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  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  2527  2528  Next

Comments 126151 to 126200:

  1. The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
    I work with a serious global warming denier (GWD). Due to his prompting I began to do a lot of reading about the subject of global warming. Like the posts by thingadonta, there is no serious refutation of the science. The science is well done and convincing. Thingadonta's attack is rhetorical and in this case, an ad hominem attack. If one cannot refute the science, then one can refute the scientists. Current neo-con thought seems to like the socialist bogey-man, so let's drag that out against the climatologists. Even Mizimi's criticism of the survey misses the point about the science, simply seeking to further the ad hominem attack. These "contrary" posts constitute a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) attack by the GWDs to try to keep the "Global Warming Debate" myth alive. These GWDs are not contributors to the scientific process nor should one pretend that they are such. So, welcome to the age of the internet. Any person with an opinion is free to post it. Expect to see a lot more rhetorical, religious, and political attacks on science and scientists. The fact that science is fluid and subject to change based on evidence will make it even more critical that important information is communicated well and in a way that lay people can understand.
  2. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Just one of my opinions is that, as humans we evolved naturally on earth. Everything we invented or developed came from the earth. We just manipulate what was already here. Therefore anything we do is just part of nature and is a natural progress. Be it good or bad. We are nature. We are not apart from it. We’re just animals that think too much. If we make a mess of things, Nature will let us know.. one way or another.
  3. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    HumanityRules, I agree with everything you say about Mel P and on her past record alone there are grounds for dismissing her ill-informed rants. The fact that she now assumes 'fraud' on the basis of a few decontextualised e-mail extracts is despicable, perhaps slanderous. I was really referring to the darwin data which appears to have come from leftfield and in that context I would appreciate John's technical input. Unfortunately there are now many who doubt AGW on the basis of propaganda from the 'deranged' few. Tempting though it may be we are unlikely to persuade them of the science by ad hominem attacks. Curiously I'm unable to post on her blog. If anybody here has a mind to, they're welcome to address the article in question.
  4. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling you get when confronted with two contradictory ideas. For example, while nearly every calorie associated with human activities ends up as waste heat directly warming our atmosphere, climate scientists continue to focus on an atmospheric greenhouse effect that they are still trying to prove exists. Who are the real deniers? The reason you can "see" IR surface images using infrared optics is because air itself does not radiate IR. Once air has been warmed up by your automobile, home furnace, and local power plant, that waste heat can only be given up when it comes in contact with condensed vapor in the air or objects on the earth's surface (including polar ice and glaciers). The deniers of this notion tell us that the amount of human waste heat is insignificant next to quantities associated with the Earth's solar radiation budget, yet these are the same people who are also talking about the ponderous thermal effects of increased CO2 as measured in part per million! To see what happens with all that solar energy, all you have to do is compare the temperature of a rock at midday and then at 5 am. Waste heat on the other hand heats air first, then the Earth's surface where it later has a chance to escape into space through radiation. There are something like 500 million automobiles in circulation worldwide. It is a well known fact that climate in urban areas are affected by waste heat. If this heat it is continually generated, it must be gradually spreading out throughout the planet.
    Response: The atmospheric greenhouse effect has been empirically confirmed by multiple, independent lines of evidence - both by satellites finding less infrared radiation escaping to space at the wavelengthe that CO2 absorb energy and by surface measurements finding more infrared radiation returning to the surface at those same wavelengths. Why do climate scientists focus on CO2? Because it is both the most dominant radiative forcing and is also the fastest rising.

    The total contribution of waste heat to our climate has been calculated and compared to the heating contributed from greenhouse gases in Warming from fossil fuels (Caldeira 2009). The radiative forcing from CO2 is around 10,000 times greater than the forcing from waste heat.
  5. There's no empirical evidence
    More to the point, are there other, more prevalent sources of CO2 outside of industrial or non-natural based carbon emissions and further, are there other elements at play in increasing the global heat capacitance currently perceived?
  6. There's no empirical evidence
    I think the Skeptical Argument is improperly presented. It should rather be presented "There is no empirical evidence or proof that humans are [the primary causes of current global warming trends]. It's all based on theory and computer models.
    Response: Ideally, rather than use my own wording, I like to quote an excerpt from a skeptic article - usually one that sums up the argument succinctly and eloquently (lest I be accused of setting up a strawman argument). I'll get around to it for this argument sooner or later.
  7. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Al, Indeed lets see.
  8. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity, The AR4 report does in fact quantify the forcing from aerosols (see Fig. 2.13 pg. 169 Chpt. 2). The top 3 are forving base don observations. The latest AOGCMS which will be used in AR5 include atmospheric chemistry, although I am not sure to what extent the chemistry module interacts with the cloud microphysics module/s, if at all. As John notes, there is no discernable signal of CGRs in the global temperature data, if they did have a significant impact on cloud coverage/opacity, then it would ahve in turn had an impact on the global temps. Anyhow, let us see what the CERN data show.
  9. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Jim Ryan, there are so many misleading/wrong claims in that article that a point by point critique would be quite boring. Just take two of them. The temperature has been flat in the last decade. You might want to this post that shows how the earth is still accumulating heat. Surface temperatures vary a lot and a decade of apparent flat trend is easy to find. But this does not mean that global warming has stopped. Tamino has a a nice post on the varibility of surface temperatures you might also want to read. The "Darwin scandal" is just a lye (no euphemism here, just a flat lye); Eschenbach is indeed known for playing this dirty game of manipulating data (anyone still remember how he shifted the data to show that Hansen was wrong?). What happened at Darwing is that the station has been moved and then it was necessary to apply a correction. Eschenbach is simply hiding this.
  10. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatross it's too weak to describe those people that think there is merit in this idea as contrarians or cynics. There is a real mis-reading of the intentions of scientists on both sides of this arguement. While I accept that there are some (on both sides) that have an agenda it's true that most scientists are just generating data that hopefully adds to the body of knowledge. It seems that anybody who generates too much controvesy with their work is quickly labelled any number of denigrating terms. Given Jasper Kirkbys obvious high status in the field he could probably be working on just about any topic he wishes. He chooses to do this, I guess, because he thinks it has legs. Do you think this man is convinced by the arguement? I do. I also think the 15-20 groups involved in this project from a dozen highly regarded institions think this is important. Many of the authors from the 138 references in the PDF also probably think this is important. In terms of overstating the importance. The IPCC state the uncertanity is too great to assign a forcing value to CGR. There are other forcing (such as aerosol and cloud) which have similar high levels of uncertainty but which are aknowledged. How can you overstate or even understate something which the IPCC suggests is very poorly understood. If we followed your logic we'd remain in the dark.
    Response: The role of cosmic rays in climate is an important question - there is still some question about the degree of influence being debated in the peer reviewed literature. However, as far as the global warming debate goes, cosmic rays have had little to no role in the warming over the last few decades. This is because measured cosmic rays have shown little to no trend since the 1950s - an unsurprising result as cosmic rays are modulated by solar activity which has also shown little to no trend since the 1950s.
  11. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    I'd be happy to critique Melanie Philips for you.......she's an all round appalling person with rabid views on just about everything. Only the most deranged would consider her a darling of anything. If there's one bad thing about the anti-AGW it's that its dominated by the worst right-wingers in the mainstream debate.
  12. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity, I said "I do not dismiss the hypothesis that cosmic rays have no role whatsover." So I am open to new ideas. Am I convinced, are the climate scientists and cloud microphysics scientists convinced? No. The CERN project might shed some light on all of this, but again, the importance is very likely being overstated by the contrarians/cynics. They seem to forget that there are an abundance of giant CCNs, especially over the oceans which can readily act as CCN for cloud droplets, and most of the globe's low-level cloud (Sc, St) is found over the oceans. There is hardly a limitation of CCN over the oceans. I am not doubtful of this hypothesis b/c it is not consistent with AGW, but b/c of the tenuous science concerning the exact mechanisms involved. I cannot emphasize this enough, even if there is a link, be careful about ovserstating its importance. I'll have a look at the PDF when I have time, by the same token you should read some of Dan Rosenfeld's work, and the excellent discussion at RC. Anyhow, I don't want this thread to morph into a debate on CGRs.
  13. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Hi John, Melanie Philips is a journalist in the UK and one who frequently appears on BBC TV and radio spouting a rabid anti-AGW scepticism and is consequently one of the darlings of the 'denialist' community. At the moment she is in full flow regarding the CRU e-mail hack. Needless to say she hasn't a scientific background and is convinced that AGW is a 'scam'. Although I am familiar with general scientific precepts, her latest blog, although I'm fairly sure it is a gross misrepresentation, contains some rather specialist knowledge and I would appreciate if you would critique it from a technical perspective. Fantastic site and keep up your invaluable work! http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5620571/the-smoking-iceberg.thtml
    Response: Reading through Melanie Philips' latest blog post The smoking iceberg, you'll see she is reiterating many of the most popular skeptic talking points. For example: The focus on the Darwin weather station is new though, will have a look at that in more detail if time permits.
  14. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    #46 Albatross I take your points and there is some truth in your silver bullet idea but not quite for the reason you state. I see that Svensmarks data has been critised to death but as I said the science doesn't rest on the limitations of one piece of data. This should be a familiar arguement to you it's one used by pro-AGW people all the time. If you take a look at the PDF I linked to you'll see a well rounded arguement supported by many different data sources. On Svenmark I think his theory has been refined to say that CGR affect low level clouds. I see the graph on John's page about CGR but this looks very different to the one presented in the PDF on page 5. It's too crude to say one is lying so you'd have to conclude that the data are generated in very different ways. I'm not skilled enough to say which is right. It should just be pointed out that the CLOUD project is supported by groups in a dozen or so US and European institutions. The lead author is Jasper Kirkby who according to his Wiki page is a leader in particle physics, designing new accelerators. This is not mickey mouse science by petrochemical stooges. I accept there are many scientist that produce work that downplays the role of CGR influence it just seems you are unwilling to accept there are many who also think it's worth investigating because there is evidence to support it. I really suggest you read at least the first half of that PDF, it's balanced in showing the limitations of the science as well.
  15. There's no empirical evidence
    thereisaidit, we already have the technology and it's improving rapidly; the only big question is time (or probably I should say the will to act). We will never see the arctic, or any other impact we already caused, recover. It's even worst, indeed; even if we act promptly we will see more degradation of our environment. We are not even thinking of turning back to the pre-industrial climate, we're only trying to avoid what is considered too dangerous to afford.
  16. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    batsvensson, "scientists" is plural. It's a whole scientific community that is under attack from outside.
  17. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    "what Weart is talking about is personal attack to scientists. This is unprecedented." I do not agree. May I mention Newton?
  18. The hockey stick divergence problem
    I would like to see an analysis of proxy results based on location. Tree rings, ice cores and sediment data all have a precipitation component. Are all low latitude proxies experiencing different precipitation conditions than high latitude proxies? Or % of cloud cover? Information is missing, and most of the solutions seem to be mathematical rather than observational.
  19. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity #37. Did you read my part about the role of aerosols in cloud formation, opacity and precip. efficiency? These are known facts and have been studied extensively. See for example work by Daniel Rosenfeld. I do not dismiss the hypothesis that cosmic rays have no role whatsover. Is the evidence convincing? No. Is the science that has been done good? Not always. Don't take my word for it, read the in depth discussion and debate that was held at RC recently. John Cook deals with the cosmic ray hypothesis on this very site. I get the impression that you are looking for a silver bullet Humanity. Thank goodness, this mess is all because of comsic rays, well now we can go on with business as usual. Well, not so fast, even if the comsic ray hypothesis is true. How significant is it in terms of absolute radiative forcing? Can they even demonstrate that? In the greater scheme of things it is probalby (if at all) a very small player. Recently someone at the U of T in Canada found a link between stratospheric ozone destruction and cosmic rays. Next thing, denier blogs are claiming that CFCs causing the ozone hole is a hoax. Well, no. He said that CFCs and NOx were still the primary catalists, but that cosmic rays appeared to be modulating the amount of ozone loss. And that is what may be going on with cosmic rays and clouds-- the hypothesis and its impacts (if any) are being overstated. CGRs may be a very small player, but they are by no means the primary driver. Also, do not forget about the problems associated with ocean "acidification". Doubling or tripling CO2 would play even more strain on an already taxed and vunerable ocean ecosystem which is a major food source for huge numbers of people. So there are other very real and understood reasons for reducing our CO2 emissions.
  20. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity "Finally while I agree that we should give weight to experts in the field who have studied these thing throughout their career we shouldn't exclude the layman and his contribution to this debate." Agreed, I do not cater to the ivory tower, but I would be very wary of taking at face value that this person's interpretation of the data is correct. Humanity, you should also know that Willis has been shown to fudge data before (look it up), so he is hardly credible. The man has an agenda and is clearly biased. He did not even succeed in properly replicating the methodology set out in the litertature. It is irresponsible for them to make the allegations based on a sample size of one, and for them to then make sweeping generalizations/allegations and then post these allegations on the net for everyone with an untrained eye to misinterpret at will. And that is their audience for the most part, not scientists.
  21. There's no empirical evidence
    oops, in the last commet the first mention of "non-CO2 releasing energy" should have been "CO2-releasing energy"
  22. There's no empirical evidence
    This web site and it's articles is the best (most thorough most civil, most compact, most interesting) I have ever come across. If we agree that human-caused CO2 has has caused the increase in global temps, the more difficult problem is what to do about it. Does anyone really think the answer is electric cars? More bumper stickers? Without hyper-analysing energy issues, it seems that the underlying belief is that we need to substitute non-Co2 releasing energy with non-CO2 producing energy. Is this even POSSIBLE on a global scale? And if so? Will the surge of population over the next hundred years erase those efforts? And, is there enough time? Even if our solutions were implemented on a a world-wide scale over the next 20 years, how long would it take for the volume of arctic ice to re-establish itself and confirm our "fix" has succeeded?
  23. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Two good rebuttals of the CRU "scandal": http://www.pewclimate.org/science/university-east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-analysis http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html BTW, I am working on an essay targeted toward conservatives that think we should continue to "do business as usual". I will be shopping it around at the various blogs I frequent in order to get feedback to make it better. The goal will be to get an essay that we can all use to convince those that ignore the science because they do not like solution. Stay tuned.
  24. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    As another line of evidence for global warming you could list that plant species in mountain ranges now tend to grow at higher elevations than in the past. See for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5884/1768 A side effect of this is that species that are restricted to the highest altitudinal zones may be driven to extinction, both from increased competition and because they have nowhere else to go.
    Response: Thanks, I've added it above and more importantly, added it to "It's Not Happening".
  25. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    @albatross, 32 "Still not convinced about the warming? Then look at the oceanic heat content data at: www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ If these data do not convince you that something is amiss, nothing will." I like to point to the sea level measurements, showing a trend of >3mm/year since the early 90ies. I think ALL temperature data series will have to be carefully checked by 'outsiders'. That's the only sensible thing to do in the present situation.
  26. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    @thingadonta, 36 >"we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance". "Absolute Baloney. Ever heard of the church in the middle ages?, the resistance to evolution?, or Socrates and the Academy, or the Spanish Inquisition?. His use of the word 'never' here is a gross exaggeration/distortion, what would such do with the data then, if they can't even get basic history right. Would they use this word 'never' in a historical paper, or are they just plain stupid? " OK, the Spanish Inquisition is the correct historical parallel. I think the implied context here was the public, (allegedly) fact and science based debate of the latter centuries. I understand very well that this distinction is somewhat alien to you.
  27. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    thingadonta, i think you should distinguish between science and scientists. While it's true that we've already seen harsh controversies in the past, what Weart is talking about is personal attack to scientists. This is unprecedented.
  28. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    NewYork, your argument is well formulated in comment #33, but I wonder; do you also mind to take into account the fact that scientist also oppose the hypothesis of dangerous man made global warming, and on what ground would they then do this? Else your argument may leave the conclusion open to that scientist that opposes this idea are evil or lies or are stupid or is a combination thereof.
  29. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatross #32 on the Darwin data. I don't think Eschenbach says there hasn't been a global warming trend. In fact he says several times that the globe is warming what he speciifcally does is question the adjustment process. I also don't think he's attempting to generate a centuary trend either locally or globally. He acknowledges this is one data set, in fact he critises the sparsity of long term data sets in the region used in the adjustment process. This seems a perfectly reasonible process to do and it's perfectly reasonable to expect NOAA GISS and CRU to undergo this sort of scrutiny. Finally while I agree that we should give weight to experts in the field who have studied these thing throughout their career we shouldn't exclude the layman and his contribution to this debate.
  30. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatross #32 I wouldn't write off CGR at the moment. I think I read somebody was going to recreate the CGR/atmosphere conditions using a particle accelerator to see if the process can be reproduced in the lab. Somebody is spending 9million euros on this and using CERN particle accelerators so somebody thinks it's worth investigating. It seems admirable that they wish to test the theory by identifying a real physical process to may be occuring. The project is called CLOUD and you can read about it here http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ They have a PDF of the original proposal. It addresses some of the limitations of the science but obviously mainly focuses on why this experiment is justified. You can read all 74 pages here http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf but may want to start with section 2.1 which gives some of the background science. I'd just add that calling science incredibly tenuous and nonsensical when it's published in well respected peer review journals is dangerously close to the closed mind you complain about on skeptical websites. The PDF document has 138 references at the end. This all doesn't hinge on the weaknesses, limitations and uncertainties associated with a single set of work.
  31. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    "we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance". Absolute Baloney. Ever heard of the church in the middle ages?, the resistance to evolution?, or Socrates and the Academy, or the Spanish Inquisition?. His use of the word 'never' here is a gross exaggeration/distortion, what would such do with the data then, if they can't even get basic history right. Would they use this word 'never' in a historical paper, or are they just plain stupid?
  32. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    NewYorkJ, have to disagree with you about the average person not being able to grasp the science. The majority, I would say with 90% certainty, of the people that I work with, work for or know, could grasp enough of the science to make an intelligent decision. But unlike you, me, or the hundreds that come here, most are to involved in their and their families lives to have the time. If it comes down to, "do I do an anyalysis of global warming or figure out how to pay the bills", well you know which one is more important. And to be honest, the contrarion crowd seems to have A LOT more fun at this debate then the pro crowd! :)
  33. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatros, thanx for your time in response. But slow down just a tad, I said that the "attabouys" were NOT here, that this and a couple of other sites are more concerned with the debate (which is why I always come here first, then Steve's, then Lucia's). Again, I am just an old plumber who has a bit of an idea of what is being talked about here. I do not however have the depth of all these papers that get pointed too. That is what I really like about this and some other sites. There is knowledge being offered! I am a fence sitter on this issue, for my philosophy of life is a bit more eastern, bhuddist, you know "all is illusion" yet seek the truth. Technically, I cannot argue with any of you. I can just throw out some thoughts that occur to me from my experience, for most days I am transforming potential energy (nat. gas) into heat, and moving it to areas that need it. So I put out a hypothesis, about oceans needing time to cool down, both you and John directed me to information that I can now read, and decide for myself. I thank-you for that. But Albatros, what do YOU think about my main posit, that this debate is winding down, due to the fact that the major drivers of the opposite sides, CO2 and solar cycles, are now meeting head-on? Without quoting papers, I would like to know YOUR personal opinion. If you think that it is rubish, tell me, it won't hurt my feeling. But to me, this is just the thing, that is way to coincidental, that seems to happen in life, to help us realize just how wonderous a journey we are on!
  34. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Good post, Worder. Contrarians know their target audience. It's certainly not scientists, as qualified scientists can easily cut through their spin. It's the general public and politicians prone to misinformation. Scientists often try to talk to both groups at the same time. Most scientists are reluctant to dumb down their message too much. A great site for climate science is RealClimate, but the posts there are often too technical for your average Joe. When they dumb it down, they probably lose some of their technical audience. Scientists developing communications skills further might help, but I think it's a drop in the bucket. On any complex scientific topic, it can be argued that it's unreasonable to expect most average Joes to understand concepts such as radiative forcing and the Stefan-Boltzmann law in such detail that one can determine sound arguments from bad ones, in the same that your average Jane doesn't understand rocket science. Further complicating this is the psychological Dunning Kruger effect, where individuals who have the least competence tend to trust their competence more than those with more competence, when in contrast it's more rational for those without expertise in an area to defer to experts. So convincing the vast majority of people often comes down to who has the better rhetorical argument. And good repeated rhetoric to an untechnical audience can easily trump good science, no matter how effectively communicated. On any issue that has such a large degree of potential political and societal ramifications, there are going to be large groups of individuals ready and willing to muddy the waters with loud rhetorical arguments. I feel the best solution is long-term. Make critical thinking a requirement in public education, taught at each grade level, with increasing degrees of complexity. Also, thanks to Albatross for pointing me to Lambert's takedown of further pseudoscientific claims from WUWT and the "it's a hoax" crowd. I don't think these folks care how many times their rhetoric have been taken apart and exposed. Objective-minded folks with a strong pursuit of knowledge stopped taking them seriously long ago, but that of course is not their target audience.
  35. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Re #1 (Humanity Rules). My understanding is that Earth emissions are modeled as black body radiation. Given the earths temperature of ~298K that means the IR radiation emitted by the earth peaks at around 600cm-1 and tails off around 1500cm-1. There is this on-line model that allows you to play with the earths emissions. This is Climate science 101 so it may be hopelessly naive !
  36. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    DeNihilist re 26. I followed this page for a long time before posting, and for good reason. Unlike the pseudo-science and spin at WUWT (and really, that is all it amounts to), John et al. reference the real science, and question it. If you think the prevailing attitude here is "attaboy", you are a) wrong, and b) have been completely blind to the "attaboy" mentality at WUWT and CA. Honestly, I went there once and put forth some opposing ideas and was subjected to much ridicule and vitriol. You will find the atmosphere here much more accomodating and open-minded. I have learnt much on this site, and not because of everyone says "attaboy". You should also know that this whole CGR hypothesis is incredibly tenuous, and at best would account for very little in terms of cloud cover. The hypothesis has also been demonstrated many times to be barring on nonsensical. Aerosols (natural and antrhro) and CCNs have a much more imporant role in cloud formation, cloud opacity and rainfall efficiency (for precipitating clouds). Regarding the Darwin fiasco. First, sample size of one. Second, Eschenbach does not apply the proper tests for detecting inhomogeneities. Third, he does not consider changes in sensor type, and observation times etc. Fourth, he does not use the same method as the experts at NOAA, but rather tries to replicate it in some kind of pseudo scientific and hand wavy manner, that may be convincing to the untrained eye or layperson but his method does not hold up to close scientific scrutiny. Now let us for moment entertain your notion that the surface temperature records are nonsense. All four of them (CRUHadT, GIIS, NCDC, JMA) gone. Now let us look at the trends in global mid-tropospheric temps. from the RATPAC (global radiosondes), and the RSS (satellite) data produced in the NCDC annual report up until December 2008 (a very "cool" year by recent standards): For reference, the long-term trend in global surface air temps from NCDC is +0.13 C per decade, and the 25-yr trend for NASA GISS is +0.19 C per decade. By comparison: RATPAC-- long-term trends, +0.17 C per decade (since 1976) RSS-- long-term trend +0.15 C per decade since 1979 (using new technique of UofW to remove stratospheric influences) Did not cite UAH as those data have been shown to be highly unreliable, but even those data show a long-term warming trend. Tim Lambert has weighed in on the Darwin fiasco over at Deltoid, as has Tamino. This is exactly what happened when the Climate Coalition (AGW "skeptics")group got hold of the raw data in NZ and then made a hash of caluting the long-term temperature trends. And WUWT has demonstrated themselves to be just as inept. Still not convinced about the warming? Then look at the oceanic heat content data at: www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ If these data do not convince you that something is amiss, nothing will.
  37. Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
    guinganbresil, the temperature increase after a forcing is roughly proportional to the temperature anomaly and it also has a time lag. Then, thermal emission, proportional to the 4th power of absolute temperature, will keep up "later". Each year we increase the forcing a little bit (i.e. more radiation absorbed in the CO2 band) and the thermal emission (i.e. what is seen as background in the IR spectrum) need to increase. Add that there are feedbacks at work and what you'd expect is a more or less steady increase in thermal emission. This is the nice theoretical picture. The reality is much harder to grasp because the heat goes across the climate system in complicated and irregular ways. We still don't know the details and i would not be surprised to see no increase in thermal emission for a while. In Kevin Trenberth words from one of the now famous emails "Our observing system is inadequate."
  38. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    I'll start by saying that this site has enlightened me more about "climate gate" than any other, and I am now convinced that the email leaks are essentially meaningless. BUT it was possible only after I set aside the time to learn the acronyms and technical terms that are used quite liberally throughout the posts. Yes, this is a scientific forum, and no, I am not a scientist, but I am an educated man with a master's degree, and it took a real effort for me to understand some of the arguments here. Heck, it took me days before I even found this site! Scientists have a real problem on their hands, and it's relating their findings in a way that makes the general public take notice and understand. Get too technical, and you'll lose most of the non-experts. Get too general, or spectacular, and your skeptics will exploit the gaps. Maybe the solution starts with college-level education. Many science professors and students I've known (including my brother and father) operate in silos, quietly dismissing things such as communications skills and humanities as nonessential to their work. And yet, when one of their papers is misinterpreted by the media or a politician, they fume that it was the reporter or commentator's fault, and they may even decline further interviews in the future, as if your average newspaper reader or FOX viewer will read it in the peer-reviewed scientific journals instead. If nothing else, this "climate gate" debacle should tell climate scientists that communicating with the public isn't just something that you muddle through when the reporter knocks on your office door, nor is it of trivial consequence. Effective communications should be a distinct discipline within your field, and one that you take years to develop. Face it -- when Joe Lunchbox or Mark Banker or Jill Housewife crashes on the couch at night and feel like they need a science degree to understand your findings, it's Glenn Beck 1, you 0.
  39. Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
    Tom, Riccardo, Thanks for the stimulating dialog! Tom - I agree you on w/#42 completely if the temperature increase is due to some other factor than increasing insulation. I will have to think some more about whether I agree whether a temperature increase due to increasing insulation alone would increase the heat loss from the system (it sounds to me like it doesn't satisfy conservation of energy...) Riccardo - I agree 100% on #43. With CO2 concentrations very consistently increasing at an increasing rate during this warming phase can you see how the increasing of the forcing is lower than the thermal emission toward balance? I could agree if there was some other large factor driving the system (such as a large past CO2 transient or a forcing term not correlated with CO2 concentration.)
  40. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    The graph from New Scientist is a little bit rough. Isn't it funny that photosynthesis and respiration add for the exact same amount (pre industrial)? Do those figures have an error margin? how much? more than man-made emissions?. It looks a little bit like the pretended carbon neutrality of bio-fuels. A simplistic assumption that has provoked more CO2 emissions than fossil fuels. I can develop but Johnshon does it beautifully for me [Johnson, E. (2009) Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 165-168]
  41. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    DeNihilist you may find in 2015 it's illegal to travel between continents for such trival matters as having a beer. Certainly now many of a certain persausion would find it an immoral act. Back to the science Albatross #23 I don't fully follow what you write but I think Knorr balances the two sides of the equation by reducing the CO2 output due to land use change by 17%, I don't know why he chosses this. Much of the science in many of these CO2 sink papers in another language to me.
  42. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    I guess John, in 2015, we will have to figure out who comes to whom's continent. Thanx for the papers. I'll try to look at them, but things are quite cold here right now, and as I specialize in warm water heating, am quite busy at this tme. Tom, that's what amazes me about this site, I went to look at Climate time lag, not knowing it was a post from here. Great explanation by John, but also great counter arguments from others. Today, I read a paper by Willis Eisinbach on WUWT. doing a Temp reconstruction from the raw Darwin data. Very well done. But what I find so different there is that the comments are mostly "attaboys", while here and at some others I pop by on (Lucia's for example) there seems to be more science and debating. Wonderful stuff for this old plumbers grey matter. Now I know you fellows have your position, but I am still having fun just watching and learning from both sides right now. Well off to bed. Oh, just one last comment. I can totally guarrantee you, that if we could come up with a cheap way to produce hydrogen, or hopefully another 15-20 years we will have fusion, this carbon based economy will die a natural death!
  43. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    DeNihilist wrote <"the current [solar] minimum is still quite young, so it makes sense that the oceans are releasing a lot of stored energy." Nope. See: Climate time lag and Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance
  44. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Well John, the current minimum is still quite young, so it makes sense that the oceans are releasing a lot of stored energy. In my reckoning, it'll take about 3 years before things stabilize, and the cooling really arrives. If that is the way its gonna go. But if after 5-6 years, things are still heating up, then yup, its gotta be the CO2. Maybe we should set a date in 2015, and get everyone together to have a beer and talk about the old times at skepticalscience, whichever way it turns out. I'll even buy the first round!
    Response: I'll take you up on that beer offer, don't think I won't! Re the ocean releasing stored energy, the ocean continues to accumulate energy even while solar output is falling:


    Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2 (Schuckmann 2009)

    What is causing the oceans to continue to accumulate heat. Surface measurements find an increasing amount of downward infrared radiation (Wang 2009, Philipona 2004). Taking a closer look at the spectral data finds that  the increase in downward radiation occurs at specific wavelengths - from this, we can quantitatively attribute warming to particular anthropogenic gases (Evans 2006).

    The warming effect from CO2 is not theory or guess work - we don't need to wait around to find if it will continue in the future. It's happening now and it's being directly measured now.
  45. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    John, thanks to you for this site. Betwixt you and Lucia and Steve Mac, this debate is far better! But this old plumber has one observation that he would like to get out there. It seems to me, that within 5-10 years, the debate will be settled. Which is a bit unfortunate, means that I'll probably be watching the junk on the tube again. :)~ I find from travelling between the pro/anti/maybe blogs (not all of them) that a lot of energy is used by people for scoring points. As I have stated before, to me the truth comes in the quiet moments. In a quiet moment this morning, while laying in bed with my Dachsy, keeping each other warm, this thought floated into my head. It appears that nature is about to resolve this debate for us. The pro people see CO2 as the culprit in the latest warming trend. The anti people, mostly from what I have observed say that it is the sun. Well guess what? Right now the sun is going into what could be a very long minimum. And as we all accept, CO2 is still climbing. This looks like the showdown at OK Corral. I do think that within 5-10 years we will have our answer. Maybe enough time will be left that if the pro's are correct, then we can try to mitigate the effects. But if the anti's are proven right, that still is no excuse to not develop cleaner forms of energy and accept that as the one species within nature that can "see" what our actions may do, to take full responsibility for these same actions. But until that time, that nature lets us in on the truth, I strongly suggest that we take time to hug our kids and learn to love just a bit more.
    Response: Nature has already resolved that particular issue. Currently, solar activity is at the lowest level in the last century. Meanwhile, the current decade 2000 to 2009 is the hottest decade on record. That and the glut of peer reviewed research showing the sun cannot be causing current global warming makes it very clear that the sun is not the culprit.
  46. Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
    guinganbresil, i was not quoting any large ancient transient, in particular not old as the Vostok ice core record; it is a dynamical process. What I was just trying to explain is how you can have an increasing OLR. Indeed, you will have an increasing OLR during a warming phase whenever the the rate of increase of the forcing is lower than that of increasing thermal emission toward balance.
  47. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    As you can see by my spelling, there is a fifth category, but only I get to hold it.
  48. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    As far as global warmign, there are actually only four type of people in the world. By answering the following questions and adding 1 for every yes, you can basically qualifiy yourself on this scale. 1. Global warming is real? yes, no 2. Global warming is manmade? yes, no 3. Manmade global warming is primary due to elevated CO2? yes, no I hope this helps. If you
  49. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Eyeballing the graphs it seems the gradients for each ENSO adjusted graph between 1910 -1944 and 1964-2005 are remarkably similar. I would have expected the gradient to be related to the concentration of GG's and thus increase more in later years??
    Response: Keep in mind that CO2 is not the only driver of climate - other factors like rising solar levels and a drop in volcanic activity had a part in early 20th Century warming.
  50. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity, thanks for the constructive comments. Regarding Knorr (2009), let us assume that they are right. Why then is CO2 still increasing? That would suggest that all the 8.7 Pg of anthro carbon release per year is being absorbed, while immense amounts of natural CO2 are **steadily being released at an accelerated rate**. What natural process could this be? Not volcanism. If anything is absorbing those huge amounts of anthro GHGs, CO2, it much be the oceans. OK, but if they are absorbing all that CO2, how can they at the same time be releasing huge amounts of CO2? Something does not add up with their work. Also, their view seem to be inconsistent with other researchers; Recent article by Le Quere et al. in Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo716.html John Cook, you might also be interested in this new paper on climate sensitivity: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo706.html

Prev  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  2527  2528  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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