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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recent Comments

Comments 44001 to 44050:

chriskoz at 18:08 PM on 7 July 2013

The Consensus Project Update and Dana on Al Jazeera Inside Story

If you think Arabic language + google translate = imperfect text, check for example this translation of AJ commenting on recent tornadoes in OK. I'm just shocked with surprise: apart from few obvious misnomers: lack of distinction tornado vs. hurricane (maybe due to Arabic language nuances that someone speaking that language can explain), the translation reads perfectly clear and accurate, far clearer than most Fox, CNN, WSJ nonsense, where language is not a barrier for English reader.

In particualer, everything what Mike Mann has said is quoted without misrepresentation after this double translation. Why? Because the sound and honest journalism by the author (Yasser Aerami) + impartial google translator can confuse some technical words but cannot distort the meaning. On the other side, a human translator can be very biased and can distort the meaning (as we've seen meny times from denialists) and produce the text so obfuscated as sometimes incomprehensible. The climate science became comprehensible to me only after I started to read SkS. In terms of Climate News, AJ stands among those Fox, CNN, WSJ obfuscators like SkS stands among WUWT and the like.

Dana, I cannot wait AJ launch in Amerika. Hopefuly they be able to stream something over internet because Im located in AUS. Let us know.

sylas at 17:59 PM on 7 July 2013

Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study

In the interactive comments for review of this paper, in a reply by Rasmus ("SC C292: 'Reply to Ellestad/Solheim/"klimarealistene"', Rasmus Benestad, 25 Jun 2013"), there is a reference to a scanned copy of a letter:

I will maintain that Ellestad and “klimarealistene” are engaged in a propaganda campain. On February 3rd 2012, Ellestad wrote a letter to the director at MET Norway in an attempt to gag me, after I had commented on the Humlum et al (2011) paper on the website of a Norwegian newspaper. (A scanned copy is available on-line: https://drive.google.com/?usp=chrome_app#folders/0B5ZHm1tjzEtDWjhWZmxIQzVVSWc)

The link provided does not work. Is the scanned copy still available anywhere? Thanks!

basnappl at 15:00 PM on 7 July 2013

CO2 effect is saturated

Hello Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I read through the preprint as best I could. I am unfamiliar with the models used and some of the terminology. Is it true that, in their analysis, the temperature profile of the atmosphere is the fitting parameter?

As far as how well I represented their claims, I will quote with some (perhaps unnecessary) context:

First quote, commenting on the difference spectra figure I included in my previous post:

"An initial inspection indicates that the processing of the data has not caused any major artifacts. In all cases the difference spectra are seen to have consistent and reproducible
features. The only sign of asymmetry (which could indicate a mismatch of wavenumber scales between the spectra) is in the CO₂ (0110 → 1000) band at 720 cm^-1, which may be due to its position on the very steep high frequency wing of the CO₂ fundamental centered
at 667 cm^-1."

Second quote, in reference to the same:

"A negative brightness temperature difference is observed in the CO₂ band at 720 cm^-1 in the IMG–IRIS (1997–70) and the AIRS–IRIS (2003–1970) difference spectra, indicating increasing CO₂ concentrations, consistent with the Mauna Loa record (Keeling et al. 1995). However, this channel in the difference is also sensitive to temperature, and we note that in the 2003–1997 difference, despite a growth in CO₂ between these years, there is no signal at 720 cm^-1."

Third quote is where the portion in my previous post comes from, now with context:

"The CO₂ band at 720 cm^-1, though asymmetric for the reasons stated earlier, nevertheless shows some interesting behavior, with strong negative brightness temperature difference features for 1997–1970 and 2003–1970: whereas, the 2003–1997 (a much shorter period, of course) shows a zero signature. Since we know independently that the CO₂ concentration globally continued to rise between 1997 and 2003, we must conclude that the 2003–1997 result must be due to changes in temperature that compensate for the increase in CO₂. This would mean a warming of the atmosphere at those heights that are the source of the emission in the center of this band. This is somewhat contrary to the general (small) cooling of the stratosphere at tropical latitudes." (emphasis mine, I'm only trying to show where my "explanation" came from)

Fourth quote, regarding differences between model results and observations:

"Finally, there exists a marked gradient in the simulated spectrum between 800 and 700 cm^-1, which is absent in the observations. This coincides with the far wings of the strong CO₂ band centered at 667 cm^-1. In sensitivity tests, this gradient showed sensitivity to the amount of CO₂, and is therefore related to the strong CO₂ band, and may reflect reanalysis uncertainties in temperature."

The paper includes appendices detailing the temperature profiles used to coerce the models to the data.

I would appreciate some help digesting this.

Tom Curtis at 11:23 AM on 7 July 2013

CO2 effect is saturated

basnapple @232, I have difficulty reconciling your description of the "explanation" by Griggs and Harries with that which they offer in the preprint version of their paper.

Specifically, in that version they show (Fig 3 a&b) that two popular reanalysis products do not predict the observed changes in OLR. They also show, however, that there is a profile constrained by observations that does predict the observed changes in OLR (Fig 3 c). That means the observed changes in OLR are consistent with the expectations of radiative physics plus observed changes in gas and temperature profiles, even though the observations of those profiles is of insufficient resolution to permit accurate prediction of these small changes in OLR. As they put it,

"Simulations created using profiles merged from a number of datasets show that we can explain the differences seen in the CO2 and ozone bands by the known changes in the those gases over the last 34 years."

This contrasts sharply with your claimed "explanation", which is of course no explanation at all. Converting a claim that changes in OLR lie within those expected given known limits of observation, and hence that there is no discrepancy, to a claim that a discrepancy exists for which there is no explanation is very substantial. I doubt that editorial review would have forced so large a change on the paper. Nevertheless I ask that you quote the original sections of the paper as published to show that you have indeed fairly represented Griggs and Harries.

basnappl at 10:05 AM on 7 July 2013

CO2 effect is saturated

Sorry for my various typos. I should have read it over before submitting!

basnappl at 10:03 AM on 7 July 2013

CO2 effect is saturated

Hello,

I have a question that I was hoping might be answered here. I've read through the comments and admit that most of what is being discussed are not things I understand well. It seems that the results of difference spectra reported by Harries et al. are a smoking gun. IR measurements from space over time provide concrete, easy to interpret proof that the composition of the atmosphere has changed with time in such a way that more IR is captured.

In trying to understand the methodology better, I came across this more recent publication by the same author using the same approach. It included data from another satellite in 2003. Here is the result:

The paper states that "The CO₂ band at 720 cm^-1 ... shows some interesting behavior, with strong negative brightness temperature difference features for 1997-1970 ... whereas, the 2003-1997 ... shows a zero signature." (Edited for clarity relative to my question--the essence of it is captured)

The "expanation" offered in the paper is essentially that there most be some compensating effect since it is known that CO₂ concentrations increased between 1997 and 2003.

I'm willing, in my ignorance, to grant that that's true. However, I wonder, if the presence of a difference between 1970 and 1970 is seen as proof that CO₂ isn't saturated, why is zero difference between 1997 and 2003 not powerful evidence that it is? It just seems to me that if the former evidence is enough to make one feel sure CO₂ is absorbing more that the later evidence should convince the same person that CO₂ is not absorbing more (between those dates).

Any insight would be appreciated!

Moderator Response:

[RH] Fixed image width.

dana1981 at 08:19 AM on 7 July 2013

The Consensus Project Update and Dana on Al Jazeera Inside Story

Thanks sauerj. Al Jazeera's willingness to have thorough discussions of climate change without false balance is impressive and laudable. I just wish some more mainstream American cable news networks were willing to do the same. At most you'll get Chris Hayes devoting a few-minute-long segment on his MSNBC show to climate change with a good set of panelists every so often. Or you'll get Fox News putting Joe Bastardi on to see if he'll try and break his record for dumbest thing ever said about global warming.

I think Al Jazeera is launching an American station in the near future. I hope they're successful, and show the existing American networks how it's done.

william5331 at 06:11 AM on 7 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

I think a number of the above commentators are right on the money. If I understand the situation correctly, the strength of the jet streams is a function of the speed of rotation of the two Hadley cells that create the jet stream in question. The polar jet stream is located where the Polar Hadley cell and the Ferrel cell meet. The Ferrel cell is an 'idler gear' between the Equatorial Hadley cell and the Polar Hadley cell, but the Polar Hadley cell, is a powered cell, powered by polar air made dense by radiating heat into space and lacking heat from the sun to counter this cooling. With a complete cover of snow and ice, the arctic absorbs very litte heat. Looking at the NSIDC website for October 2012, about half way down we see a report of rising air due to heat given off from open water and winds from the South West. In other words, a reversal of the Polar Hadley cell. As we have more open water for longer periods, this reversal should become more persistant and stronger. The jet stream which is becoming weaker and wobbling should disappear and we will have, essentially, a two cell system in the Northern Hemisphere. Weather patterns which are creeping northward, should lurch northward. The effect should initially be seen in Autumn and should spread further back into summer over the ensuing years. We will have, in essence, an offshore wind as the land cools off in the fall but a lot of heat is available in the open Arctic ocean. This offshore wind, though, will persist day and night rather than being a phenomenon that occurs only each evening as in temperate areas. The effect on agriculture should be pretty much as described in "A change in the Weather" mentioned above. What I find worrying is that if you take a bit of lisence in interpreting the preliminary results from El'gygytgyn, it seems that we already are in a new climate regime but the effects are not yet being felt. In other words, the climate is not yet in equilibrium with the present CO₂ levels. We have set the system in motion towards a new equilbrium but now all sorts of feed back mechanisms will work their way through until we are in the new climate. If so, and as we head with gay abandon towards 500ppm, it should be exciting times.

A Change in the Weather at 02:57 AM on 7 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

In 2005, I had an intuition about the link between the Arctic ice cap and the behavior of the jet stream. It became the predicate of my novel, A Change in the Weather. I continue to be stunned and amazed--and really, anguished--that my intuition appears to have been accurate.

The story is a thought experiment about the imminence and abruptness of this change, and how it might affect the economy and social organization of America as seen through the lens of a single family. The politics of it would certainly be off-topic here, but I think it's safe to say the first consequence would be the failure of agriculture, which will put tremendous strains on society not only in the US but across the globe.

Look at what happened in Michigan in March 2012. Nighttime temperatures set all-time record highs for the entire month because the jet sream had lifted its skirt so far north. The tropical air that wafted underneath coaxed the apple trees into an early blossom. When the jet stream dropped back to its habitual latitudes, the blossoms couldn't survive the cold. Michigan lost 90% of its apple crop.

I think when the ice cap finally inverts from white heat reflector to black heat absorber, even just for a few weeks in late summer, these erratic excursions will be greatly amplified and interfere with the rainfall patterns that agriculture has depended on for millennia. In my book, it happens in 2018. That's just five years from now. I've checked this with Dr. Francis, Dr. Masters, and Dr. Mark Serreze at the NSIDC, and Dr. Ken Dunton at UT-Austin. They think this timeframe is plausible.

sauerj at 02:44 AM on 7 July 2013

The Consensus Project Update and Dana on Al Jazeera Inside Story

Dana, Both sets of interviews are very good & informative (recommend all to watch). I am impressed by Al Jazeera's integrity to sound journalism (i.e. not pandering to the typical argumentative interview via including the 'denialist' in the mix). Everyone was professional yet gave a piece of their own personality to this "debate of our time" (in other words, it was neat to hear & see you, Dana, in person). As an older guy myself (& increasing realizing how fast life slips by), I sadly wonder, Dana, what it will feel like for you, when in 20-25 years from now, you will be the 'old' guy in the mix (remembering & memorializing the late climate heros before you), and yet still talking in hopeful terms about these same basic policy initiatives. I hope not, but yet ...

I thought the question on the rudimentary development of people's belief & its possible change (& the study sited, starting at 7:50 on 2nd interview) to be interesting. It implied that scientific announcements and weather upsets have little impact, but that political 'browbeating', and I would add, bolstered by repetitive ideological news broadcasts have, back to the study, the strongest impact on shaping & solidifying a person's 'bent', moving from a budding presumption to an entrenched imutable convention. Sadly, I would say this seems to match my unscientific observations, casting yet even more doubt that change via good & noble things, like logic & truth, will have a remotely easy time of it. ... But, I'm just another agent of noise speaking from my own entrenched and immutable position.

Thanks again for posting and for your continued hard work!

citizenschallenge at 23:37 PM on 6 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

yup, also see:

Weather Extremes Tied to Jet Stream Changes
By: Seth Borenstein
Published: June 25, 2013

http://www.wunderground.com/news/heat-wave-alaska-jet-stream-may-be-blame-20130625

grindupBaker at 12:27 PM on 6 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

Our neighbour's Premier Alison Redford just said on CBC they were overdue for their bit of heavy rain because it was 120 years since they had one. It'll be interesting to hear what is said for the next one.

Daniel Bailey at 11:34 AM on 6 July 2013

There is no consensus

I've cobbled the following list together from a variety of sources and persons. Apologies, but it's been too long to remember whom they were for proper attribution:

The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and has been endorsed by this great cloud of witnesses:

the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

the American Geophysical Union,
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

the American Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

the American Physical Society,
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

the American Meteorological Society,
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

the American Statistical Association,
http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm

the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html

the American Quaternary Association,
http://www.inqua.org/documents/QP%2016-2.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

the American Society of Agronomy,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

the Crop Science Society of America,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

the Soil Science Society of America,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf

the American Astronomical Society,
http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php%23climate#climate

the American Chemical Society,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf

the Geological Society of America,
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

the American Society for Microbiology,
http://www.asm.org/images/docfilename/0000006005/globalwarming%5B1%5D.pdf

the Society of American Foresters,
http://www.safnet.org/fp/documents/climate_change_expires12-8-2013.pdf
http://www.safnet.org/publications/jof/jof_cctf.pdf

the Australian Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf

the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/26

the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO,
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

the Geological Society of Australia,

the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies,
http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf

the Australian Coral Reef Society,
http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=5d093a51-a77e-4ae0-bd9f-67e459d57ac1&groupId=10136

the Royal Society of the UK,

the Royal Meteorological Society,
http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

the British Antarctic Survey,
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/position-statement.php

the Geological Society of London,
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html

the Society of Biology (UK),
http://www.societyofbiology.org/policy/policy-issues/climate-change

the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences,

the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

the Royal Society of New Zealand,
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/climate/climate-change-statement/

the Polish Academy of Sciences,

the European Science Foundation,

the European Geosciences Union,
http://www.egu.eu/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html
http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html

the European Physical Society,
http://nuclear.epsdivisions.org/Reports/eps-position-paper-energy-for-the-future

the European Federation of Geologists,

the Network of African Science Academies,
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=4825

the International Union for Quaternary Research,
http://www.inqua.org/documents/iscc.pdf

the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics,
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf

the Wildlife Society (International),
http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/35-Global%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Wildlife.pdf

and the World Meteorological Organization.
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/statann/documents/SG21_2006_E.pdf

There aren’t any national or international scientific societies disputing the conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely to be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, though a few are non-committal.

The last organization to oppose this conclusion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). They changed their position statement in 2007 to a non-committal position because they recognized that AAPG doesn’t have experience or credibility in the field of climate change and wisely said “… as a group we have no particular claim to knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics through either our education or our daily professional work.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
http://64.207.34.58/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2010_TPGMarApr.pdf

There are people maintaining lists of these orgainzations, but I'll have to try and dig up the links. Been about 3 years since I lasted looked at them...

The now-defunct LogicalScience.com website maintained a seemingly-complete listing, but it has gone into the great Internet Twilight zone. However, the most recent archive of the site can be found:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111130013640

Moderator Response:

[RH] Fixed the few super long URL's that were breaking the page formatting.

Alpinist at 08:55 AM on 6 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

Jeff Masters site has had several recent posts on this as well including this: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2452 from just a couple days ago.

Chris G at 05:44 AM on 6 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

Not an expert, but I could follow both arguments; I also found Dr. Francis' to be more compelling.

As I understand it: The jet stream(s) are not driving forces; they are a product of the large circulation patterns for polar, intertropical, and Hadley cellss; they exist where the circulation patterns meet. Physics predicts, and we have observed, that warming anamolies increase toward the poles. The waves in the jet stream are largely a result of the different speeds of the larger circulation patterns. When air (or any fluid) flows past other air, turbulence is created. For less deltas, the turbulence has larger, slower waves. I suppose an analogy could be that shorter frequency waves have higher energy than longer frequency waves; and in this case the energy in the wave is a product of the energy differences between the air masses in the different circulation patterns.

If someone has a better understanding, I'd be glad to hear it.

So, if this is by-and-large correct, then we would expect to see changes in the jet stream waves (amplitude, frequency, and location) with any lessoning of temperature gradient between equator and pole. The Arctic ice is particularly interesting if you think of it as an temperature buffer. There is a fair amount of energy delta between several million cubic meters of ice and the same mass of water, at the same temperature. So, I think that there would be a change in the jet stream pattern regardless of if the Arctic were land or sea, but I suspect that the difference is enhanced by the larger differences we are seeing being ice minimum and ice maximum.

citizenschallenge at 01:11 AM on 6 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

Fascinating article, thanks for printing it.

And thanks chriskoz for voicing my thought:

"Note how (Trenbirth) says "there might be influence somewhere in Europe, for example, but not over entire NH". To which I may reply: well, the same jetstream flies over Canada US and in Europe, why do you think America is "immune" to it?

==============

And sorry for doing this, but it is only slightly off topic considering how science skeptics love pointing out the 1920/30s arctic warming (where they fail to mention the warming was rather localized, originating around Spitsbergen) trying to imply that there is nothing unusual about current events.

I've been reading: "The Arctic Warming 1919 to 1939" by: Arnd Bernaerts

http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/pdf/chapter_8.pdf

Which has introduced me to the notion that intense navel activity caused a great deal of ocean mixing, disrupting the thermohaline current, and leading to the freak warming event that started off Spitsbergen and spread outward from there:

" a long barrage between the Orkney Islands and Norway ... (USA and UK mines laid) 73.000 mines __about 5,000 exploded prematurely soon after laying __20,000 mines were disposed of while the work was in progress __from the remaining ca. 50,000 mines __more than 30,000 mines were already ‘gone’ in spring 1919, either drifted away, or exploded during winter storms; __rest 20,000 were swept in 1919." {ch.8 p.94}

In all something like 200,000 mines were laid in various North Atlantic locations.

~ ~ ~

As for ships and U-boats:

"The situation became dramatic when U-boats destroyed more ships than Britain could build in early 1917. In April 1917, the same total rate of the previous annual rate of 1916, ca. 850,000 tons, was destroyed by U-boats. In April 1917, Britain together with the Allies lost 10 vessels every day. During the year of 1917, U-boats alone sank 6,200,000 tons, which means more than 3000 ships, and, during the war months of 1918, another 2,500,000 ship tonnage. The total loss of the Allies ship tonnage during WWI is of about 12,000,000 tons, namely 5,200 vessels. The total loss of the Allies together with the Axis naval vessels (battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, sub-marines, and other naval ships) amounted to 650, respectively 1,200,000 tons." {ch.8 p.88}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It's one of those thoughts that at first blush is way out there, but then on reflection and considering the new found appreciation for the amount of deep ocean churning whales and other sea creatures produce as they dive to deep depths then return to surface (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/9/8387/2012/bgd-9-8387-2012.html) - it doesn't seem so far fetched.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm curious how has the scientific community reacted to Bernaerts' hypothesis?

DSL at 23:32 PM on 5 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Klaus, perhaps after Morner has addressed his integrity here, he can go to Open Mind and address this.

Boswarm at 22:42 PM on 5 July 2013

Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil?

Stephen Leahy,

I did not infer or imply you made this stuff up?

Read my comment again. It's the bits left out that got to me. Then you say:

"Iceland has not recovered, it remains Europe's largest desert despite the amazing efforts of the soil cons service. "

It has recovered and adapting to the new soil conditions, and as it warms, the position will improve. The statistics prove this. See the references in my previous coment especially www.bondi.is

"FYI It is a 1000 word article, not a transcript of 3 days of talks" - I know what you wrote, I have all the transcripts from the conference, yet so much was omitted in the true story of Iceland farming.

Fertilizer usage reduced since 1981
Barley 15,000 tonnes per year for zero in 1970
Beef cattle increase to 2011
Horse breeding doubled
Pigs increase X 6
Laying Hens plus 50,000 since 1970.

What these figures exhibit is a shift from dairy and sheep to other forms.

It's called adapting, not peak soil. Iceland is becoming one of the most unique farming communities in the world with now less than 6.5% of the population producing more agricultural and pastoral product than 77% of the population did in 1901. Change and adaption is what Iceland farmers are great at. If you visited the Westfjords you would have seen a great change from an old farming practices to the new.

Have a look at the constant change between agriculture and pastoral - it's called adaption.

Your article was a correct representation of the conference, but needed a lot of information regarding the true nature of the industry in Iceland to create balance.

I am sorry if I have upset you in my comments above and here. I have seen Iceland over many years, and it is improving greatly, except for the fact that the good farmers, agricultualists and pastoralists are aging and not been replaced. It should be retiltled - PEAK FARMER.

And if vrooomie had any manners like you have Stephen, he would have asked similar questions. We have to keep fighting to reduce the carbon pollution or we will all be at peak END.

chriskoz at 21:23 PM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

Cornelius@7,

"dramatic music" is for large, poorly educated audience. Like most TV shows, they must add some "drama" to entice audience. Otherwise they would go out of business if they'd left with viewers like you & me only.

I think it is getting better: not so long ago they used to entice audience by falsely pretending the existence of "debate": i.e. showing Monckton, Bob Carter and even Tony Abbott arguing this science is "crap". No need to say that none of those characters (with the exception of Bob Carter) are even worth mentioning along the names of the scientists, let alone give then any air time. In case of Bob Carter, if giving him any time, it is mandatory to mention his personal bias due to regular payments from The Heartland Institute in appreciation for his scientific opinion. Otherwise his apearance is misleading for poorly educatred audience.

But not a hint of any "skepticism" in this program. Let's hope this change is for good, at least in Catalyst.

chriskoz at 20:38 PM on 5 July 2013

Two Expert — and Diverging — Views on Arctic’s Impact on Weather ‘Whiplash’

I don't think Kevin's & Jennifer's views are diverging by much. Kevin does not contradict the theory of meandering jetstream's signifficance on NH weather, he's just a bit skeptic (in a good sense) and is looking for more evidence. Note how he sais "there might be influence somewhere in Europe, for example, but not over entire NH". To which I may reply: well, the same jetstream flies over Canada US and in Europe, why do you think America is "immune" to it?

Personally, I give more edge to Jennifer's view because she's more knowledgeable expert in this particular topic. And some evidence confirming meandering jetstream's theory at work in America (e.g. tropical cyclone Sandy) do exist to back her.

Cornelius Breadbasket at 18:03 PM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

mikeh1 @ 5

I'll share this one. I'd prefer it without the dramatic music - but it is a very well put together documentary. Thank you!

johncl at 17:58 PM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

I do believe the next glacial period is estimated to be around 50000 years from now if the natural forcings (Milankovitch cycles) are the main driver. The question remains though whether the new state of the biosphere with a substantial higher CO2 concentration (so far 40% over what it should be) will even allow the planet to cool down enough for serious glaciation. Most likely it will cool down though as the tilt surely must have a substantial effect on the amount of energy absorbed (but I am really only guessing here). Our CO2 emissions will most likely not go down much in the coming decades and every year really reduces the chance for these natural forcings to overcome the artificial injection of insulation in the atmosphere. But they will still come "on top", including the weather patterns, so I wonder how the next major El Niño will affect us. No doubt another round of high scores.

About the terms, I still think AGW is the correct term as its our deliberate warming of the planet which is of essence here, climate change is just one effect of this. And as villabolo say here the effect it has on food production is probably the immediate one we will notice, partially also because there are so many of us on the planet now. Add a bit of energy crisis due to oil shortage and the "green revolution" goes *poof*, and we are back to being more relient on whatever energy the soil and the sun gives our crops. Some freak weather incidents on top (due to e.g. a messed up jetstream) will then add the little extra challenge. I say we live in interesting times...

skymccain at 16:34 PM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

Thank you KR.

Bert from Eltham at 12:31 PM on 5 July 2013

Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink

Bear with me.

The mindless universe started with inflation.

Soon after cooling enough atoms of H, and He and a bit of Li formed.

Some of these atoms some time later gravitationally collapsed into stars.

These early stars were responsible for nucleosynthesis of heavier nuclei.

It was only supernovae that actually produced nuclei above Iron 56.

All this newly formed matter that was strewn everywhere then finally at some cool places formed new stars and planets.

The third stone from the Sun was geologically active with ordinary chemistry to make a near habitable planet. The above is very good article.

Early mono cellular life transformed the oceans and atmosphere and forever changed the simple chemistry that was in effect up till then and it took four billion years!

Finally multi cellular life evolved. Until we came along. We are all trashing our only home because of greed.

Worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nnwvoH-4XI

Bert

mikeh1 at 09:18 AM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

Moderator - the following may be a better link to the Catalyst story. The mp4 works well on a tablet but not so well on a desktop.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3796205.htm

mikeh1 at 09:15 AM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

The following is a link to last night's excellent Australian ABC Catalyst science program on extreme weather.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/catalyst/catalyst_14_11_wildweather.mp4

It includes interviews with the following climate scientists.
Dr Erich Fischer, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH
Dr Karl Braganza, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Dr Lisa Alexander, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW
Dr Susan Wijffels, Marine and Atmospheric Research, CSIRO
Professor Jennifer Francis, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University

KR at 09:01 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

skymccain - "...why we have not entered the cooling part of this glacial/interglacial cycle yet."

We were starting the cooling portion of this cycle, with Holocene temperatures starting to decline, until the Industrial Revolution. Now, apparently, Milankovitch cycle cooling is off the table for many thousands of years.

Holocene temperatures

skymccain at 08:23 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

I especially like this post. The comments remind me that I would like to read more about why we have not entered the cooling part of this glacial/interglacial cycle yet. There has been so much written on why the warming. That's important, don't get me wrong, but it may also help to identify the factors that in the past triggered a cooling trend. I won't play completely ignorant as I have studied the Berger insolation data and have formed my own opinion. However, I am not a professional and have no standing so would like to hear professionals explain when we might look forward to the trip toward another ice age. What do you think?

Best wishes, Sky

Dikran Marsupial at 06:30 AM on 5 July 2013

The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.

KK Tung wrote " While Dikran may disagree with my summary, I think he has failed to come up with an example where our procedure fails to yield the right answer within the 95% confidence interval (CI) most of the time. "

This is simply incorrect. In the example here, the linear trend due to the anthropogenic component is estimated by the MLR procedure to be 0.0019 +/- 0.00039, the true value is 0.003, which is not in the 95% confidence interval. In this example, the MLR procedure underestimetes the anthropogenic component and the difference is statistically significant. Sadly there seems little point in continuing the discussion if this cannot be acknowledged and accepted, so I will leave it at that, so as not to distract from Prof. Tung's discussion with Dumb Scientist.

Cornelius Breadbasket at 05:47 AM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

shoymore @ 3

You are right. On the BBC there is rarely a mention of CO2 or human influence - whether it is the changing of the jet-stream, the melting of the Arctic or extreme weather (a notable exception being the piece I linked to). I feel that this is because so many contrarians have made life difficult for good journalists like Richard Black (who was solidly under attack by 'climate sceptics' and has now left the BBC) that they are terrified of being victimised in a similar way. Apologies if this is off topic.

shoyemore at 05:05 AM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

BBC did do a good news report last night on their national evening bulletin, with a reporter speaking about the extreme heat in Death Valley.

However, CO2 was not mentioned. The reporter also said "Global temperature rise has stalled, but it is the extremes that matter, and they will continue."

John Hartz at 04:36 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

What's missing from the OP and the discussion thread to date is a basic understanding of how climate scientists define the Earth's "climate system."

Per the SkS Glosary and the IPCC, "climate system" is defined to be:

The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and anthropogenic forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use change.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.

The above is a working definition that we all should adhere to.

villabolo at 04:26 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

Johncl @7

"What I often feel is missing from the terms is the effect beside climate change. There is no doubt the chance of a major "biosphere change" - not not only climate. I believe many people dont consider a bit more wind in their hair now and then a problem".

Unfortunately the general public will consider the term "biosphere change" as too abstract and scientific sounding. Also, most people are inured to hearing words like environment and nature.

The only way to get their attention is to mention the destructive effect of global warming on crops and food prices. That is the only "nature" that most of the general public will be concerned about.

grindupBaker at 03:03 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

I suggest not messing around with the basic phrase in the terminology because Anthropogenic Global Warming is complete enough and accurate enough. The issue is in explaining clearly what happens, has happened, will happen. Messing around with phrases at some point becomes treating other people like children (or, even worse, like consumers). Adopt supplemental detail phrases if necessary and provided they are clear, correct & concise. If you can make a case that significant potential energy or kinetic energy increase has occurred then maybe. I gave it a quick rough shot with sea level rise & more water in air (potential) and tried to find ocean current info (kinetic) but it's negligible. So why "energy" ? Pedantic nonsense.

Smith at 02:52 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

I’m cautious about introducing novel terms, because it can be counter-productive, making things even more confusing despite good intentions.

In light of this remark, is the use of the term "Climate Change Science" a deliberate departure from the more traditional and common term "Climate Science"? If so, could you please illustrate the distinction?

John Hartz at 02:27 AM on 5 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

Cornelius Breadbasket #1:

As should be the case with a report of this importance, MSM outlets throughout the world are publishing/posting articles about the findings contained in the WMO report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes.

KK Tung at 02:21 AM on 5 July 2013

The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.

On the “thermodynamics argument”: Dumb Scientist has repeatedly touted the thermodynamic argument as putting an upper limit on internal variability:

"Again, attribution is really a thermodynamics problem that needs to be calculated in terms of energy, not curve-fitting temperature timeseries. Your curve-fitting claim that ~40% of the surface warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to a single mode of internal variability contradicts Isaac Held and Huber and Knutti 2012 who used thermodynamics to conclude that all modes of internal variability couldn't be responsible for more than about 25% of this surface warming."

First, attribution is not necessarily a thermodynamics problem. The method adopted by IPCC AR4, the “optimal fingerprint detection and attribution method”. “is based on a regression of the observation onto model simulated patterns and relies on the spatio-temporal response patterns from different forcings being clearly distinct…..The global energy budget is not necessarily conserved and observed changes in the energy budget are not considered”. This quote came from Huber and Knutti, 2012.

Secondly, none of the published work could put such a tight upper bond on the contribution by internal variability. Huber and Knutti (2010) in Nature Geoscience, mainly used a zonal mean energy balance model of intermediate complexity, meaning a model without ocean dynamics. I believe this model has a diffusive ocean and therefore is not possible to have internal variability beyond a few months: “The energy balance model has no natural interannual variability but is able to reproduce the observed global trend of past temperature and ocean heat uptake”. The model’s ocean heat uptake is constrained using observation in the upper 700 meters: “Ocean heat uptake for 3000 m depth is also larger, but the model is only constrained using data to 700 m depth”. Given these uncertainties, which the authors acknowledged to be large, I would take the results to be a consistency test of models that have simulated the observed warming as almost entirely a response to forcing.

Towards the end of the paper, the authors compared the 50-year linear trends derived from unforced control runs in the CMIP3 models with the observed 50-year trends. These models do have internal ocean variability. ( DS, please note, this part is not based on a thermodynamic argument, but the result was what you referred to as from a thermodynamic argument.) The authors concluded “For global surface temperature it is extremely unlikely (<5% probability) that internal variability contributed more than 26+/-12% and 18+/-9% to the observed trends over the last 50 and 100 years, respectively”. So the “upper bound” is 38% for the last 50 years and 27% for the past 100 years, respectively. Given the uncertainty in the model’s oceans, I do not think these upper bounds rule out our ~40% and ~0% contribution of internal variability to the 50-year and 100-year trends, respectively.

On Isaac Held’s blog#16 that DS refers to as providing an upper bound of 25% for the contribution of internal variability to the surface warming for the past 50 years: We need to recognize that Held is using a very simple two-box ocean model to illustrate the process of energy balance that can be used to constrain the contribution from internal variability. The exact figure of 25% as the upper bound should not be taken too seriously, and it could easily be 40%, given the fact that there is at least a factor of two variation in climate sensitivity in the IPCC models and he picked one particular value of climate sensitivity from one of the GFDL models for illustrative purpose. There were many other simplifying assumptions so that an analytic result could be obtained. One of them is the assumption that ξ, the fraction of temperature change that is forced, remains constant in time as anthropogenic forcing increases. This would have required an increasing magnitude of internal variability. With this assumption, he was able to obtain the following formula:

Ocean heat uptake per unit forcing=Ocean heat uptake per unit forcing as if the entire temperature change were forced - (1-ξ)/ξ.

The last term is due to internal variability. It is negative, because ocean is supplying heat to the atmosphere to be radiated to space. Held estimated a typical value for the first term on the right-hand side to be ~0.3, from which he estimated that if ξ is smaller than 0.75 then the total ocean heat uptake would become negative. So the fraction of warming contributed by internal variability, (1-ξ), cannot be greater than 25% during a period when the ocean heat uptake is positive. This number can easily become ~40% if the forced response is slightly more efficient in storing heat in the ocean. Recent evidence of finding more and more of the forced warming in deeper and deeper ocean layers may suggest that the ocean is more efficient in storing heat than previously thought. Changing 0.3 to 0.5 would yield close to 40% for this upper bound.

Klaus Flemløse at 02:09 AM on 5 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Many thanks to Tom Curtis, Micheal Sweet and DSL for their remarks. I appreciate them.

I have for a long time followed Professor Nils-Axel Mörners attacks against climate scientists and believes that he has gone far over the line of dignity. Prompted by Tom Curtis analysis of Mörner pictures, I have written to Nils-Axel Mörner to get his version of the images and how they should be interpreted. In addition, I asked Mörner to publish all the pictures from his trip so that all indications of fraud and scams can be swept away. He deserves a fair trial. Only by getting his version is possible.

Prof Nils-Axel Mörner has informed me, that he was not aware of the discussion about him on Skeptical Sciences. He is now.

KK Tung at 02:06 AM on 5 July 2013

The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.

Our exchanges on analysis procedures of a technical nature probably have left most of our readers confused. So let me summarize the major points under debate. Both Dumb Scientist (DS) and Dikran Marsupial have focused on the technical aspects of the Multiple Linear Regression analysis (MLR). This was one of the three data analysis methods that were used on the problem with the aim of deducing the secular trend after removing the oscillatory influence of Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Our PNAS paper used two methods, the MLR and the wavelet analysis, and obtained approximately the same result. Previously, Wu et al (2011, Climate Dynamics) used the method of Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) and obtained similar results. The EMD method was relatively new, and there were questions on whether other, more commonly used methods could yield the same result. Our PNAS paper was in part (though a small part) trying to reproduce their results using two other methods. The larger aim of our PNAS paper was to argue that the AMO is mostly natural.

Two technical aspects of the MLR have been debated here. Dikran chose to focus on our use of a linear regressor as a placeholder in an intermediate step of the MLR process. This issue was discussed in part 1 of my post, and shown that when the residual is added back as in the published papers (Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), Zhou and Tung (2013), Tung and Zhou (2013)), the sensitivity to the particular intermediate step is greatly reduced. While Dikran may disagree with my summary, I think he has failed to come up with an example where our procedure fails to yield the right answer within the 95% confidence interval (CI) most of the time. Please see my posts 171 and 172 for a summary.

Although I had originally thought that Dumb Scientist also focused on our use of linear regressor as the reason for his assertion that our argument was circular, he later clarified that his focus was on how the definition of the AMO index from the North Atlantic temperature affects the deduced anthropogenic trend. This is a more worthwhile challenge. My collaborator Dr. Zhou and I were interested to follow this debate to find out under what condition the MLR procedure would fail. After all, no empirical method is expected to work under all conditions. So we thank DS for his efforts.

His sequence of examples has evolved into the following: Consider a hypothetical example where we know what the true answer is, and make such an example as realistic as possible (with respect to the correlation between the global mean data and the N. Atlantic data, and the variances in each) so that if the MLR procedure fails in this hypothetical case it is likely to fail in the real case also. The observed temperature (HadCRUT4) warms at the rate of 0.17 C per decade after 1979. This was proposed previously by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) as the “true anthropogenic trend”. Tung and Zhou (2013), on the other hand, argued that this observed rate of warming includes the rising half cycle of the AMO, which when removed, would yield an anthropogenic trend that is approximately half as large. So the question is, what if the true anthropogenic warming trend is actually 0.17 C per decade in a hypothetical example, will the MLR procedure erroneously say that it is smaller? While I have always maintained that such a theoretical possibility exists, it has been surprisingly difficult to actually come up with an example where MLR fails, and we collectively have gone through examples where the hypothesized anthropogenic warming goes from quadratic to a fifth order polynomial. The example that DS finally came up with consists of a 7th order polynomial for the anthropogenic trend (called human). It has the property that it is warming at 0.17 C per decade post 1979, but no warming before that. The latter fact is unrealistic but necessarily follows from the high order polynomial form assumed for this anthropogenic warming if one uses only analytic forms. There is in addition a 70-year oscillation, which is the AMO (called nature by DS). The global mean temperature is assumed to consist of human + nature + random noise. The N. Atlantic temperature that is used to define an AMO index also consists of these three components but in different proportions. The AMO Index is obtained by linearly detrending the N. Atlantic temperature. The idea is that because the anthopogenic trend is highly nonlinear, linearly detrending the N. Atlantic temperature yields an AMO contaminated by the nonlinear part of the anthropogenic trend. Therefore, if this “AMO” is removed by the MLR procedure, what remains is a more linear trend that is an underestimate of the true nonlinear anthropogenic trend. At least that is the aim of DS, as I understand it.

MLR can fail if the two components that we try to separate (in this case, the AMO and the nonlinear anthropogenic trend) have approximately the same scale, about 35 years, as is the case with DS’s latest example with the high order polynomial. Although the MLR method still can yield the right answer within the 95% CI most of the time (see my posts 178 and 179), it is nevertheless showing symptoms of non-robustness, e.g. sensitivity to the choice of regressors (smoothed vs non smoothed), which neither DS nor we understand at the moment, and we don't have the time to investigate it deeper. In the real case considered in our papers, such sensitivity does not exist and we got approximately the same answer. However, this example is not relevant, despite efforts by DS to make it realistic in other aspects, because we know, based on our current understanding of greenhouse warming, that there has been a warming since 1900. So the time scale for the anthropogenic warming is not 35 years but over 100 years.

The following example remedies this one deficiency in the example by DS that makes his case study less relevant. That is, we still use the hypothesis, as DS did, that the true post-1979 warming is entirely anthropogenic, and so the true human warming rate is 0.17 C per decade. Before that time there is a gentler warming, which is equal to the smoothed secular trend in the observed warming from 1850 to 1979. Everything else remains the same as in DS’s example. We perform 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations using his method for the MLR. (We think 10,000 is sufficient; there is no need for 100,000 Monte-Carlo simulations.) The MLR procedure obtains the correct answer, defined as within the 95% CI of 0.17 C per decade for the post 1979 trend, most of the time. Specifically, we obtain the correct answer 80% of the time if we use the linear regressor in the intermediate step, 95% of the time correct if we use the QCO2 as the regressor in the intermediate step, and 91% of the time correct if we use human as the regressor, as DS did. Therefore, regardless of the intermediate steps, the MLR is able to successfully separate the components to obtain the “true” answer. The reason that this time the MLR is able to separate the two components is because the anthropogenic warming and the AMO have different time scales, as they should in the real case.

Some details of how we came up with the hypothetical anthropogenic warming follow. As did DS, we tried to be consistent with observation. We start with the HadCRUT4 surface temperature data. We fit it with a 6th order polynomial over the entire period of 1850-2011, instead of just over the period 1979-2011 as DS did. This produces the observed 0.17 C per decade of warming after 1979, the same as in DS. But in contrast, the warming here exists over the entire period, not just after 1979. The polynomial is smoothed by a cubic spline so that the trend is monotonic before 1979. This anthropogenic component will be called human. It is denoted by the red curve in Figure a. To create the AMO the-above-obtained human is subtracted from HadRUT4 data. The difference is smoothed with a 50-90 year wavelet band pass filter. This is the AMO (note: not the AMO Index). This is called nature (denoted by the purple curve in Figure b) and is the counterpart to DS’s 70-year sinusoid.

png

The global data consists of these two components plus a random noise of standard deviation of 0.1. The AMO Index is created using the N. Atlantic temperature, linearly detrended. For the N. Atlantic temperature, we assume it is composed of an anthropogenic warming given by 0.8*human (since the observed long-term trend in the N. Atlantic is smaller than that in the global mean) and the natural component is 1.4*nature (since the AMO in the N. Atlantic is known to be larger than that in the global mean). The correlation coefficient between the global data and the N. Atlantic data in this synthetic example is 0.74+/-0.06, very close to the observed correlation of 0.79. There is in addition a random noise in the N. Atlantic with standard deviation of 0.15. The synthetic global variance is 0.071+/-0.008 and the synthetic N. Atlantic variance is 0.066+/-0.011, very close to the real variances of 0.07 and 0.05, respectively.

In conclusion, it has been surprisingly difficult to come up with a synthetic data where the MLR method fails to yield the right answer most of the time. The latest example by DS comes closest, but has an unrealistic deficiency. In all the cases considered, none has failed both of our methods, the MLR and the wavelet method. These debates have served the purpose of strengthening our confidence in using these methods, and in the technical correctness of the results that we obtained in our PNAS paper using the two methods, although we should always be on guard for the possible failures of any method we use. It should be pointed out however that none of these technical discussions concerns the larger picture: whether the AMO is forced or natural.

I hope with this summary we can conclude the technical discussion on the MLR procedure, and can now move on to the other threads, such as the “thermodynamic argument”, which supposedly sets an upper limit on how large natural internal variability can be.

Moderator Response:

[RH] Fixed image width.

PluviAL at 01:15 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

Wonderful observation. I am not use to the term "Energy" yet but it seems to gets at something that needs to be made clear at each step of any discussion. Greater "energy" will affect every weather event. It seems too much emphasis it put on saying any event is not the direct result of climate change. That is incorrect, I don't really know what people mean when they say that. It seems to mean that climate change is supposed to create different weather phenomenon, as in "bad" things. What must be the case is that energy always effects every weather event. I wish there was a way for teachers of weather reporters and reporters in general could make this understanding clear, so that they can disseminate it accordingly. Excellent perception, thanks.

As to preventing determined miss-information industry from misusing the term: maybe, but a liar can always figure a way to twist the mind in perverse ways.

johncl at 00:42 AM on 5 July 2013

Climate change science: what’s in a name?

What I often feel is missing from the terms is the effect beside climate change. There is no doubt the chance of a major "biosphere change" - not not only climate. I believe many people dont consider a bit more wind in their hair now and then a problem - but if the heat and acidification of the seas kill of a lot of oxygen producing phythoplankton then that might grab the attention. The focus on weather incidents is of course natural, but I do believe the general biological effect a warmer planet has on life in all forms is one of more concern.

I like to think if it like, there is a different between a major storm on a lifeless planet, and one on earth - we still have life here, but shouldnt take that for granted if the planet gets excessively hot in the coming centuries. Life is fragile, and climate change is just one of the things that will affect a global warming planet. I think AGW coins the term better than any as its warming (and all of its consequences, weather and biological), AND its caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

DSL at 00:35 AM on 5 July 2013

There is no consensus

participley, I've just gone through all of them. I can't find one that has issued a statement of disagreement. Did I miss one?

participley at 00:05 AM on 5 July 2013

There is no consensus

[-snip-]

Moderator Response:

[RH] Your question has been responded to. Reposts of the same question have been deleted.

Tom Curtis at 23:43 PM on 4 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

DSL @65, the photo shown @62 is certainly not the "original" version of any part of the photoshoped photo. The rocks in the foreground are different, and the boats in the background are different, not to mention the missing house and tree in the middle distance on the right of the new photo that is absent from the photoshopped photo. It is possible, but not likely that it is a photo of the original tree whose folliage is shown in the photoshopped picture.

Klaus Flemlose @62 on rereading your post I note that you still believe that the tree whose foliage is shown in the photoshopped picture was "cut down". Axel-Morner's claim was that it was uprooted ("torn down") rather than that it was cut down. It is essential to his story that it was uprooted, for if it had been cut down, it would not have been possible to replant it.

The fact that his story requires that the tree be uprooted shows what a work of fiction that story is. Only if erosion has removed almost all soil from around the roots of a tree can it be uprooted without strenuous digging and (preferably) a tractor.

Further, Axel-Morner's account is as follows:

"You know what happened? There came an Australian sealevel team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film "Doomsday Called Off,” right after that, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program...."

So not only did these herculean and malicous Australians uproot the tree, but Axel-Morner replanted the tree and then, purportedly, to the photo (explicitly identified as the photoshopped photo in the caption). That being the case, the roots would still be loose in the photo and (given the freshness of the foliage) the marks of the Australians efforts in digging out the tree would still be evident. Neither is the case.

I believe the entire basis of the story of the uprooted tree is to be found in Axel-Morner's imagination. Not only does he find it useful to embellish the envidence via photoshopping, he finds it usefull to slander scientists with complete fictions.

Non-Scientist at 23:29 PM on 4 July 2013

Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink

For the denialists, you'll need to explain

how nearly all geologic records were created by one global flood

and

how all of this occurred within 6124 years.

DSL at 22:58 PM on 4 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Klaus, you say Nils sent you the original, and then you say the one he posted was a double exposure. Double exposure does not occur after the photo has been developed. A double exposure is an original. You should have said, "He sent me a different shot of the same tree, a shot that was not a double exposure." If you know enough to understand what a double exposure is--to the point of believing that it absolves Morner--then you should know that saying "Prof Nil-Axel Mörner has been so kind to e-mail me the original photo" doesn't make sense. You're either trying to play games, or you're incredibly naive, naive enough to trust Morner's "double exposure" explanation without knowing what a double exposure is.

Morner also did not send you the original. He sent you a scan of the developed original, unless he's lying about the double exposure. I seriously doubt that Morner, if he actually took the picture in question, used a film camera, the only type of camera able to create a double exposure (unless the digital camera has an extremely rare firmware error that just happens to occur intermittantly and just happened to occur with this particular, highly-controversial exposure). He's wealthy enough to be able to afford a digital camera capable of performing as well as a film camera.

michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 4 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Klaus,

A heads up to you. People who support obviously false explainations damage their own reputations. Why should I believe anything from someone who supported obviously false proposals? Consider the sourse of the information you present to others as accurate. Why do you believe such claptrap? Why have you been taken twice by the same fraudster? Why would you continue to believe the material on those websites that support this fraud?

Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:22 PM on 4 July 2013

2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

The BBC have a nice little online article on this. However, it did not feature very highly in news broadcasts. I wonder if society is going through the five stages of greif? We've had denial, anger and bargaining and perhaps we are entering depression? After all, who wants to hear bad news? I'd like the zeitgeist to move onto acceptance. There may be ways we can help this.

Tom Curtis at 20:16 PM on 4 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Klaus Flemlose @62:

1) Regardless of the tale told by Nils Axel-Morner, the photo I discuss @55 above was not an double exposure. Double exposure is a technique of exposing the same frame of film twice (or more), thereby creating multiple overlaping images. Unless great care it taken, it will result in ghosting as in the photo below. It will not result in sharp demarcation lines as discussed above. Therefore, there remains no doubt that Nils Axel-Morner edited a photo of a tree by deleting portions of it and grafting sections of other photos to replace those portions that were deleted.

2) It is not possible to positively identify the tree in the new photo as that in either of the photos discussed in my 55 above. There are some similarities, but also some distinct differences. The differences may be because they are different trees, or because the pictures were taken from different angles, or at different times.

Based on the similarity of the background, the new photo probably does show the tree shown here in connection to Axel-Morner's claims. I was previously aware of the photo at the link, but did not previously discuss it as it was not directly claimed to be an identical tree, and was not attributed to Axel-Morner. Given the new claim by Axel-Morner, however, I will point out that the root base of this tree and that in the photoshopped picture are definitely distinct. This can be seen because:

a) The size of the rocks in the foreground are very disimilar;

b) The large flat rock on the left of frame and near the tree in both pictures is dissimilar in shape; and

c) The root base of the tree in the new photo is much thicker than that in the photoshopped picture.

3) It is easy to see why Axel-Morner has been using the photoshopped picture rather than the one he has just sent you. The picture he has sent you clearly shows an erosional face in the current tidal zone. It also shows the nearest tree to the one in the center of the photo to also have erosion undercutting its roots. Finally, it shows a slab of concrete lying partially within the tidal zone, and clearly undercut by wave action. All three are indications of rising sea levels at that location.

Until Nils Axel-Morner gives a clear account of how he photoshopped the picture @55, shows us all three pictures he used in doing so, and gives a clear account of why he did so, the only sensible thing to do is to treat this as an example of fraud, and to disregard any "evidence" on which we are reliant on Axel-Morner as our informant. Brushing of the incident with patently absurd claims (ie, that the photo resulted from double exposure) only calls into further question his trustworthiness.

Klaus Flemløse at 15:20 PM on 4 July 2013

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Prof Nil-Axel Mörner has been so kind to e-mail me the original photo. The photo shown in post #55 was a double exposure, not a photo shop picture.

It is very unfortunate, that prof Nils-Axel Mörner published a double-exposed image, thereby creating a myth about fraud and deception.

The only way to remove any doubt is to publish as much as possible of the documentation before and after the tree have been cut down.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Adjusted image width

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments