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  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  518  519  Next

Comments 25551 to 25600:

  1. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    No. I merely let you know how policy is applied here to everyone. I was trying to help you so that you could make your points without running afoul of moderation policy.

  2. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt@19

    I'm not "Playing the potential victom" at all. You blatantly threatened me @14 - and you speak about conduct unbecoming?

    I don't know?

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Please stick to topic. Any discussion of moderation is offtopic. Further offtopic discussions by either of you will be deleted.

  3. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt@14

    On one hand, you asked me a couple times, what my point is, or was, and now your alluding to me 'repeatedly making the same point'.

    What point is that then?

    And now you seem to be adopting the stance of an adlescent, whom, when they can't have things their way, they try to break the other persons computer, or simply grab their little network and run off, with all the cords becoming unplugged (banned).

    RE: "And note ahead of time that moderation complaints also get deleted."

    I'll be certain not to complain about any moderation actions.

  4. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    "The science was, and remains evident, regarding global cooling in that period."

    And isn't it interesting that, even though we'd come through a period of cooling from 1940-1960, most scientists were more concerned about the challenges we face in relation to global warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases.

  5. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    "If you wish to delete my comments, or have RobP do so, becuse it upsets the policies of your website, then that is totally up to you and your colleagues; isn't it?"

    Playing the potential victom is rather unbecoming. Plenty of people come to SkS and strongly argue their points without problem at all, even when they go against the scientific consensus position, as long as they play by the rules. That's not about getting upset. It's about keeping the conversations here polite and constructive.

  6. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    NecktopPC... John Cook's comment is accurate. Your references do nothing to refute that. You provided a link to a paper by Roberts that discusses agriculture and food supply in a cooling world. As I stated, Roberts worked with Sagan and others on at least two separate issues related to potential global cooling. Nuclear winter and human emissions of aerosols. Roberts was also very active, as was Sagan, in research on global warming.

    You state that, "The science was, and remains evident, regarding global cooling in that period." But thus far you've not linked to any specific science on global cooling in the 1970's.

    I would highly suggest you check out a paper by Peterson 2008, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. PDF

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Yes, please do read Peterson. Note that it is incumbent on posters to produce evidence to back claims. Peterson produces strong evidence against a consensus on cooling. In my opinion, you either need to redefine consensus or find something better than Peterson that produces the opposite conclusion.

  7. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt@11

    No worries!

  8. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt@12

    My point was being made from the start. There were scientists (Hansen included) who realized, from studies, surveys and or data, that the globe was cooling, and many of them referenced this global cooling, to a possible (prediction) return to an ice age.

    And I point out @9 that this was the consensus coming from NOAA (one of two, that existed back then) as well...global cooling.

  9. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    "NecktopPC @6... If your comment was not intended to be related to a "...predicted ice age in the 70's" then it would be off topic and thusly should be deleted - Rob Honeycutt@10"

    I might remind you, that it was a comment made by Mr. Cook, which read: "None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then) endorsed ice age predictions in the 70's."

    The term ice age prediction, is simply alluding to the fact or science which showed global cooling - and if the globe continues to cool, then it could very well be expected, that there may be a return to another ice age.

    I have been on topic, of global cooling, and for the period in question, from the start of my first comment here, and have shown where the information which I have provided, makes references to, or uses the words ice age - call that 'prediction' if you will, but lets not turn this into word semantics.

    The science was, and remains evident, regarding global cooling in that period.

    If you wish to delete my comments, or have RobP do so, becuse it upsets the policies of your website, then that is totally up to you and your colleagues; isn't it?

  10. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Yes. That's pretty standard netiquette, and it's applied here equally to all commenters. Please also take note of the policies related to off-topic, ad hominem and sloganeering (repeatedly making the same point). Those are the ones that most often get people banned. And note ahead of time that moderation complaints also get deleted.

  11. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt...I did notice that there was a "RobP" in brackets before the moderetor's comment - and thanks for the heads up on where your comments (updated) policy is located - and as I suspected; upper-case lettering, is viewed by your policy makers as shouting.

  12. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    NecktopPC @9...  So, is there a point you want to make?

  13. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    My mistake on the NOAA/NCAR mix up.

  14. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    NecktopPC @6... If your comment was not intended to be related to a "...predicted ice age in the 70's" then it would be off topic and thusly should be deleted. 

  15. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt...You stated in your comment to me at 01:02 AM the following: "You note that Roberts is one individual and not the entire NOAA"

    I never associated Dr. Roberts with NOAA, but rather, the "National Center for Atmospheric Research".

    But speaking of NOAA, the first in the list of bodies, as it was mentioned in this story, by Mr. Cook; here is an interesting achived article that speaks of a 'cooling climate', as opposed to a warming one, and with conotations toward that of ice ages. A Dr. Murray Mitchell of "NOAA" conducted a survey (study) which revealed a cooling of the earth's surface temperature, by half (0.5) of a degree. This being between 1945 and 1968.

    And a study released by two (2) "NOAA Scientists" noted that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the Continental U.S. had diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972.

    And the word "Climatologists", is mentioned in this little story, about Science. 

    URL: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

  16. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    NecktopPC... It wasn't me that moderated your post. It was RobP. If you look directly above the text box where you write your comments you will see a sentence with an embedded link stating...

    "Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Updated Comments Policy..."

  17. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt...Can you provide a source to your comments "policies" that I may be able to review them, thus being able to know in future, how to avoid any breaches. 

    I hope that by me using a TLA (three letter acronymn, e.g. BTW) in upper case, was not adding to anymore unnecessary work for you. 

  18. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt...I have read the document (paper as you put it) and I never stated that it was "a paper about ice age predictions".

    RE: "t's a paper about agriculture in the face of a cooling climate"

    Exactly - and in the story, it does mention the following: "The Earth may have entered a new "little ice age."

    Now; there were other scientist whom were involved in the study of the climate (weather, space, oceans, sun, etc, etc.) and articles written in science magazines as well, that were hinting at a return to an ice age...predictions if you will.

    RE: "I honestly don't see that you have any point."

    I would not have expected a different response.

    BTW: the only reason for me having put certain words of my last post in upper case, was merely a means for me to supply emphasis - I guess I could have used the bold or underline feature however.

    I find to be of a cynical nature, that moderators quickly assume that someone is shouting, or being rude, when using upper case lettering - that's a very insecure attitude in this business.

    So what degrees in particular, does make a climate scientist?

  19. Climate scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal on its snow job

    The simplest way to put this is that over the last 70 years since 1945 there has been between 0.3 and 0.6C temperature change depending on if you look at the homogenized land record produced by GISS (0.6C) or the satellite record, the unhomogenized land record, perfect thermostats, weather balloons or sea surface temperatures as recorded by ARGO buoys (0.3C).  In either case this is the result of pouring in approximately 30% of the CO2 of a doubling.  Since CO2 acts logarithmically this is closer to 40% of the effect we expect to see from another 200ppm of CO2.  So, the amount of change is another 0.4-0.7C between now and 2100 depending on if you want to depend on homogenization being able to continue to produce double the temperature change than the rest of the measuring apparatus can show.    That's simply a fact.  To expect anything more would be unscientific.  There is no basis to say temperatures will accelerate for the next 80 years compared to the last 70 years especially as it will be difficult to maintain the growth of CO2 output needed to keep the linear growth in co2 concentration and increasing heat.   

  20. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    Their cooker even had a double-pane of glass for cover, so the temperature with a GHE should have skyrocketed to above 200C.

  21. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    TSI peaks at 1410, yes, and the difference of the average TSI from now to then is, what, 0.5 W.  So, hardly an inflation - use 1409.5 then.  The temperatures where they used reflectors to increase the internal flux are not relevant to a test of the greenhouse effect.  And the result of 126C without relfectors is still well below the 182C which would be required if the cooker has an IR emitting cover.  126C is also easily within experimental effects such as having absorption occuring on the shaders, geometrical concerns of the device (the cooker isn't a simple plane), etc.

    Herschell's 115C is still well within a no-GHE result, as we expect something closer to 182C with a greenhouse effect.

    The values you cite are all hovering around a no-GHE result close to the temperature of the insolation-only expectation.  Nowhere near the 182C required for a GHE. All a cooker needs to do is to add another cover layer (or more) to increase their internal GHE, and boost their internal temperatures far, far beyond the insolation-only values.  None do.

  22. 'If the world ends in 2100, we’re probably OK'

    jmath, Apple did not introduce the cell phone. The rest of your screed is just as incorrect.

  23. 'If the world ends in 2100, we’re probably OK'

    While it certainly is seemingly useful to consider things like periods after 2100 it is impractical to consider really 20 years into the future with any reliability for virtually anything.  Prediction is hard.  People in the climate business should be more aware of that than anyone.  Who would have guessed 20 years ago that practically all the energy from the excess CO2 could be stored in the ocean below 300M for 20 years while man poured 57% of all the CO2 ever poured into the atmosphere in.   Certainly none of the climate scientists thought such a thing was possible.  No computer models predicted this.   So, even when considering nature one can be drastically surprised by the way nature works.   If you look 20 years ago in any field you will see a fantastical amount of change that was impossible to predict 20 years ago.  It is hard to believe that it was 2007 when apple introduced the cell phone.   It has been only 8-9 years since and we cannot imagine life without them.  20 years ago we were utterly dependent on middle east oil to run the US economy and suffering trade debt of 800 billion/year to Arab and other oil economies.  Today the US debt related to oil is under $300 billion and falling rapidly.  Arab nations are eating up their surpluses rapidly.

    One of the big problems with estimating something like co2 in 2100 is technological.  The rate of change in cost of solar is fairly constant price decreases which show the price to go below the price of coal/oil in 10-20 years maybe less.  Many developments in progress are very significant.  Other technologies for energy production are in development.  The rate of all technological development is on an exponential curve.   We just discovered the CRISPR virus and the means to use it to modify DNA reliably.  It has already been used in clinical trials.   In 20 years we will see dramatic improvements in medicine as we unlock both the epigenetic code and are able to engineer at the micro level new materials and cheistry of all types including new materials twice as strong as any previously known material, the ability to make computer memories that are terabytes in size and as fast as RAM yet persistent without power like SSDs.  We now have 1152 qubit quantum computers and our AI is able to recognize faces and other objects almost as well as humans can.  We have the first self-driving cars.  Elon Musk landed a rocket ship back on Earth after deploying cargo in space.  In the meantime we have saved animals from extinction, raised the living standard of hundreds of millions of human beings and reduced starvation dramatically.  I could go on.   It is just very difficult to say what will happen in 85 years considering the confluence of all the factors above and all the unknowns.  

    The assumption of CO2 rising to 2100 at an exponential rate is already in question.  Total CO2 production peaked last year and is expected to be flat this year as well.  It may already be that we are on a slowly decelerating trend of CO2 increases.  A prediction of exponential growth in anything is problematic.  It has been the undoing of many predictions.  The fact that is it is near impossible to maintain a systematic growing CO2 output for 85 more years in the face of all this.  So, by 2100 it is unlikely we will have CO2 levels above 500 in my opinion and we will be on a downward trend most likely.  That's my prediction simply based on what seems like what is the most probable evolution of technology.   

    I think there are many things to worry about the future however CO2 is by far the smallest of all worries.  We are producing smart machines, genetic abilities, micro materials, nano materials, huge changes in jobs and livelihood, distribution of wealth and populations.  There is a lot to think about but global warming has to be one of the silliest concerns imaginable.   The simplest argument I have is that temperature is uncorrelated with growing wealth and improved condition of man or animals.  The more wealthy man has been we have been able to take care and care about the environment more.  So, better economic conditions short term are more likely to result in improved conditions for the planet.   The chinese for instance need to be wealthier so they can afford to clean their environment.   if they stay poor they will kill themselves with pollution.  no amount of telling them to clean up the environment will work until they get wealthy enough to afford to clean it up.  They may be at that point right now.   We are learning about the environment in exponential ways.  I am confident we will figure out how to save it but the worst thing to stifle our ability to learn and fix the environment would be to stifle growth or development.  It is a catch-22 in a sense but this is the only way forward.  

  24. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

    POJO @94.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "backed away" and "opt back in." They are not terms I have met in scientific papers. AR5 Section 2.4.1.2 is titled Diurnal Temperature Range so DTR is still a subject under discussion by the IPCC, as ever. Perhaps the question should be asked as to why there are no DTR analyses plotting out global DTR time-series post-Vose et al. (2005)? Is there a difficulty with such analysis? Indeed, why do your graphs present data that is clearly contradictory to that presented by Vose et al. (2005)?

  25. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    NecktopPC...  If you'll read the paper you originally posted, it's not a paper about ice age predictions. It's a paper about agriculture in the face of a cooling climate. Roberts did work with people like Carl Sagan on the issue of nuclear winter. There were a few papers out at the time about the potential for cooling the planet through human aerosol emissions. Those are both reasonable issues to consider in terms of impacts on agriculture and food production.

    I honestly don't see that you have any point.

    Relative to the relevant degrees held by SkS contributors, that hardly matters because contributors are reporting on science that is produced by climate scientists. 

  26. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    Rob Honeycutt...You chose to dispel the information by a noted climate scientist, associated with the 'National Center for Atmospheric Research" - that organization was mentioned by the story here - and perhaps it serves to fit with your personal opinions or narrative...who knows?

    RE: "First off, he's an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist."

    Yes; an astrophysicist who's work spans decades of studying the influences of the sun on weather and climate.

    Your impression on what makes a climate scientist is obviously also skewed - and your choice of providing a link to the story carried by the the New York Times, only confirmed that Dr. Roberts was in fact, viewed as a climate scientist - its in the headline itself.

    Roberts was a founder of the Department of Astrogeophysics at the University of Colorado and took a personal research interest for many years in the study of influences of the sun on weather and climate - https://aas.org/obituaries/walter-orr-roberts-1915-1990

    There is an enormous of amount of information on Dr. Roberts on this wikipedia website - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Orr_Roberts

    And we have the American Meteorological Society (AMS) recognizing Dr. Roberts - https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-awards-honors/lecturers/lecturers-list/the-walter-orr-roberts-lecturer/

    There are many individuals (almost all) on the "Skeptical Science Team" who are not listed as having specific degrees in climatology (only one); they hold degrees in other studies.

    Have you realized, that the head (chairman) of the IPCC, is an economist...has a degree in?

    So what is a climate scientist?

    Moderator Response:

    [Rob P] All caps removed. All caps are a breach of the comments policy & are tedious to correct. Any further breaches may result in the entire comment being removed. 

  27. Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!

    @Elmwood #2

    I do think it is not cap and trade that was the problem in Europe, but rather how they set it up.  Also, European anti-nuclear sentiment, as in the USA, doesn't help.  Seems to me that many fear what is imagined "might" happen over what certainly will happen. 

  28. Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!

    I find it interesting that the USA dealt with acid rain in the early 1990s with a GOP endorsed cap-and-trade approach.  As I recall the economy in the 1990s did fairly well.  However now the GOP says the exact same approach will destroy the economy.

    www3.epa.gov/captrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

    It is interesting how the only thing that has changed really is the political dogma of the times.

  29. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

    POJO @92 and @94, seems intent on creating a fiction about the IPCC discussions of DTR.  According to his mythology, the IPCC supported "the DTR story" up to, and including the Third Assessment Report (TAR), but thereafter withdrew that support.  In fact, the IPCC discussion of DTR has been nuanced throughout.  This, from the First Assessment Report (FAR) we have:

    "Because the ocean has a large heat capacity, diurnal temperature variations in the ocean and in the overlying air are considerably muted compared with those over land and, from a climatic point of view, are likely to change little Over land, diurnal variations are much less restricted so the potential for relative variations in maximum and minimum temperature is much larger Such relative changes might result from changes in cloudiness, humidity, atmospheric circulation patterns windincss or even the amount of moisture in the ground Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to assess variations of maximum and minimum temperature on a hemispheric or global scale However in the regions discussed below, multi-decadal tiends of day-time and night-time temperatuies have been studied and do not always appear to be the same"

    Discussion clearly focusses on the multiple possible causes of changes in DTR, and notes that hemispheric and global data is not availabe.  From that it follows that they cannot have been pushing "the story" POJO attributes to them.

    The Third Assessment Report concludes its discussion of DTR by saying:

    "Minimum temperature for both hemispheres increased abruptly in the late 1970s, coincident with an apparent change in the character of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, giving persistently warmer sea temperatures in the tropical central and east Pacific (see Section 2.6.2). Seasonally, the strongest changes in the DTR were in the boreal winter (−0.13°C/decade for rural stations) and the smallest changes were during boreal summer (−0.065°C/decade), indicating some seasonality in the changes. Preliminary extensions of the Easterling et al. (1997) analysis to 1997 show that the declining trends in DTR have continued in much of North America and Asia. 

    Figure 2.3 shows the relationship between cloudiness and the DTR for a number of regions where long-term cloud cover data are available (Dai et al., 1997a). For each region there was an increase in cloud cover over the 20th century and generally a decrease in DTR. In some instances the correlation between annual cloud cover and annual DTR is remarkably strong, suggesting a distinct relationship between cloud cover and DTR. This would be expected since cloud dampens the diurnal cycle of radiation balance at the surface. Anthropogenically-caused increases in tropospheric aerosol loadings have been implicated in some of these cloud cover changes, while the aerosols themselves can cause small changes in DTR without cloud changes (Hansen et al., 1998 and Chapter 6)."

    The strong trend in DTR from the 1970s is attributed to a change in the ENSO regime.  The effect of cloudiness is discussed extensively, and some attention is also given to aerosols.  Again we have the nuanced discussion we expect from the IPCC.

    In short, the only thing that has changed in the IPCC accounts prior to AR4, and after is the addition of more data allowing a better characterization of the trends and uncertainties.

  30. One Planet Only Forever at 01:35 AM on 3 February 2016
    'If the world ends in 2100, we’re probably OK'

    Johnb,

    I share your concern about the merits of geoengineering 'solutions' to the climate change issue. My concern is that they will be 'popular and profitable' rather than be thoroughly understood and legitimately justified.

    nigelj,

    I understand that Humans are not 'wired to ignore the future or not care about others'. Lots of marketing research results (and what is presented by Susan Cain in “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking”; and Naomi Oreskes' and Eric M. Conway's “Merchants of Doubt”), clearly show that some humans can easily be impressed and be encouraged to care about personal short term desires to the detriment of others or the future.

    Most aboriginal cultures developed the understanding that they must live as part of nature and limit their actions to ensure they only made things better for future generations (did not make things worse).

    Competition to get more of a limited opportunity for desired personal benefit (not needs, just desires) can obscure or even erase that type of understanding and awareness. It made many aboriginal groups fight each other.

    And the ability to 'win' by deliberately misleading others, or through created authority and the force it can exert when being misleading fails, makes things worse. This was proven by most of what was done by the European conquerors as well as many other horrible examples of abuse of power and authority (including things happening today).

    The detrimental consequences of competition in a game that allows uncaring selfish people who would abuse their freedom to get away with unacceptable actions, including misleading marketing, is repeatedly proven by every successful delay of the research into, and dissemination of better understanding of, how to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all when that better understanding is likely to be contrary to the interests of people who got away with becoming more fortunate, wealthier and more powerful.

    That is the best explanation I am aware of for what can be seen to be going on, not just regarding climate science related to rapid recent global warming and the resulting climate change.

    Human nature is not the problem. The problem is clearly people who understand how to manipulate human nature and abuse that understanding to impede the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all. And they do it because that future would have them be perceived as 'comparatively less of a winner' even if they too would be better off in that future.

    This leads many people to desire to not want to understand climate science. And if they must, they prefer to only talk about what things might be like 85 years from now, and deliberately understate the expected future consequences of their personal short-term interests and pursuits.

    This counter-productive way of thinking (counter-productive from the perspective of the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all), also leads people to believe they are justified in doing economic assessments of their perceived 'value of lost benefit by the most fortunate in the current generation' for comparison to their 'perceived costs of the consequences on others in the current and future generations (limited to the next 85 years)' and justifying what they want to get away with by claiming the perceived benefit a portion of humanity would need to give up today (as those having to give up the opportunity to benefit figure it) is more than the costs to all others including future generations (as those having to give up the opportunity to benefit figure it and limit it). This way of thinking is totally irrational and clearly inappropriate. It is like a person wanting to do something they personally consider to be a $1000 benefit and justifying it by figuring that the cost to their neighbour is less than $1000. Yet it is the way the US Government and many other powerful groups like to think about this issue.

    So there are far more unacceptable ways of thinking and acting than 'limiting the thoughts to what things may be like 85 years from now'. And they are being exposed by the fight against climate science. It is a very 'enlightening issue'. Hopefully it can help change what has been going on so that humanity has a better chance of advancing (rather than developing a steady stream of ultimately unsustainable and damaging technological changes selected based on popularity and profitability that are incorrectly perceived to be advances).

  31. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    NecktopPC... You note that Roberts is one individual and not the entire NOAA. No one is suggesting that some scientists might have had dissenting opinions in the 1970's. But even given that, you might look further into Walter Orr Roberts work.

    First off, he's an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist. Second, he was active in the global warming issue where he attempted to get cooperation between the US and Russia to address the issue. LINK

  32. They predicted an ice age in the 70's

    RE: "Other scientific bodies that have released statements endorsing anthropogenic global warming include: National Center for Atmospheric Research"

    RE: "None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then) endorsed ice age predictions in the 70's."

    I would like to draw your attention to this document, which was titled: "A New World Climate Norm? Climate Change and itsEffect on World Food"

    And that story was written by: Walter Orr Roberts, of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

    Here is an URL. to a .pdf copy of the article: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16505796265.pdf

  33. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

    MA Rodger @93.

    Is it not enough that IPCC have openly stated that have backed away from DTR??  

    In reference to AR5.  Please advise me where IPCC have opted back in??

    Regards to Fig 3.2 of AR4.   After just explaing and providing the evidence that the IPCC have backed away from DTR as a fingerprint you are effectively questioning the IPCC's wisdom!

    It is clear in the the low resolution anomaly chart that the anomaly has flatlined since  1990 ish.

    Also note that the IPCC chart you reference in Fig 3.2 of AR4 uses a DECADAL anomaly.  The decadal chart I posted is on post 92.  It clearly show's what has happened since the 90s.  Ignore the last two ticks. 

     

    I may add as I have in previous comment that the data that is being used to support the Fingerprint as pointed out by Tom was only upto 2000 and 2003.  It is now 15 years later and you are defending the the Brazanghi analysis.  I applaud you for that.  On reflection I am not disputing his analysis.  He made a analysis with the data he had at the time.   

    Note that Brazanghi etal paper was more about the suitability of using DTR as a fingerprint for CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE.  

    I have already stated that I support this assessment.  But people need to move on.  Another 15 years has elapsed from the last data used for his assessment.   There is nothing in his paper that states his findings do not apply if DTR is moving in a opposite direction now is their.

     

    So in conclusion it is evident to me that DTR is no longer a endorsemnt (Fingerprint) for Co2 effect on greenhouse gas.  DTR is stable and Co2 is pumping along.

    It is a endorsement of correlation between cloud and temperature.  More cloud means a smaller range between min and max temps.  That is all it means.  

  34. Climate's changed before

    Climate has changed before!? Wow! Thank goodness someone realized this. I'm so relieved now. Let's just tell all of the scores of science academies, thousands of climatologists, economists, governments, health care organizations, militaries, and insurance companies that they don't have to worry any more. I'm surprised that none of them knew this already, that climate has changed before. I'm sure they will be as happy as I am to hear that this isn't a problem because climate has changed before.

    Seriously, I can't believe people like Marco Rubio are still spewing this nonsense. All of the vast majority of climate scientists that accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming already know that climate has changed in the past, and they are still extremely concerned about our GHG emmissions. The 97% must be wrong, or involved in a giant hoax.

  35. Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!

    Climate change denial disorder => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZTTI_0mHN0

  36. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    JPostma @148:

    From the PDF:

    "In the “diverse experiments” Fourier references in regards to de Saussure’s device, we would expect that the results with the highest temperature arose from those conditions which were most conducive to the collection of solar energy. Thus, for an atmospheric total extinction of solar light of ε ~ 14% when the sun is near solar noon on a clear day and at some altitude up a mountain, a maximum TOA flux of FTOA = 1415 W/m2 , a surface emissivity of μ = 96% and surface albedo of α = 96% (such as for charcoal, given that de Saussure’s device utilized “blackened cork” for the absorptive medium), then the equilibrium temperature is 109.8 degrees Celsius, which therefore provides the theory explanation for de Saussure’s observation of the device reporting a maximum of about 110 degrees Celsius."

    First, while de Saussure's first experiment with a his improved hot box achieved a temperature of 228oF (108.9oC); his second experiment, which with further improvement, achieved a temperature of 230oF (110oC) did so "... even though the weather was not as favorable as during the prior experiment".  This more inclement weather for the experiment with the peak temperature shows that you are not entitled to an assumption of ideal conditions.  Further, the experiment which achieved 110oC was not conducted on a mountain.  Indeed, the mountain he did conduct experiments on (Mount Cramont) is only 2,740 meters high, hardly enough to avoid all, or even most atmospheric absorption.     

    You can perhaps assume better conditions for Herschell's experiments, but his peak temperature was 240oF (115.6oC), a value sufficiently exceeding your calculated value to refute your hypothesis.  Further, his observations were made not higher than Table Mountain (1,085 meters).

    In neither case are you entitled to an inflated modern value of the TSI for an experiment conducted in 1767 (or for Herschell's case, the 1830s).  Allowing peak modern values, TOA TSI peaks at 1410 W/m^2, but insolation in 1767 or 1830 was well below that peak value:

     

    Finally, we do not need to relly on these old values.  Modern hot box cookers with designs inspired by de Saussure's are tested in modern universities.  Of particular interest is the testing of the Sudanese design cooker with the external mirror removed, and the internal mirrors shaded so that it most closely resembles de Saussure's design.  Under these circumstances, in April and May of 1998, in Delhi, the Sudanise design reached temperatures of 126oC.  We can assume bright sunshine, but this was after the Vernal Equinox, form which it follows that TOA insolation was less than the annual average of 1361 W/m^2.  Further, we know the experiments to have been performed at or near sea level, so that.  Given your calculated theoretical maximum of 110oC given 1415 W/m^2 and no atmospheric absorption, the 126oC observed clearly falsifies your argument.

  37. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

    POJO @92.

    I am not sure why you harp back to AR4. AR5 has happened since and surely supersedes AR4. Mind, I'm not so sure you have read AR4 properly. Or even given its pictures a critical look. Do you not think the inconsistencies between your data and that presented in AR4 Figure 3.2 should be telling you something?

  38. The Quest for CCS

    Sharon

    An open question. Could your heating requirements - which are obviously significant where you live - be met by ground-sourced heat pumps? Is that considered? Is that on individual citizens radar where you live? Is that on the radar for the authorities?

  39. Sharon Krushel at 17:26 PM on 2 February 2016
    The Quest for CCS

    Philippe, I would identify with you, but not lecture you, on what it's like to lose one's job and livelihood.

    I hope I did not imply that we should do nothing about our CO2 emissions. On the contrary, we must do all we can. We have chosen to transition. CCS is one solution in the transition plan.

  40. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    Howdy Joe, still trying to slay dragons?

    Joe, this is confusing. Figure 3 is correct, reflecting the fact that the inner surface (on the left) will be at a temperature that is 2^-4 times the temperature of the glass surface to the right. That is what thermodynamics says should happen here (in this obviously extremely simplified case).

    Whereas your Fig 5 is not in thermal equilibrium. Thermodynamics does not predict fig 5 as a final outcome. You seem to be confused about what thermodynamics says.

    And your example in your conclusion is crazy. Your coal engine assumes no other energy flow out of the system so it is not an engine. You are effectively saying that if a system has perfect insulation and we keep adding energy into it it will keep getting hotter. Well duh! But we aren't getting anything useful out of the system like mechanical work. That isn't an engine.

  41. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change

    Thanks for this informative article, Caitlyn. I enjoy the firsthand account from an individual who has knowledge of the immediate effects of climate change.

    NASA animation shows global warming over 135 years

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/newsscienceandtechnology/nasa-animation-shows-global-warming-over-135-years/vi-BBowdgo?ocid=sf

  42. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    JPostma... Why is it this doesn't seem to be peer reviewed or published material?

  43. Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!

    cap and trade is a terrible way to clean up our emissions, look at europe. all it does is create a mechanism for wall street to skim money at the expense of everyone else, which is precisely why it has support with our elected officials.

    james hansen and pope francis both reject cap and trade.

  44. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    PDF:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf

  45. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    A Note on Fourier and the Greenhouse Effect

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503

    Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to "trap heat" from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn't rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

  46. Ted Cruz fact check: which temperature data are the best?

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare by Roz Pidcock, Carbon Brief, Feb 1, 2016

  47. Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    South Florida Is Sinking. Where is Marco Rubio? by Nina Burleigh, Newsweek, Jan 28, 2016

  48. Climate scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal on its snow job

    Ryland @ 13

    I take your point: I should have said what I meant, which was that 1998 (the start point for deniers' "pause") was a big "El Nino AFFECTED year" as regards global temperatures.

  49. PhilippeChantreau at 03:51 AM on 2 February 2016
    The Quest for CCS

    I read your post Sharon and a couple of things bother me. Of course, there are a lot of people whose jobs and livelihood depends on the oil industry in Canada. And in Australia, there are lots of communities that depend on coal mining, each could claim only a small percentage of total carbon emissions attributable to their specific community. The same could be said of the oil production of a small African country where I used to live. And so on all around the World. So what do we do then? Nothing? Because we can not disrupt any community? The international finance industry had no such scruples when they repackaged loan assets, leading to the 2008 fiasco. Strangely enough, that has already been forgotten, and it seems such lesser insult to the economically minded.

    The current slump in prices is largely a result of speculation, as were the spikes that happened in the past. The problem is, one can not use the excuse that too many people depend on oil so we can't do anything about it. The hard truth is this: there is no long term future for humanity that includes the industrial scale use of fossil fuels. None. The two are in fact mutually exclusive. So one must be chosen over the other. Which will it be? Once we have that figured out, we ideally would try to make the transition into nothingness for the other as painless as possible. Even if we choose the better option, that may still not be completely painless but neither is life.

    And please don't lecture me on how it's like to lose one's job and livelihood. I was working in aviation when the 9/11 attacks sent the all job market down the tubes, including my job. I'm still here. What Westerners these days call hardship would be considered a very comfortable life in 95% of non Western locations. Even the miserable 2008 economic recession did not manage to reach anywhere close to great depression levels. No long lines to get soup. No shanty towns of homeless people. No epidemic. Just a little less comfort and security. The net loss resuting from this greed-induced fiasco was in the trillion range. It was absorbed by the World economy, with only Greece still having consequences.

    We can spare a few hundred billions into something that likely holds the key to long term future. How much could we gather if we had the 100 richest people in the World commit 1% of their wealth, as a start?

  50. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    What has become obvious to me is that all denialist arguments boil down to "It's a Hoax". Whatever the argument that a denialist is throwing out, it is something that the climate science community has already heard and refuted. The authors of the IPCC reports have also heard all of these arguments before. Therefore, the only way to continue to be a denier is to believe that the vast majority of scientists studying climate are wrong, or involved in the most elaborate international hoax in the history of the world. Clearly these views are irrational, and require a strong prediliction to deny climate changed usually based on ideology.

Prev  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  518  519  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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