesis for the instigation of N. hemispheric glaciations around 2.7 MYA is that the major effect on the high Northern latitudes was to increase the transport of warmth via intensification of the thermohaline circulation (aka Gulf Stream). So this would act to suppress Arctic glaciation, competing against the potential positive contribution to glaciation of enhanced heat transport, namely enhanced evaporation/precipitation. There’s been quite a bit of analysis of which of these might prevail, and the conclusions seem to be that the net effect of closure of the Isthmus of Panama would be either in the direction of suppressing Arctic glaciations [*] or more or less neutral in its effects on Arctic glaciation [**], [***]. [*] Klocker A, Prange M, Schulz M (2005) Testing the influence of the Central American seaway on orbitally forced Northern Hemisphere glaciations Geophys Res Lett 32:L03703 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021564.shtml [**] Lunt D J et al. (2008) Closure of the Panama Seaway during the Pliocene: implications for climate and Northern Hemisphere glaciations Climate Dynamics 30, 1-18 http://www.springerlink.com/content/771146124678817l/?p=b0dbbbc2123c4f60832443d41ad386f8&pi=0 [***] Lunt D J et al. (2008) Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels Nature 454, 1102-1105 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7208/abs/nature07223.html 2. As suggested by the title of the Lunt (2008) Nature paper above, the evidence increasingly supports slow reductions in atmospheric CO2 concentrations as the major driver of reduced temperatures that forced the onset of glaciations. This applies both to the Arctic glaciations of the late Pliocene [**], [***] (see above), [****],[*****] and also the onset of Antarctic glaciations 33-34 MYA [******]: [****] R. Bintanja and R. S. W. van de Wal (2008) North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000-year glacial cycles Nature 454, 869- 872 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/abs/nature07158.html [*****] Tripati AK et al. (2009) Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years Science 326, 1394-1397 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296 [******] DeConto R. M. et al. (2008) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciations Nature 455, 652-655 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7213/full/nature07337.html
  35. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    "You have to Homoginize the real data to show warming, that is really there. Is that correct?.......John.." Yes, you do. Stations move. Stations get new thermometers. The time of day at which the daily number is recorded changes. They get stevenson screens. All of these impact the recorded data and must be taken account of. That's what the homogenization step does. BTW, it's not cold outside. It's been warmer than normal all month. Right here in the United States! Well, where I live - Portland, OR. It's somewhat more pronounced a bit north in Seattle, WA. Parts of Alaska have been having record or near-record highs. Eastern siberia has been warm, and the far north in Canada. Yes, the dramatic snow storms and frigid weather that have been pushed south have been dominating the news. Ponder the fact that this Arctic air has come from ... the Arctic. So if that Arctic air mass has left the Arctic, what do you think happened up there? Yep. Warmer than normal. Warmer than average in places like Greenland, for instance. That doesn't mean that frigid weather is dominating the northern hemisphere.
  36. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    John P has placed his exact same comment on The Blackboard as comment 30360 of Lucia's GISS December Anomaly update. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/giss-december-anonaly-0-59c-down-from-0-68c/#comments John from Mn submitted the exact same comment to Watts Up With That http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/uah-satellite-data-has-record-warmest-day-for-january/ post on UAH trends. John also placed the exact same comment on The Air Vent http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/1934-1998-gissmatic/ Here's another: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/climategate-arrives-in-the-us/ John P doesn't care about the topic, he justs repeats himself. Has anyone found John P or John from Mn repeats? Let's see how many we can find.
  37. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Berényi Péter To add to Riccardo comments: The radiosonde reanalysis data is very problematic as has been known for long time [*]. Partridge et al are very careful to acknowledge that; they begin their rather equivocal conclusion with the statement (bottom of page 358):
    "It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."
    So your "hard fact" is neither "hard" nor a "fact". It is a hard fact there there is quite a wealth of data from satellites that indicates an increase in upper troposphere water content pretty mucg as expected from enhanced greenhouse induced trospheric warming. See for example: Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008 Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704 (Riccardo linked to this paper in his post just above) Gettelman A and Fu, Q. (2008) Observed and simulated upper-tropospheric water vapor feedback J. Climate 21, 3282-3289 http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/jc.gettelman.2008.pdf Buehler SA (2008) An upper tropospheric humidity data set from operational satellite microwave data J. Geophys. Res. 113, art #D14110 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009314.shtml Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT (2007) Intercomparison of tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, art #L17912 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL029118.shtml Santer BD et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15248-15253 http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/15248.pdf [*] Soden BJ, et al (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening Science 310, 841-844. http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/forc&feedb2008/Articles/Soden.pdf who state:
    “Although an international network of weather balloons has carried water vapor sensors for more than half a century, changes in instrumentation and poor calibration make such sensors unsuitable for detecting trends in upper tropospheric water vapor (27). Similarly, global reanalysis products also suffer from spurious variability and trends related to changes in data quality and data coverage (24)."
    etc. etc.
  38. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    By the way, I should add that Berényi Péter is following what has become a well-worn path among doubters, namely to put all data in doubt. Satellite observations are inconvenient if you're a doubter, so any chance to undermine our confidence in them will be seized, even if only a single publication is available to do that. Same deal as surface temperature records. Data is an inconvenient truth.
  39. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    "Post-diction is not the same as pre-diction. No amount of past data can make up the difference. A real world series can be reproduced by simple curve-fitting using only a few parameters if the dataset is given." Not what I was talking about, as you well know. I understand it's vital that you avoid talking about actual data and observations, though. "Pielke is right. Global averages are not too important, their long term trend may even be zero." Ah, the meme du jour, repeated everywhere just now. What does it have to do with what you were discussing? As to water vapor in the upper atmosphere, just like you I'm no expert but it sounds like an opportunity to improve models. It also sounds as though something's causing the upper atmosphere to change, if the conclusion of the paper is correct. As to the reason for that change, if you're a doubter be careful what you wish for, it may prove to be more confirmation of something you don't like. "Recently we have also learned that carbon dioxide is not as well mixed in upper troposphere as previously thought." Got a cite on that? As I said, your preconception is no amenable to change.
  40. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    Berényi Péter, you run too fast and you are not allowed to draw "definitive" conclusion from that paper. Indeed, the authors themselves are much more prudent and you will not find your claim in the conclusions. Already from the abstract, the authors warn that "It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution" and that "it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination". So, the conclusion is left open, expecially since other data point in the opposite direction. You cannot force the data further and i'd suggest you also leave the conclusions open. At least. _If_ you are interested in climate _science_, i'd also suggest to leave the last paragraph you wrote out of any discussion.
  41. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    John P, there is a reason it's called global warming. Now, if it was was called Minnisota warming,or Twin Cities warming, you might have a point. Look at the temperature map in the previous article here if you need more clarification.
  42. Berényi Péter at 04:26 AM on 17 January 2010
    Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    doug_bostrom at 17:23 PM on 16 January, 2010: Post-diction is not the same as pre-diction. No amount of past data can make up the difference. A real world series can be reproduced by simple curve-fitting using only a few parameters if the dataset is given. It is not a matter of perception, it\'s cold fact. However, past data can and should be used to _falsify_ theory if possible. It happens to be the case that the job is already done. Theor Appl Climatol DOI 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data Garth Paltridge & Albert Arking & Michael Pook Received: 21 July 2008 / Accepted: 4 February 2009 http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf 35 years of upper troposphere radiosonde water vapor measurements show a definitive downward trend. It is on a pressure level where the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere really matters for IR radiation can escape from there diretly to space as opposed to sea level from where only a narrow IR window is available to this end, the air being opaque otherwise. In other words this is the very photosphere of Earth. All models based on the assumption of roughly constant relative humidity in the upper troposphere are disqualified. Period. It is as simple as that. We are left with two hard facts. 1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing 2. Upper troposphere specific humidity is decreasing Unfortunately there is no theoretical explanation as yet. It suggests however, that viable models should show no net long term energy gain at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation) and OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) being in balance due to roughly constant net greenhouse gas contents of photosphere. Satellite ASR measurements are not reliable enough to be able to falsify this hypothesis. Even OLR measurements may have a large systematic error. Balloon radiosonde measurements, as they are routinely used in daily weather forecast practice, are verified. Orders of magnitude more honest work went into data quality control on that area then into the entire field of climete research. The weatherguys\' performance is evaluated on a daily basis. Not only by the general public, but by the Navy, Airforce, civil air traffic control and the like as well. You can see that there is considerable regional variation in upper troposphere specific humidity trends. Recently we have also learned that carbon dioxide is not as well mixed in upper troposphere as previously thought. Pielke is right. Global averages are not too important, their long term trend may even be zero. It does not mean however, that the ocean/atmosphere system (biosphere included) is not trying to adapt to increased CO2 levels. And in doing so it may do funny things.
  43. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Pico, So your saying that real temperature data in MN that shows no warming in 120 years right through the Industrial Reveolution is not right. You have to Homoginize the real data to show warming, that is really there. Is that correct?.......John..
  44. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    When people try that one, since they almost always live in the NH as indeed do I], I visit the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. I think it's caused a few to inhale their coffee / tea in surprise! I even caught-out an Australian, who was assailing me with a stream of BS! Note: For non Australians, the following links may be of interest. Australia temperature / rainfall; absolute / anomaly maps accessible here tinyurl.com/ylozhlg 1/3/6/12 month mean min / maxi / & etc. ; temperature / anomaly for Australia tinyurl.com/yao4ntb Hope this helps!
  45. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Sorry meteorological stations only did not see it.
  46. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    3rd? Why are the two not the same 2009 14.57 & 2009 14.71 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
  47. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    The question is- Why did ECMWF analyse the HadCRUT records and not the GISS or NOAA. It's seems like HadCRUT's result was not acceptable but GISS & NOAA's were. The funny thing is, if you look at figure 1 above comparing both their samplings some interesting things come out: 1. ECMWF looks like they have averaged down the southern hemisphere 2.Apart from more infill on the northern hemisphere, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two. Except for the west coast of the United States of America(how could HadCRUT got this area so wrong).
  48. Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
    What surprises me is how a distinguished scientist like Pielke Sr. can make such trivial statements. Anyone doubts that "global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience"? For sure, the weather people experience in, say, south California is a lot different than the weather in Maine; no need to be a scientist to tell. But then what? Should people act on the basis of the local weather, like more CO2 emission in Maine to warm it a little bit and less in California to cool it down? Switching people attention to local weather means make the world schizoid and unable to take any action.
  49. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Oh, one other point Joel. Your claim re: 2002 is actually reflected in the 5-year average data for GISS, albeit with the warming trend ending closer to 2005. Here's the thing, though-solar irradiance/sunspot numbers have been dropping all decade, & have been at unprecedented lows for the last 4 years (much longer than most solar minima). Yet still temperatures have failed to drop. If the sun were to blame, then I would have expected to see a strong cooling trend from 2000-2002 onwards.
  50. 2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
    Couple of thing Joel. (1) Don't forget that the UAH data incorrectly includes diurnal variations, which result in a smaller trend. When you exclude these variations, the temperature trends are closer to those of RSS, HadCRU & GISS. (2) Though years are a human artifact, they're still based around natural phenomenon-namely the turn of the seasons. (3) What counts is how the anomaly changes over time. That change will probably be the same whether I look at a month-by-month or a year-by-year basis. If I take GISS data, averaged on a yearly basis, I get a result of x=0.0163, which isn't that much different from the result you've calculated. For RSS, I get a result of x=0.0156, which is only slightly higher than for UAH. My point is that, no matter how we choose to calculate the anomaly over time (per month, per year, per 5 years or per 11-years) we still end up with an undeniable warming trend. The question then becomes-what could be causing the warming trend? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question from the so-called "skeptics"-especially given the roughly downward trend in TSI over the last 30 years.

Prev  2498  2499  2500  2501  2502  2503  2504  2505  2506  2507  2508  2509  2510  2511  2512  2513  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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