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  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  635  636  637  638  639  640  641  Next

Comments 31651 to 31700:

  1. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    OPOF @16, point by point:

    • Of the (currently) 8.9 +/- 1.3 Gigatonnes of carbon placed in the atmosphere by human activity each year, 4 Gigatonnes remains in the atmosphere, 2.6 +/- 1.2 Gigatonnes is absorbed by vegetation and soil as a result of CO2 fertilization, and 2.3 +/- 0.7 Gigatonnes is absorbed by the ocean.  Uncertainties represent 90% confidence intervals.  Taking the central estimates, that means 45% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, 29% is absorbed by plants and soil biota, and 26% is absorbed by the ocean.  It is important to recognize the majore uptake by plants and soil.  All figures are from the IPCC AR5 as shown in figure 6.1.  (As a side note, the emissions figures include 1.1 Gigatonnes from land use change including deforestation, indicating that plants and soils are currently taking up more carbon than we are releasing by our rapid deforestation.  Despite this, since 1750 plants and soil have lost 30 Gigatonnes of carbon due to even more rapid deforestation in temperate zones when the CO2 fertilization effect was smaller.)
    • The additional concentration of CO2 will still be having an impact when equilibrium is reached, at which time no net energy will be absorbed, by definition of equilibrium.  That does not mean its greenhouse effect will have ceased.  Therefore, to avoid confusion, the effect should be described as reducing the efficiency of eliminating waste heat rather than of absorbing incoming energy (which is inaccurate on two counts).
    • Correct so far as I know, but my level of knowledge is not deep in this area (as Rob Painting).
    • The fundamental equation describing the heat balance is Forcing = Change in heat content + λ x Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), where λ is the climate sensitivity factor.  So, the current change in heat content is a function of forcing, climate sensitivity and the current temperature, whereas the final temperature reached for equilibrium is purely a function of forcing and climate sensitivity (as change in heat content reduces to zero by definition of equilibrium).  Therefore, IMO, GMST is a more important indicator than change of heat content (although several SkS authors disagree with me on this).  Change in heat content, however, remains very important, and crucially, absolutely refutes any notion that the overall change in temperature is due primarilly to internal variability.
    • As of AR4 (on which the SkS graphic is based), the entire heat gain at the surface due to ice melt represents just 2.1% of the total, equivalent to that from the warming of surface soils, and less than that from the warming of the atmosphere.  It is tempting to think it is a major player in the heat budget, but it is not.  It is one of several minor players that together add up to between 5 and 10% of the total surface energy budget, with the ocean being the giant in the room.  As a side note, there are other, even smaller minor players, such as increased energy in winds and waves (which are getting stronger, and larger on average), and increased storage of energy as chemical energy due to the CO2 fertilization effect.  These are truly bit players, in the drama, however.
  2. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    One Planet Only Forever @16.

    A couple of corrections.

    In your first point. While the eventual home of the majority of our CO2 will be in the oceans, at present roughly 45% remains in the atmosphere, 30% in the oceans and 25% in the biosphere. So the atmosphere is presently still larger not smaller.

    In your second point. It is the infra-red on the way out that is increasingly intercepted by CO2. Mind, at higher frequencies, CO2 does do a small bit of intercepting sunlight, but only a little. The big effect is in the infra-red at about 15 microns. (A little graphic of mine 2 clicks (usually) down here.)

    In your fourth point. The SST & land temperature do not provide a direct indicator of the radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which is the forcing yet to be equalised by warming. What is good is ΔOHC as the thermal mass of the oceans is the big thing that needs warming.

    In your fifth point. They call it the latent heat of fusion and 300Gt of ice (=300 cu km) requires about 10^20J to melt. So even with something like  Greenland shedding 600Gt, the Arctic Ocean 300Gt, Antarctic 300Gt, other glaciers 300Gt, melting ice is small compared with ΔOHC.

  3. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4A

    I've noticed deniers going bonkers over NASA - Gavin Schmidt's supposed statement that he is only 38% sure 2014 was warmest on record, but can only find it in places akin to checkout aisle rags, like the Daily Mail.  Anyone know where this claim comes from?  Sure didn't see it on NASA or NOAA.

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] See the comments starting here.

  4. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    gregcharles @15.

    Sorry. My bad typing. 1995 should have been 1955. If I cut & paste from Levitus et al (2012), then there'll be no mistake:-

    We computed decadal monthly means by averaging all data within each month for decadal periods beginning with 1955–1964 and then averaging these decadal climatological monthly means to compute the long-term climatological monthly mean (1955–2006) at each gridpoint.

  5. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    Just as an interesting calculation, if that heat going into the ocean (10*1022 Joules in 8 years) had all gone into the air instead then air temperatures would have risen 19.4 C in those 8 years.

    This is more than an interesting calculation.  This is a whole series of communications that  ABSOLUTELY MUST absolutely must be placed into the minds of the public.  It absolutely destroys any conversation regarding a "pause". AND And it CLEARLY clearly shows the severity of current global warming.  I have used this as a talking point to deniers that claim a pause and they, of course, choose not to believe it.  Because there is absolutely no response except.  We are experience catastrophic global warming.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] The use of "all caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

  6. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    The accumulation of 6E22 joules in the earths oceans from 2010 to 2014 yeilds an average Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance of .932 Watts per Meter Squared.  If this only represents 94% of the total energy deposited in the earth biosphere the average TOA value is .991 Watts per meter squared from 2010 to 2014.

    I wonder what the effect of South East Asian aerosols is on the current TOA?

  7. One Planet Only Forever at 04:50 AM on 24 January 2015
    The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    I would like some confirmation that my understanding of what is going on is correct.

    • A substantial amount of the CO2 added to the recycling environment of the planet (the surface waters and air), by humans burning buried hydrocarbons eds up absorbed into the oceans. A smaller portion collects as a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    • The additional concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere means that more of the incoming energy from the sun will be captured by the planet. And the surface of the planet that emits absorbed solar energy as infrared energy that CO2 absorbs will need to be higher to balance the energy in with energy out.
    • And a lot of energy in that warmer surface gets taken down into the oceans. This heat absorbtion will be more rapid in La Nina conditions and would be slower in El Nino conditions.
    • So the increased heat content of the oceans is an indication of the warming. However, the long term average of the surface temperature is still a meaningful measure since it relates to the changes needed to rebalance incoming energy with outgoing energy as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.
    • Net loss of ice mass would be another 'energy change' that is occurring. The latent heat, maybe not the correct term in this context, of melting ice occurs with no change of temperature as the ice transforms to water. This would be another large energy change that is occurring.
  8. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    Nick Stokes also has created useful plots of the durations of record temperature years.  Click the little arrow buttons to switch across different temperature datasets.  But note that many of those lack 2014 records so far.

  9. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    @BillTheFrog and MA Rodger

    All right, fair enough. Yes, it makes sense to report total heat as an anomaly, and based on the the negative values in the chart, it is obviously what they are doing. I'm still not sure why that can't be stated along with the chart for clarity, but I suppose it doesn't matter.

    I will point out that the baseline used seems to be around the 1980 pentadal average, not 1995-2006.

  10. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    Nick Stokes has a very technical discussion of uncertainty at Moyhu.  Gavin Schmidt from NASA Goddard explained in response to Nick's question at RealClimate:

    [Nick commented:] It’s not clear how you then went to the odds of 2014>2010. Because 2010 basically wasn’t sampled in different places. So it seems there is a major component of variation missing. How is that handled?

    [Response: Nothing sophisticated. These estimates are based on a 1 sigma of 0.05ºC, increasing backwards in time, and assuming independence for any one year which seems reasonable. If you have something better and tractable, let me know. – gavin]

  11. Renewables can't provide baseload power

    Tracy...  If there's no big money going into this, that's probably a very strong sign that smart people have taken a close look and determined that it's not the most viable solution.

  12. It's too hard

    James P wrote: "...it is fairly obvious to the non-scientist like myself..."

    So you are a non-scientist... but you insist that scientific peer review must be like whatever (non-scientific) review process you are familiar with? What was that you were saying about bias and opinions and personal passions clouding issues?

  13. Temp record is unreliable

    James P wrote: "This conveniently ignores the fact that we need to have absolutely certain climate information and we need to know for what period absolute certainty exists before we can even begin to discuss climate change in a rational manner. I don't see why anyone would bother otherwise."

    By this 'logic' the entire history of science and technological progress would be out the window.

    Cave man learning to make fire? Why would he bother when he clearly didn't have "absolute certainty" about how fire worked? Wright brothers building an airplane? Why would they bother when they clearly didn't have "absolute certainty" about how fluid dynamics would impact the craft?

    In essence you argue that we cannot start until we have finished. If we knew everything about climate science with absolute certainty there wouldn't be any need for further research or debate... we'd be done. We'd know everything. To set that (impossible) end state as a pre-requisite for starting is just ridiculous.

    The real question is whether we know enough to make reasonable predictions... but since the answer is "yes", deniers are forced to seek a different, irrational, standard.

  14. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    jsd @13.

    Any impact from choice of climatology depends on your data-gap-filling strategy according to Lyman & Johnson (2014).

  15. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    @MA Rodger 

        I guess the choice of the reference period (climatology) is very important to the long-term trend, see the following paper.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00169.1

  16. Renewables can't provide baseload power

    "all money goes to gargantuan projects..."
    Thus non-mainstream scientists must appeal to crowd-funding campaigns or other non-governmental means in order to get measly dollars enough for just few theoretical works.
    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion-empowertheworld--3
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/how-far-can-crowdfunded-nuclear-fusion-go

  17. Temp record is unreliable

    And James, if you have access to any absolute certainty regarding anything, please share with the world.  It's the ethical thing to do.  You might even win a Nobel, or several!  Keep in mind that an actual absolute certainty would be instantly recognizable by everyone else.

  18. Temp record is unreliable

    James P: "Given the passion generated by the subject of climate change, it is fairly obvious to the non-scientist like myself that the general atmosphere in which the discussion is unfolding is not sufficiently dispassionate to bring us anywhere near the conditions in which peer review could be carried on in an appropriate manner."

    You are confused, James.  The general atmosphere in which the debate is unfolding is the atmosphere of scientific journals.  You're probably transferring the passion seen in the internet debate to the scientific debate (e.g. Judith in publication is not Judith on the internets).  This is an error. If you stand back away from the published science and remain there, you will continue to be tempted to make the scientific debate out to be whatever you want it to be.  You've just given in to that temptation by ignoring Tom's substantial response.

  19. Temp record is unreliable

    James P @326:

    1)  I am a veteran of creation/evolution debates, as well as climate science debates.  On the way I have also debated a number of other kooks, including a self avowed geocentrist and a person who thinks global warming is caused by radar.  I know from long experience that we live in an era of gullibility were any well established science can be questioned by large proportions of the population on grounds that come down to mendacious rhetoric.  You want to pretend otherwise?  Then the more gullible are you.

    2)  In my post @ 324 I gave an extensive, informative answer to your question.  Your response has been to ignore that response except for a side comment that is off topic on this thread, and not relevant to your initial question.  That suggests to me your question was not asked in good faith.  That you describe your question as "your point" confirms that, ie, that you were angling for a rhetorical hook, not asking a question out of a genuine interest to learn the relevant facts.

    @325:

    By conventional wisdom, "absolute certainty" is only to be had in logic and mathematics.  Emperical science must restrict itself to limiting uncertainty.  I find more interesting, however, the etymology of the term "absolute certainty".  Strictly that means "a certainty that has no solvent", ie, a certainty that cannot be dissolved by any fact or evidence.  "Absolute certainty" is actually only the realm of the dogmatists.  Your demand for "absolute certainty" from science is then a demand that science cease to be science.  Rightly, friends of science resist such demand.

  20. Temp record is unreliable

    TYPO in #326 'a precious few' was intended not 'the precious few'

  21. Temp record is unreliable

    Tom Curtis (#324) writes, 'As Rob P notes, there is no such thing as data that no-one disputes, particularly in an era of pseudo-skepticism. Those, however, are the basic facts the fake skeptics will need to studiously ignore, or distort.'

    First of all, I find myself wondering who these dreadful people are who are apparently driven by some kind of nihilistic urge to 'studiously ignore, or distort' basic facts. Do such people even really exist? What on earth is the motivation of these 'fake sceptics'?

    Second, when 'there is no such thing as data that no-one disputes,' I find myself wondering how seriously to take a scientific debate that is based on the idea that since you can't convince everyone of your 'facts' you can just insult them for not being convinced. 

    Third, the expression 'era of pseudo-skepticism' surprises me greatly. We actually live in an era of overwhelming conformity and adherence to doctrines promulgated in schools, universities, the mass media, and government propaganda. Outside that, there are just a few heretics whose only outlet for their opinions seems to be the comments sections of the precious few websites, most of which will probably only end up deleting them. 

  22. It's too hard

    Well, at least James P has made it clear what he wants to be true about peer review in climate science.  Unfortunately he fails to provide any evidence the peer review in climate science is broken.  He also shows that he considers entertaining about him the hypothesis that he entertains about climate scientists is, in his opinion, ad hominen.  Personally, I don't think so - but if that is his opinion, he indicts himself.

  23. Temp record is unreliable

    Rob P. (#323) writes, 'This is an impossible standard' and then goes on to trivialise my point through what is a kind of reductio ad absurdem. This conveniently ignores the fact that we need to have absolutely certain climate information and we need to know for what period absolute certainty exists before we can even begin to discuss climate change in a rational manner. I don't see why anyone would bother otherwise.

    Moderator Response:

    [Rob P] - Impossible expectations are one of the 5 main characteristics of scientific denial. See this SkS post: The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism. The meat and potatoes quote:

    The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists".

  24. It's too hard

    Tom Curtis (#47) referred to a distinction between 'peer review based on quality of paper from peer review as viewpoint discrimination' What I'm suggesting is that such a distinction cannot be made in the real world. Overwhelmingly, people discriminate against viewpoints they do not like by dismissing such viewpoints as 'not quality.'

  25. It's too hard

    Tom Curtis (#47) the human tendency is towards double standards, where someone whose opinions differ from one's own are held to a much higher (sometimes impossible) standard while opinions one likes are regarded with benevolence and the expectation that these opinions should be backed up by hard evidence is much lower. Given the passion generated by the subject of climate change, it is fairly obvious to the non-scientist like myself that the general atmosphere in which the discussion is unfolding is not sufficiently dispassionate to bring us anywhere near the conditions in which peer review could be carried on in an appropriate manner. (That your comment ended with an ad hominem comment - a slur on my intellectual capacity - is, itself, proof of this contention.) 

  26. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    gregcharles @10.

    The refernce period used by Levitus et al (2012) on who's methods the data is derived use a reference period of 1995-2006 to base their anomaly.

    That the graph represents an anomaly of some sort is surely obvious, unless you can explain a negative absolute heat content - an interesting concept.

  27. It's too hard

    James P @46, your claim indicts your discipline as not being scientific, rather than calling into question peer review in other disciplines.  Or (a more conservative hypothesis), perhaps it merely indicts you as not being able to distinguish peer review based on quality of paper from peer review as viewpoint discrimination.

  28. Temp record is unreliable

    James P, the thermometer record, particularly that used by HadCRUT4 was very restricted up until 1880.  That can be seen in this graph of the percentage of the land/ocean area covered by their record:

    After 1880, although coverage was not universal it was also not significantly biased in geographical representation except for sparse coverage in the Arctic, and zero coverage in the Antarctic.  Antarctic coverage for all datasets was accomplished in approximately 1957, as part of activities related to the International Geophysical year.

    As Rob P notes, there is no such thing as data that no-one disputes, particularly in an era of pseudo-skepticism.  Those, however, are the basic facts the fake skeptics will need to studiously ignore, or distort.

    The real question is, how much difference does the lack of coverage make?  Prior to 1880, arguably it makes a very big difference because their was not only a lack of coverage, but such coverage as existed was heavilly biased towards Europe and North America, along with the North Atlantic.  That is the reason GISS and NOAA do not extend their temperature records back prior to 1880.  After 1880, however, except for Antarctica, the coverage is typically extensive and not geographically biased such that only minor distortions of the temperature record can be expected.

    That last point was ably demonstrated by Caerbannog, who randomly chose 85 rural stations with long records, such that only one station was to be found in any given 20o x 20o cell at any time, and took the simple average to determine a global temperature:

    As you can see, divergence from the GISS temperature record is minimal.  So, after 1880 coverage issues do not typically impact on estimates of global mean temperature, and to the extent that they do have only a small impact (the 0.05 C uncertainty interval, in fact).  Indeed, the improvement of the record over time has recently been illustrated by Gavin Schmidt with a plot of the PDFs of the temperature of successive record warm years in the GISS record:

  29. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4A

    The link US conservatives erupt over pope's plan for encyclical on moral duty to address climate change leads to a different story  Climate change researcher to sit with first lady at SOTU

    Just pointing that out.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Link fixed. Thank you for pointing out the glitch

  30. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4A

    Any estimates on the Colima volcano yet?  Will this have a measurable cooling effect?

  31. It's too hard

    "You need to start citing peer reviewed articles, not Koch propaganda," someone wrote above.

    I fail to see any reason to trust 'peer reviewed articles.' I know from my own experience (in another discipline) that the peer review process is just a way of screening out dissent. When a reviewer agrees with a point of view advanced in an article, they don't even care if many of the 'facts' that support it are adequately referenced. Peer review is a bad joke.

  32. Temp record is unreliable

    As someone who takes a passing interest in the climate change debate, what I would like to know is the first (i.e., earliest) year for which we have temperature data for the entire planet, data that no one disputes. My guess is that it's only fairly recently, say a date in the '50s or '60s. Does anyone know?

    Moderator Response:

    [Rob P] - "year for which we have temperature data for the entire planet, data that no one disputes"

    This is an impossible standard. Some people still insist bigfoot exists, that they've been abducted by aliens, that Earth isn't warming etc. There is always going to someone who disputes the facts. 

  33. DavidPalermo11600 at 13:48 PM on 23 January 2015
    Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    Tom Dayton et al...

    THANK YOU.  Yes I understand it's the trend that matters.  The thing that I am still struggling with is that the deniers will indeed say "38% probabilty is not very certain".  My mathemetician friend explained it to me but I am not sure yet I can explain it very well to someone.  I will read Schmidt's new article.

    Thanks all,

    David 

    Moderator Response:

    [Rob P] - I wouldn't worry too much by how climate contrarians frame things, nor of trying to convince them of anything. You can't reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place. As for probabilities, maybe a simple graph might help?

      

    The probability of 2014 being the warmest year (due to margin of uncertainty and the small differences between years) is almost ten times that of 1998. And the contrarians were very certain that year was warm! 

  34. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    David Palermo, the deniers want the public to think that the lack of 100% certainty about whether 2014 was the warmest year, means that any year easily could have been the warmest--any year including 1998, 1895, ....  They want the public to extrapolate that scientists have no idea what year was warmest. 

    In fact, those 38% and 48% probabilities are relative to the set of four or five years that are in that table, and all of which are recent years.  It doesn't really matter which individual year was the warmest, because it's the trend that matters.  The warming trend is supported by that table's inclusion of only very recent years in the set of years in which lies the warmest year--with near 100% certainty.  Interpreting those individual year probabilities properly as being relative within that set, as HotWhopper pointed out 2014 is by far the most likely to be the warmest.

  35. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    David @33 - With HadCrut4 still to come ECMWF have thrown a curve ball:

    http://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2015/ecmwf-releases-global-reanalysis-data-2014-0

    ERA-Interim’s reanalysis confirms that 2014 was indeed a warm year, but indicates that it was probably not the warmest. This discrepancy is mainly due to differences in data coverage in the Arctic and Antarctic, which are enough to affect the ranking of different years.

    Read Gavin and Tamino though!

  36. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    Gavin Schmidt has a new article up over at RealClimate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/

    His conclusions after all the brouhaha?

    The excitement (and backlash) over these annual numbers provides a window into some of problems in the public discourse on climate. A lot of energy and attention is focused on issues with little relevance to actual decision-making and with no particular implications for deeper understanding of the climate system.

    In my opinion, the long-term trends or the expected sequence of records are far more important than whether any single year is a record or not. Nonetheless, the records were topped this year, and the interest this generated is something worth writing about.

  37. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    @gregcharles

    I suspect there is no baseline heat content specified because it would be a rather meaningless number. The surface area of the planet is about 511 million square kilometres, of which around 70% is ocean. The mean depth is, if memory serves, around 4 kilometres, so the ocean volume would be somewhere around 1.43 x 109 cubic kms, or 1.43 x 1018 cubic metres.

    As a cubic metre of water weighs a bit over a tonne, we're talking about 1.5 x 1021 kgs. If the average temperature of the ocean was, say, 7 degrees Celsius, then that's about 280 Kelvin. 

    There is a variation of specific heat with temperature, but as a quick approximation (for at least part of the range between Absolute Zero and 7 degrees Clesius) one can use a figure of 4,000 Joules kg-1 k-1

    Putting that lot together comes out at (if I can still do sums at half past midnight) - wait for it - around 1.7 x 1027 joules. (Obviously I've left out any contribution from phase change latent heat as well.)

     

    That's why the starting figure is basically irrelevant.

    Hope that provided some insight into the wacky world of energy calculations. (I also hope I didn't cock it up too badly!)

    Cheers   Bill F

  38. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    TomDayton, thanks for the link to Sou's excellent article.  I particularly enjoyed the link to the slides for Schmidt's presentation of the data of for 2014, from which the table above comes. (I had previously only seen it in a tweet.)  That the table was included in that presentation shows the cluelessness or chicanery of the "skeptics".  They first complain that Schmidt claimed 2014 was a record with no mention of uncertainty.  They then, seperately claim that Schmidt has retracted the prior claim.  They make no mention that both events occured in the same press presentation, and that the "retraction" was just Schmidt's presentation of the uncertainty in a way that is easier to understand.  So, both the earlier claim that Schmidt did not present uncertainties is incorrect, and the claim that he later retracted is incorrect - and both display incompetence or dishonesty.

  39. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    DavidPalermo @33, Gavin Schmidt published this table:

    These results are implicit in the stated temperatures for the various years, together with the stated uncertainty.  There is nothing new in this, and nothing in it contradicts the fact that the global mean surface temperature as determined by NASA GISS was higher in 2014 than in any prior year.  The near universal (SFAIK) portrail of the release of these figures as being a veversal of prior claims by NASA about 2014 show either a total lack of comprehension of basic stastics by their authors, or a deliberate intent to deceive.

    The real story in those figures is that the claim that 1998 was not the hottest year on record is statistically significant.  The "skeptics" favourite cherry pick just became obsolete and they are trying desperately to draw attention away from that fact.

  40. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    This graphic does a pretty good job...

  41. Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    DavidPalermo, HotWhopper addressed the probabilities.

  42. DavidPalermo11600 at 08:52 AM on 23 January 2015
    Global warming made 2014 a record hot year – in animated graphics

    So, I am puzzled.  All the skeptics now are saying that 2014 may not be the warmest on record because Dr. Gavin Schmidt is "only" 38% sure it is.  And accoring to NASA (Schmidt) the probability is ~38%.  See here page 5:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

    How can I explain that the 38% is the best probablity of all the possible warmest years?  I looked and looked and looked and I can't find anything that will help me explain and understand that somehow 38% is a high probability?  Is it?  I also wrote to Schmidt but have not hear back yet.


    Thanks!

    David

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Fixed link

  43. Renewables can't provide baseload power

    Not only is there no support for the idea that "all money goes to gargantuan projects rather than cheaper and more promising devices", there's direct evidence to the contrary.

    One hopes Nelson Mandela would be a little more (genuinely) skeptical than some of his admirers.

  44. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    @Rob and Glenn

    Yes, I know that surface temperatures are usually reported as difference from a mean, but generally (not always) the chart specifies what the baseline is. I'm not sure why they didn't do that here.

  45. The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph

    Well,Rob called it a year ago.

    NOAA just changed the scale of their graph (select panel 2). It is now -10 - +25. That should last for another 4 years. Then it will need to be 30, then 35, 40, 45 .... you get the picture.

  46. Sapient Fridge at 06:56 AM on 23 January 2015
    The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    Esop, I really wish newspapers would re-visit cold climate predictions they have made in the past, such as this one from The Australian in 2008.   Alas they never do.

  47. Renewables can't provide baseload power

    Tracy Cossin @120, as the researchers who develop a viable, commercial fusion reactor (or who even just develop the prototype of such a reactor) will gain a large financial benefit from intellectual property rights, not to mention lasting fame, you can be sure their research is directed where they consider there is the highest prospect of success.

    The problem with fusion is that while it is very possible, and occurs naturally in the conditions at the center of stars, it is very difficult to get it to occur under conditions at the surface of our planet.  Or more correctly, it is very difficult to maintain the stellar conditions required by fusion on the surface of our planet.  As a result, even though research of fusion began in the 1950s, it was not until two years ago that a fusion reactor generated more energy than was absorbed by the plasma.  No fusion reactor has yet generated more energy than was used in sustaining the operations of the reactor.  Despite this, hopes are high that that milestone will be passed by 2027 in a new experimental reactor currently under construction.  At greater than 16 billion Euro cost to date, for a planned 450 net MW output, the plan is hardly commercial.

    Given this, there is justifiable skepticism that comercial fusion power can be developed quickly.  There is even reasonable skepticism that fusion power, even if stable and self sustaining will ever be commercial within the coming century.  I hope that skepticism will turn out to be wrong, but I would not bet against it.  I would certainly not bet our chance of a 22nd century climate that was stable and suitable for our civilization on it. 

  48. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    If I haven't put the decimal point back to front, I calculate the Levitus OHC 0-2000m rise (using regression) over the last 3 to 4 years is running at 1Wm-2 globally = +16Zj pa.

  49. Not pHraud but pHoolishness

    A late post to this thread, but there is a point related to the original article that is worth noting in case the “Wallace v. Feely” issue arises again.

    In addition to spatial and temporal aliasing in the collection of historical data, noted in the original article, one must also be aware that not all pH values are directly comparable. This is because scientists use different “pH scales” (methods of calibration) when determining pH. In a recent review article, Frank Millero noted “Unfortunately, the carbonate constants used to study the CO2 system in the oceans are reported on different pH scales, confusing many trying to understand the carbonate system.” (In case the link doesn’t work, the reference is Treatise on Geochemistry, 2nd edition, Volume 8, Chapter 8.1). Equations 13-16 in the review article show that the same reference seawater can have pH values of 8.32, 8.19, 8,05 and 8.06 on four commonly used pH scales. This range of values is comparable to the change in pH of the ocean over the past century. Historical pH data have been reported on different pH scales, so it is possible that some of the variability in the early 20th century results from the use of different scales, as well as from other problems noted in the original article.

    The value of the work by Feely and Sabine is that the results are based on uniform and internally consistent measurements, thereby creating a more robust trend than can be obtained by simply combining all historical data without normalization to a common analytical method.

  50. The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

    Esop.

    Yep, of course it's cooling. 'Cause sea level is rising and, you know, when the temperature drops the liquid in a thermometer goes .... um .....

    These folks really are bizarre!

    Just as an interesting calculation, if that heat going into the ocean (10*1022 Joules in 8 years) had all gone into the air instead then air temperatures would have risen 19.4 C in those 8 years.

    Not warming My A**e!

Prev  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  635  636  637  638  639  640  641  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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