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  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  Next

Comments 125901 to 125950:

  1. Could CFCs be causing global warming?
    So I take it that this theory is that as the sun settles down, and more CR's gain entry into the stratosphere, they react with the CFC's and drive more O3 loss, right? With less O3 in the strat, more of the sun's rays can now reach the earth, but on the other hand, more of the earth's emmisions can now travel out to space "easier". So is he saying that with less ozone more energy escaped the earth compared to the extra amount coming from the sun?
  2. Could CFCs be causing global warming?
    Here's a paper from RC from last year that seems to put this into a bit better perspective; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/ozone-holes-and-cosmic-rays/
  3. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    #9, Looking at Fig 2 above, I see what you say we should expect: "(last vestiges of cooler zones) appearing as remanant localized cold spots" -- there are really just a few speckles of blue. Then, when I look at the hottest spots in Fig 2, I don't see them being downwind of "coincidentally downwind of locales where waste heat is being generated". Approximately Angola, the Antarctic Peninsula, north of the Faulkland Islands, Siberia, Uzbekistan, Siberia, and the Western Arctic seem to be the reddest. Please explain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw (This Peter Sinclair video may not be appropriate [strays from scientific discourse in places] but it does some nice things with maps of heat and people.)
  4. Could CFCs be causing global warming?
    Well, the abstract is interesting and suggests that a broad range of material will be presented. It surprised me that the paper has just one author, but then I read that Lu is cross appointed in three departments.... Anyway, I would have liked to read the paper, but it ain't free. One potential triviality that caught my interest is the secondary axis in Figure 1: Normalized EESC. Is this standard normal deviates? I wouldn't think so, but why not present the data in ppm or something? At a broader level of response, I'm thinking of ozone holes being polar phenomena and wondering about Lu's choice of a temperature record that mostly ignores these regions. I'd like to hear about the distribution of CFCs in relation to ozone holes and whether this is relevant to interpretation of Lu's results. And now a borderline off-topic comment: I think we have a lot to learn from the CFC-ozone story (or at least I do), including topics of denial (support for inaction), public education, innovation and solution (Montreal Protocol). This paper seems to stray from several standard assertions of AGW-deniers (e.g., http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm , http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozdeplth.html ). Lu's paper is at odds with much of the science on climate change (as the post shows nicely), but I think its deviation from common talking points could be more fatal to its eventual popularity (and ranking among the hottest skeptical arguments). I'm assuming here from the abstract that Lu finds support for anthropogenic ozone depletion. Is that assumption correct?
  5. Understanding Trenberth's travesty
    My question is: why Trenberth did not put the same question about the accuracy of surface data when the temperasture increase appeared to be unstoppable? It does not appear to me 'a clear, open, manner' to manage the issue.
  6. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    @RSVP in #9, On can think about it in this way: Since water vapor dominating the green house effect, and since water vapor varies in concentration in the atmosphere, and if CO2 is uniformly distributed, and if CO2 has a significant effect, then it follows the warming will be greater at those places where water vapor has less concentration. Therefore, since water vapor concentration is lower at the polar region the prediction is that warming due to CO2 should be greater at the polar regions.
  7. Could CFCs be causing global warming?
    "When one considers the energy building in the entire climate system (especially the oceans where most heat resides), we see that the planet is still accumulating heat through to 2009 (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009)." These two papers don't outweigh the Argo data which indicate flat or decreasing upper ocean temperatures. Since this is consistent with land and atmospheric measurements, we should conclude the earth is not accumulating heat unless it is in the deep oceans. I am not aware of a plausible mechanism for this.
    Response: von Schuckmann 2009 does use Argo data. Other recent papers on ocean heat trends focused on upper ocean heat which shows more variability than measurements down to 2000 metres which is what von Schuckmann does, showing a less noisy signal:


  8. Could CFCs be causing global warming?
    Hofmann et al. (2006) might be of interest here. They show (from direct observations) that radiative forcing from both CFC-11 and CFC-12 has decreased since 1980's.
  9. Predicting future sea level rise
    Phillipe...... I find your reply rather baffling. Of course corruption happens in every country of the world. Where did I state otherwise ? Although in my case it is only in African countries that I have had to pay bribes to leave the country and have my money mysteriously disappear from my bank account. Situations which I have yet to experience in Europe. Also, where did I state that we do nothing with regards to global warming ? If burning coal to produce power causes global warming, then one obvious solution is to go nuclear. But over the years environmental groups have fought against using nuclear power to generate electricity and the result was that in Australia, for example, we have had to rely mainly on coal fed power stations. And now the same environmental groups are complaining that this causes global warming. Yes, my "characterization of the compensation intended" is accurate - developing nations around the world are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars per annum. Introducing a world-wide ETS will inflate the cost of just about everything in the Western world. And when you consider that much of the goods and services consumed in developing countries are imported, this will mean that the increased cost of these goods and services will be passed on to these countries. So while the developing countries will get billions of dollars in compensation, they will also be paying billions of extra dollars in the form of higher prices for goods and services.
  10. Models are unreliable
    The claim is made that the climate models "...have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. This claim is refuted by the noted climatologist Kevin Trenberth; he states at http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/recent_contributors/kevin_trenberth/ that that the models referenced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change do not make predictions. It follows that: a) the UN-IPCC models are not falsifiable and b) the IPCC models are not scientific, by the definition of "scientific." Rather than make predictions, the IPCC models make what the IPCC calls "projections." A "projection" is a mathematical function which maps the time to the global average temperature. A "prediction" is a logical proposition which states the outcome of a statistical event. A "projection" supports comparison of the computed to the measured temperature and computation of the error. However, it does not support falsification of the model for the apparatus is not present by which the proje3ction may be proved wrong. A "prediction" provides this apparatus.
  11. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    From the report: (quote)"The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth's climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth's climate system," Dessler said(end quote) Lovely phrasing here. Dressler is a true scientist, IMHO.
  12. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    RSVP CO2 is not well mixed in the troposphere according to this NASA release: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196 Some interesting things happening right now in the science, as more results start arriving from better equipment.
  13. Philippe Chantreau at 08:36 AM on 26 December 2009
    1998 is not the hottest year on record
    Merry Christmas, happy new year and thanks for all your hard work John.
  14. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    The fact that there are localized hot spots leading a global warming trend seems to suggest these as sources of heat which radiate outward. Greenhouse gases fill the entire atmosphere equally. Why do their effects precede locally, and coincidentally downwind of locales where waste heat is being generated? Conversely, if the heat source was homogeneous, you would expect to see exception (last vestiges of cooler zones) appearing as remanant localized cold spots, yet the data indicates just the opposite.
  15. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    Comparing the lower figures 1 with figure 3, the dynamic ranges in temperature are about the same, yet the time span for figure 3 includes only half as many years within the same period. This constitutes a fairly large discrepancy unless this implies a curve that peaks or flattens out somewhere in the middle.
  16. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    Merry Christmas to all, and praying for a peaceful 2010! Thanx John for your time and patience. May Santa be kind to you and yours!
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 06:20 AM on 25 December 2009
    Predicting future sea level rise
    You have nothing to teach me on the subject, unfortunately. I grew up in Africa and worked there too. My parents lived and worked there for 17 years. A closer look at European countries and the US taught me that no category of country has a monopole on corruption, which is simply a feature of Human nature. In Africa, it is more obvious because they don't care about appearances as much and the underlying poverty is, by our standards, extreme. I'm not sure your characterization of the compensation intended is really accurate, but in any case, what else do you propose be done? Nothing? Integrate the real price of carbon in the world's economy without softening the impact in some way to the most vulnerable, who will also likely be the most affected by climate change? These countries have benefited from assistance before, even if the benefits were reduced by corruption. Should nothing have been done then? That would have been a more rational thing to do? In any case, this is OT. I apologize to John for starting the discussion and won't pursue it.
  18. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    The paper is Simmons, A. J., K.M. Willett, P.D. Jones, P. W. Thorne, and D. Dee (2009), Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational data sets, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2009JD012442, in press.
  19. Hockey sticks, 'unprecedented warming' and past climate change
    The same as Chris said: WWT has added the global temperature record (0,6ºC), but Greenland has experienced much more warming than the global average. These two reconstructions clearly show a warming of more than 1 ºC, therefore, temperatures in Greenland are probably warmer now than they were in the MWP (in spite of the fact that the MWP was mainly focused on the North Atlantinc around Greenland): FIG. 11. Greenland ice sheet land station record annual temperature anomalies with respect to the 1951–80 base period. Multiples of standard deviations for the 1951–80 period are included. Major volcanic eruptions are indicated Source: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007 (full pdf, PPT) Jason E. Box, Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich y Le-Sheng Bai Journal of Climate, Volume 22, Issue 14 (July 2009) Fig. 2. (a) Mean annual temperature (TMA) difference averaged over ice-sheet area, assembled from two datasets: ECMWF re-analyses (blue) and BOX (red) Source: Surface mass-balance changes of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866 (full pdf) Wake et al 2009 Annals of glaciology., 50 (50). pp. 178-184 It is curious that much of the warming there took place at the begining of the century (though anomalies are now greater). It seems that there is great variability there, probably related to the Arctic amplification.
  20. Hockey sticks, 'unprecedented warming' and past climate change
    "Now one could nitpick the analysis by pointing out that it focuses on one location in Central Greenland. Temperature at a single location inevitably show greater variation than the global average. "
    Aren't the long time scale proxies necessarily spotty? I am trying to learn as much as possible, and let me state my position before asking questions. I believe CO2 is a good prima facie argument for observed warming. I am not strong enough in science to judge between many seemingly convincing arguments (more on that later), but I do believe we need to be seriously thinking about it. I think we need to look at all of mitigation, adaptation, and possible counter climate engineering. We also need to get statisticians and economists involved in these debates as well - cross discipline review and hard analysis will help, not hurt. The scene at Copenhagen was very disappointing for anyone who cares about environment - it looked from here like a mixture of magical thinking and silly UN politics. I also am deeply suspicious of cap and trade - it looks more like a way for scam artists to get rich than a way to really make a change. That said, I am trying to learn as much as possible about the science. It is fascinating to me. I have just watched (twice) a lecture by Dr Richard B Alley that opened my eyes about CO2 a bit. The compliment to him is that a laymen can get a lot from his talk. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml He discusses several CO2 proxies but mentions that the Antarctic ice is the gold standard for reconstruction. He mentions some glitchiness in Greenland ice. Also at points he alludes to certain temperature records being uncertain due to locality. I have two questions: 1. How well spread out are the proxy records for temperature and CO2? Is there a chart that shows what proxies are available for each time scale? 2. How well do proxies agree, and what statistical methods are used to resolve them to the one line graphs I see in so many presentations? That is, what is the error margin when extrapolating global averages from them? For example this graph apparently shows various NH proxies. They seem to vary quite a bit to me. http://physicist.org/history/climate/images/ipcc_6_10_sm.jpg What I am driving at is that these are northern hemisphere, but I don't see a similar SH. How do we know what the global temp was and with what accuracy? We seem to are talking about a degree or two or less over a thousand year period.
  21. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    Thanks for this alert, and thanks to the Met Office for posting this release. I have been suggesting to 'climate science' denier friends that the lack of polar temp estimates were accounting for some of the differences between HadCRUT3 and GISS 'global' estimates. Glad there is now a scientific study, apparently, investigating this difference between the reports of global temps of the Met Office and, say, Goddard. As this is an instance of 'climate science' it will probably have little impact on my 'science is a conspiracy' oriented friends, but is good to have available for voting bystanders who listen with both ears. Thanks for the update!
  22. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    Tom......... I was thinking more of the difference in temps between the areas north and south of the Persian Gulf. I am not talking about local temp differences on the scale of cities - the hot spot north of the Persian Gulf for example is about the size of India. Have the original temp data been kriged to get the "blocked" temp data ? If so this produces a smoothing effect which means that the original ( raw ) temp differences were even greater than shown.
  23. CO2 is not a pollutant
    Some plants grow worse at higher temperature, offsetting gains from CO2 spurring growth. Examples are in tables in the USDA report I linked to in my earlier comment.
  24. It's not bad
    Plants can't grow any better than their limiting factor, which might be not CO2, but nitrogen, water, light,.... Some plants grow worse at higher temperature, offsetting gains from CO2 spurring growth. Even if they do grow "better," the betterment often is not to the advantage of farmers; for example, the extra mass can go into non-consumable woody stalk, which makes the crop more expensive to process than any extra grain/fruit value. And weeds such as poison ivy and kudzu respond much "better" to increased CO2 than do many crops, but "better" is not better for people, and not better for plants that those weeds compete with. For details see the U.S. Department of Agriculture's report on climate change.
  25. CO2 is not a pollutant
    Plants can't grow any better than their limiting factor, which might be not CO2, but nitrogen, water, light,.... Even if they do grow "better," the betterment often is not to the advantage of farmers; for example, the extra mass can go into non-consumable woody stalk, which makes the crop more expensive to process than any extra grain/fruit value. And weeds such as poison ivy and kudzu respond much "better" to increased CO2 than do many crops, but "better" is not better for people, and not better for plants that those weeds compete with. For details see the U.S. Department of Agriculture's report on climate change.
  26. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    neilperth, the San Francisco Bay Area is one example. Increased heat on the inland side of the bay causes air to rise, which sucks in cold air from the Pacific ocean, and that cold air travels through San Francisco, which gets colder. So if you were thinking such a situation is physically impossible, so divergent temperature changes must be due to measurement error, you were wrong.
  27. Predicting future sea level rise
    RE post 56 "Some ( countries ) don't have that money Riccardo (Bengladesh). Some could but it gets lost in corruption and all that (Nigeria). If only the use of money by governments was based on rational choices..." Phillipe ....A very perceptive observation. And what is the UN's answer to global warming ? To give developing nations billions of dollars! Now, when openly corrupt governments of countries like Zimbabwe, Angola, Sierra Leone, Indonesia, to name a few, get their hands on this money, where do you think the money will go ? I have lived and worked in several of these countries for a total of nearly 15 years and the corruption has to be seen to be believed. These governments have little regard for the well being of their citizens in terms of food, housing, health, education etc, and much less interest in the alledged effects of global warming. As usual, most of the money will be siphoned off into the pockets of corrupt politicians, their family, friends and hangers-on.
  28. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    John........ Rest assured you are not the only one who has had difficulty obtaining data form HadCRUT :) RE: the NASA plot of temperature above for 2001 to 2005, why is the major part of the temperature increase concentrated in N. Canada, Greenland and Siberia ? Also there are places on the map where in one area the temp has risen by say 1.8 degrees while at the same time, relatively close-by the temp has decreased by about 0.4 degrees. How do you explain this ?
  29. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    John, I am fully on board with the argument that most of the heat is stored in the ocean, and that the atmosphere has a noisy temperature signal. However what I do not understand is the sharp drops in total energy content, for example around 1968 and 1996. Given constant or slowly rising CO2 concentration and the coean heat reservoir with a large time constant, I would have expected (naively perhaps) some monotonously rising function for total heat content. Have any explanations been proposed?
  30. 1998 is not the hottest year on record
    John, is there a more complete reference besides the press release? I haven't found any yet. Interesting information about the global coverage.
    Response: Not yet - I searched the ECMWF website and tried emailing HadCRUT and ECMWF for more info but no success yet. Will update with more info as soon as I learn more.
  31. Antarctica is gaining ice
    diogenes, in the Zhang 2009 paper cited, the wind field is taken from the NCEP-NCAR reanalisys. It's not shown nor I looked for it; but given that the surface temperature has increased (fig. 3 in this post) I don't think that there any significant large scale change in thermal winds at play. Locally and seasonally it might have an effect but i have no clue on this.
  32. Lawrie_Williams at 21:35 PM on 23 December 2009
    Is the climate warming or cooling?
    Gidday. I live in North Queensland, Oz. I notice the role of melting ice has not been mentioned. I suggest warming is continuing, however it is being taken up in the form of latent heat and in the steady warming of the deep oceans. Greenland, for example, is shedding 200 cu. km. of ice per year. If it were not for this buffering effect of the ice and the oceans we would be broiling by now. And soon enough even melting ice and cool oceans will not be able to stop the warming of the biosphere.
    Response:

    Of the two phenomena, warming of the deep ocean should be taking up much more heat than melting ice. The paper  An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009) actually examines this question and finds the amount of heat going into melting ice is around 1.4 x 1020 joules per year. In contrast, the heat being absorbed by the ocean is between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year. More on Trenberth's paper...

  33. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    jabberwockey, it is nature that cherry picks wavelength as far as molecular absorption is concerned. On the contrary, thermal emission is broad band and it depends on temperature. Hence what you see in the full spectrum (the background) reflects the increase of surface temperature.
  34. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Re #2 (Hugh) Considering the study is the first of its kind, its finding of reduced radiation precisely in the wavelengths associated with increased GHG concentrations remains remains highly suggestive, no? Suggestive that there is a slight increase heat absorbance of CO2 and MH4 - but only if you cherry pick the data. Any atmospheric gas that absorbs infrared is considered a GHG. If you look at the full data you will see that although there is some increase in the heat absorbance of CO2 and MH4, you are seeing more heat escape at wavelengths different from CO2 and MH4. When talking about the causation of global warming, what does that suggest about the "greenhouse effect"?
  35. Antarctica is gaining ice
    As a physicist and as a windsurfer who relies on shoreline thermals for sail power, I wonder if any one has considered that rising ocean temperatures in the Southern Seas has increased the offshore flow of ice-cold air from the continental land mass. Might this not also contribute to the increased cooling of the ocean surface and to more sea ice?
  36. Predicting future sea level rise
    Definitely. Were governments able to easily take rational choices and had people and countries enough money, why there should be meetings and discussions in Copenhagen and the like? ;) Back in topic, whatever the world will do, sea level won't stop rising any soon and adaptation is going to be essential in many places. And money, a lot indeed, is required.
  37. Philippe Chantreau at 10:31 AM on 23 December 2009
    Predicting future sea level rise
    Some don't have that money Riccardo (Bengladesh). Some could but it gets lost in corruption and all that (Nigeria). If only the use of money by governments was based on rational choices...
  38. Predicting future sea level rise
    batsvensson, oh, ok, now I see your point. I'd like people living in the big river deltas of our planet could have similar attention, money and technology from their governments to plan their future.
  39. Hockey sticks, 'unprecedented warming' and past climate change
    re #26 HR, I’m curious about your statement re Mann: “Mann's desire for certainty in his work is his shortcoming.” Especially in relation to this comment you made earlier in the thread: “…we shouldn't forget this particular bit of science has been seriously affected by it's collision with politics.” Well I wouldn’t say that the science has been affected, although there’s been a rather persistent effort to create a false perception of the science. Let’s have a look: Mann’s original millennial paleoproxy reconstruction was published in a paper entitled: Mann ME et al. (1999) Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759-762 which doesn’t sound to me like “a desire for certainty”, and Mann’s analyses have consistently addressed the uncertainties in the data and its interpretations. On the other hand, Mann might have every right to have confidence in his analyses. He’s made a series of strong contributions to paleoanalysis of climate-related indices (the paper above has more than 600 citations), and has seen his analyses supported and validated by subsequent studies, despite a pretty dismal and rather pathetic effort to undermine his work. Considering the MWP, one can examine the set of paleoproxy reconstructions that extend back to that period and see that essentially all of these find an MWP that is close to the temperature of the original Mann et al reconstruction (Moberg's "highly variable” temperature reconstruction, puts the NH MWP perhaps 0.2 oC warmer than Mann's; that's a fairly trivial difference, and of course we don't know whether this is any more or less correct than Mann's analysis). Your comment on “politicisation” of this issue is highlighted by contrast with another scientist, this one a darling of the scientific misprepresenters. His presentation of his methodology was launched with a robust assertion of certainty: Spencer RW and Christy JR (1990) Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites Science 247, 1558-1562 And despite the fact that the methodology was early shown to be anything but “precise”, and that the practitioners made ae extended series of errors indicating (at best) a less then competent relationship with their data, resulting eventually (15 years later) in an embarrassing climb down [see Christy JR, Spencer RW (2005) "Correcting temperature data sets", Science 310, 972-3; and comments by Mears, Wentz and Sherwood, Lanzante], the scientist (Spencer) is considered to be one of the luminaries of the anti-science movement. The difference between the way that these two scientists are treated in some quarters is really where the politicisation of this subject lies
  40. Predicting future sea level rise
    @Riccardo in #51, my intention was to support what you said earlier, but also to underline that the Dutch government spends a lot of tax money on this issue, not just because of some academic research interest in the sea and/or weather but because of pure self preservation. Therefore, one can suspect that the Royal Dutch Metrological Institute, KMNI, will taking any climate change issue based on sound scientific research very very very seriously - after all they are responsible for the well being of about 16 million humans lives.
  41. Predicting future sea level rise
    @SNRatio in #50, "Sea level rise is not constant over the globe" I did not claim that either, and I am fully aware of the variability of sea levels, my claim was that the Dutch keep track on sea level changes simply because it is of great concern for them.
  42. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    Michael949, please stick to the facts. None of them ever said they were going to delete the email.
  43. Predicting future sea level rise
    SNRatio, fast and slow are relative to the ocean response time. Using only the first linear term in temperature you cannot follow the trend even over several decades. You also need to smooth the temperatre data up to when dT/dt is also smooth (i.e. a "nice" regular trend), otherwise you would force the second term to follow temperature interannual variability which would in turn produce highly amplified and unphysical fluctuations.
  44. Predicting future sea level rise
    batsvensson, I apologize if I misunderstood you comment. But from the first paragraph it looked to me that you were pointing to reaction to weather events more than climate changes: "The reason the Dutch taking this very seriously is because they already had a break in the sea walls a fee decades ago due to an Atlantic storm [...]"
  45. Predicting future sea level rise
    @Riccardo "the data are strongly smoothed. The degree of smoothing is not quoted for fig. 2 here but in fig. 4 in the paper it is quoted to be 15 years. Whatever it is, it's strong and i would not expect much sensitivity on short term fluctuation." ...Yes, but, then what about the "rapid" term in the expanded model presented, proportional to dT/dt? That's exactly what gives this new model the improved performance. It may all be explained there, but, skimming through, I could not find it. @Bern, 34: Sure we agree on the factual description, but the context here is the paper with its model. And the model looks very simple, with no apparent thresholding, catering for differential rates of rise corresponding to ice cap conditions. In the model, there can be no accelerating ice cap loss at constant temperature without a concomitant deep ocean cooling. So, if the model is right, the recent acceleration of ice loss at near constant temperature is just a transient phenomenon. Wish it were right. @batsvensson, 47. Sea level rise is not constant over the globe, and some places it may even be mostly canceled out by land rise. The Dutch themselves make the distinction between local trends - they have been approximately constant for a long time - and the global, which, on the same time scale, has accelerated. They have already been adapting to sea level rise for a long time, so if people elsewhere are to look to them, it can only be to set up a similar apparatus for managing the changes.
  46. Predicting future sea level rise
    "I sggest you also read it before claiming that their concern is just weather." Did I claim that? No I did not.
  47. Models are unreliable
    hotair, Human-produced direct heat is trivial compared to human-produced greenhouse gas forcing. For details see (in the post The Albedo Effect) the comment 56 by Steve L, and the subsequent comments 57 and 58 by me.
  48. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    "While some of the private correspondance is not commendable"... It is more than that. The authors said they were going to erase emails subject to a Freedom of the Information Act request. That is a felony.
  49. Models are unreliable
    The actual physics of CO2 cannot be questioned. There is a secondary player with the CO2 emissions that I do not see discussed. What I would like to be pointed to is reference information on the actual heat generated by the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels. Where can I find discussion about the retention, transmission, and conversion behaviors of the ~4 exajoules of infrared radiation released annually by burning fossil fuels?
  50. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    RE:#6 batsvensson. From your attack on science articles it sounds like you have absolutely no experience with academic scientific research so I suggest you start doing the homework yourself and tell us all why it only takes excerpts from two leaked emails over 13 years to prove that the whole of climate science is far from settled.

Prev  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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