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  963  964  965  966  967  968  969  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  Next

Comments 48501 to 48550:

  1. How big is the “carbon fertilization effect”?

    Another instance of serendipity...

     

    On the same day that gws posts this excellent article about the relationship between future food production and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, Justin Gillis posts Feeding Ourselves on a Warming Planet on the New York Times' Green Blog. 

    The Gillis article summarizes the findings contained in a working paper, Climate Impacts on Agriculture: A Challenge to Complacency? by Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth A. Stanton of Tufts University.

  2. The BEST Kind of Skepticism

    Note: The image reference in my previous post should be to the IPCC AR4 report, page 9.4.1.2, not just to the illustration.

  3. The BEST Kind of Skepticism

    dvaytw - 1956 is the point in the BEST analysis where anthropogenic factors took precedence, outweight other forcings. While that particular analysis is (IMO) rather simplistic (no anthropogenic aerosol factors, as far as I can see), it matches fairly well with multiple regression methods such as Lean and Rind, with Granger causality, with other attribution studies, core data on forcings, and modelling with/without anthropogenic forcings: 

    Roughly since 1960, when long term solar forcing began to drop, anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the primary forcing change driving up temperatures. 

    IPCC anthro vs. natural forcings

    [IPCC modeled temperatures, with/without anthropogenic influences]

  4. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    #30: Good points about the graph until 2007. Also interesting to note that 2007 was the very year that Arctic sea ice truly started to collapse.

    Pretty handy for the disinformers that the part of the globe that is warming the fastest is not well accounted for in the global average, but the cold air that should have stayed up there gets dumped down here, where it is accounted for in the average temp, introducing a substantial cool bias.

  5. How big is the “carbon fertilization effect”?

    Interesting.  Did the original paper discuss the findings of Nitrogen constraints on terrestrial carbon uptake: Implications for the global carbon-climate feedback (Link) from back in 2010?  Wang and Houlton found that the increased temperatures were likely to seriously reduce fixed nitrogen, especially in the tropics, so that the overall global availablity of fixed nitrogen was likely to drop.

  6. The BEST Kind of Skepticism

    Sorry... to make this that much easier, here's the chart minus the extra step of clicking the link:

    BEST temperature study chart

    What I'm hoping to know is the significance of the date 1956 in the comment, "post 1956 rise attributed by IPCC to humans".

    Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width.
  7. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    The following is interesting, and telling too.  When one Google's a key sentence from Lloyd's article ("Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years"), most of the hits are to sites that deny the theory of AGW and/or fake skeptic sites. Please not that the quoted text made by Lloyd is not strictly true.  Note too how "skeptics",  suddenly become completely confident in models and predictions when the answer can be twisted to fit their beliefs, despite claiming for years now that models are useless ;)

    This is what global cooling looks like to those in denial:

    [Source]

    Caption: 

    Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Retrospective predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013.
  8. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    "...there is no statistically significant difference between the current warming rate and the previous warming rate."

    There is an excellent reason why statisticians tend to not use the phrase "statistically significant," even though scientists love the phrase: it can, and does, mean significantlydifferent things and therefore without defining the phrase every time it is used (a tedious chore), statisticians don't often use it.

  9. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    It is no more likely that Dr. Pachauriwould say human-caused climate change ("global warming") has "paused" for 17 years than he would say Earth is a flat disk that the universe spins around.

  10. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    (A re-write of the comment 3 up-thread hopefully in a form that is readable by wysiwygs & humans all.)

    This "17 year" strapline in Murdoch's Australian that denilaists love so much they cannot help telling each other about - it may be no more than 'cheeky chappy' journalism but accounts of the type 'AGW cannot happen without GW' do have a long history. They doubtless began decades ago before GW even started let alone 'paused' and certainly took on added potency with the famous Roger Harrabin/Phil Jones interview of 2010.
    So 15 years became 16 years and is now 17 years without the slightest care as to what "statistical significance" actually means or what the data actually shows.

    What has been missing in all this is a robust reply to these silly right-wing press stories.

    Up until mid-2007 there was no 'pause' in the global surface temperature rise. Up until mid-2007 the global surface temperature rise was actually accelerating.
    This is evident from the monthly global surface temperature data. Calculating a straightline regression (from Jan 1980) shows that the slope, the rate of warming, increases as newer data is included in the regression and does so up to mid-2007 as illustrated here.

    Thus anyone suggesting a 'pause' in warming longer than 5½ years is seriously overstepping the mark into a fictitious La-La-Land.

  11. Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?

    For what its worth, the best textbook/course combination that I ever had was Hugh D. Young's "Physics".  I don't know if it was because the teacher was the author, or if it was just a good book (it was somewhat of the standard, even at other schools), or a combination of the two.  I always felt that if the teacher followed the order of the textbook, it made things easier to follow/anticipate, but that only works if the teacher is comfortable with the text.

    Moderator Response: [rockytom] Kevin, I agree that the instructor should be comfortable with the textbook. It is a real disservice to the students if an instructor doesn't like the textbook. I've had classes in which the instructor spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing the textbook, which I thought was a waste of my time.
  12. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    The climate change spin continues.

    David Rose was at it again over the weekend, here is the brain exploding article.

    Good thing I have a strong stomach, otherwise I would be sick.

  13. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Richard C,

    Pachauri can always make a complaint and ask for accurate representation...

    No, he can't.  The Australian can print what it likes and say what it likes.  We've been down this road before with David Rose (multiple times).  It seems that deniers get to lie, twist, steal, hack, and do whatever they please, and they are hailed as heroes by those who desperately wish that the science were not true — as do we all, but for them it is to such a degree that they'll delude themselves into believing it's not, and fail to take the necessary action.

    No, Pachauri has no choice.  Lloyd very explicitly quoted him every chance he got.  The article has dozens of direct quotes.  And yet there's no direct quote about"17 years."  Why is that?

    Because it doesn't matter, and Lloyd knows it.  Sprinkle in the other quotes, claim that Pachauri said it, then play a game of he-said/he-said.  If he has a transcript of the conversation, then just destroy it.  The fact is that Pachuri, like other scientists, will come across as trying to weasle out of something he said, no matter what the truth is behind the matter.  And those uncritical fools who only hear what they want to hear (my, aren't there a lot of them?) will fall in line behind Lloyd.

    And of course there are also those zillions of (uncritical, unskeptical) denier blogs that picked up the quote and echoed it around the Internet, because it was exactly what they wanted to hear and say.

    No, this deal was done the moment the thought creeped into Lloyd's brain that he could get away with it.

  14. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8

    william, there are many religious people who DO take the viewpoint that they should be 'good shepherds' of the Earth. However, those are not the sort you usually find in the Tea Party, or even the modern GOP. Those groups embody a different mindset which holds that God put the resources of the Earth here for our use so that we could 'be fruitful and multiply' and thus any argument of a need for 'conservation' is contrary to God's instructions.

    Which is my root problem with the concept of religion in general. Once you introduce a requirement to 'take this Truth on faith', no matter how it starts out, it can change into virtually anything... so virtually anything can become 'Divine Truth'.

  15. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8

    Something has always puzzled me about the right wing and especially the extreme right  wing such as the Tea Baggers.  For the most part they profess to be religious.  So they believe that God gave us dominion over the fowl in the air, the fish in the sea and the beasts in the field.  God, like a good dad has passed on the family business to his kids.  I would have thought they would be in the forefront of the movement to preserve dad's creation.  Instead they seem to have a "drill baby drill" mentality.  Go figure.

  16. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Dana, (-snip-)

    Back on topic.

    "'Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?'"

    Pachauri can always make a complaint and ask for accurate representation from The Australian or make a correction by press release. If he's not bothered to do so then what's the problem? (-snip-)

    If Pachauri's criteria is 30 - 40 years of statistically insignificant warming before atmospheric warming can be considered to have ceased in terms of any human forcing (or whatever his exact words were) and we're 56% - 42% on the way there (closer by UAH 19 yrs and RSS 23 yrs), doesn't this detract somewhat from the immediacy of a crisis attributed to annual rises in CO2?

    (-snip-)

    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped.
  17. Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?

    Dave123 @16 - I don't understand the tone of your post. This site is fine for all the things you listed, but this site is not a college textbook.  Just as a textbook on evolution should be able to stand on the sound science it presents, so should this textbook on climate change.  There is no need for an evolution textbook to mention creationism/ID.

    If the science presented in this new book is sound and reasonably presented, then the case is made.  As I said before, the sections I noted will probably keep colleges from picking them up. Book adoption has to go through a textbook approval committe. It only takes one naysayer to kill a book's chances.

    I don't understand the vitriolic nature of your response, and I certainly don't appreciate the snarky tone of your last paragraph.  (-snip-). 

    Moderator Response:

    [rockytom] I don't know where you get the idea that textbook selection has to go through a committee. I have taught at several colleges and universities and I was always able to select the textbook for the courses I taught. I can see where if there are multiple sections of the same course taught by several different instructors, that there should be one textbook selected for the course. I have been involved in such courses and the textbook chosen was always the best one for the subject matter. If this becomes true for courses in climate science, I hope they select "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis"!

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

  18. Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?

    Sphaerica @14 see Skuce @15

    Skuce, in American secondary public education the creationist/ID aspect cannot be taught because of the separation of church and state.  School districts that choose to promote those views run into trouble quickly. PBS has a fascinating documentary on this available online (Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial).   But, more simply, it has no place because it is not science. 

    On the college level, I can certainly see an interesting lecture series on creationism and ID and the mindset behind it.  But, not as a physical science course.  

    Moderator Response: [rockytom] Unfortunately in conservative states such as Texas, for example, "intelligent design" is what the creationists are pushing as an alternative to evolution. Their fallacious argument is the one that we see all too often in climate science, that all ideas are given "equal weight" when there is only one side! There are no other equal sides.
  19. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Richard C: "the last [OHC] datapoint at Oct-Dec 2012 is lower than Oct-Dec 2011"

    NOAA OHC data:  4Q2011: 14.983609,  4Q2012: 16.831072

    Pop Quiz Richard:  Which is larger, 14.98, or 16.83?

  20. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    (-snip-)

    I wonder at Ian's ability to read a graph too given the last datapoint at Oct-Dec 2012 is lower than Oct-Dec 2011..

    Moderator Response: [Sph] Moderation complaints snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
  21. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Richard C (23) claims :

    0 - 2000m OHC is now at a lower level than end of 2011

    That is not what NOAA are claiming. See here:



    Moderator Response: [DB] Please take any discussions of OHC to the appropriate threads, as indicated above. [RH] Fixed image width.
  22. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Dana #19

    >"Heat doesn't just magically accumulate in the oceans."

    I agree, it (-snip-)

    Moderator Response: [DB] Off topic snipped. See the previous moderation guidance given you.
  23. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    This article seems very speculative. I understand that you think 'The Australian" has form, but until either Dr Pauchauri or his press office responds I would have thought it is moot.

  24. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Richard C:

    Repeating a debunked argument doesn't magically make it correct.

  25. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Oh yes it does! Tell them about the magical undersea volcanoes, Dixie! ;-)

  26. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Richard, we've talked about ocean heating here a million times.  Heat doesn't just magically accumulate in the oceans.

  27. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Dana #13 you say:-

    >"...the former [atmosphere] has 'plateaued'..."

    >"...the most important point is that global surface air warming is not the same as global warming/heating"

    Both correct but I assume you mean the latter to be anthropogenic ocean warming/heating. That's a very different story if you do because then you are arguing against natural planetary enthalpy (including 8 - 20 year thermal inertia) which - going by the solar bicentennial componant having only just dipped slightly below Grand Maximum over the last 20 years or so but is now dipping rapidly in SC 24 - is about to go into reverse out to maybe 2050 along with the attendant feedbacks.

    Apart from that, the IPCC has not yet firmed up an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism after 25 years of existence. They are merely "extremely certain" of their assumption based on assunptive studies. So if - now that atmospheric temperature is at standstill - you wish to transfer the focus from an atmosphere unmoved by rising CO2 levels to the ocean where energy accumulation is still evident, the science you and the IPCC have to support anthropogenic attribution to ocean heating is tenuous at best and still only at fledgling stage.

    Therefore your "most important point" appears to be a strong argument against aGHGs being the major climate driver of the atmosphere and a weak argument for aGHGs being the major ocean heating agent. What will you do then when OHC plateaus too as it inevitably will without elevated solar input?

     

    Moderator Response: [DB] Interested parties should take discussions of ocean warming mechanisms to this thread. It is off-topic on this thread. Discussions of OHC itself should go to this thread.
  28. calyptorhynchus at 10:57 AM on 26 February 2013
    Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    "Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?"

    Has the Australian ever published anything accurate on climate?

     

  29. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    AndyS @15 - no, "tells Skeptical Science" = personal communication.

  30. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject

    Are you able to provide a link to this statement from the IPCC? 

  31. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    @ DB, re. post 6: two issues here. First, when hunting for ways to link to paywalled articles one takes what one can. In this case GWPF has rerun the first half of the article, complete with byline and accompanying photograph..

    The article contains multiple direct quotes attributed to Pachauri that could easily be replies to a prompting question from Lloyd (e.g., "But hasn't the rise in global temperatures recently slowed or stopped?" etc.).

    Yes, a number of Lloyd's framing remarks are clearly leading ("record northern summer[sic] Arctic ice growth", "recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies", etc.). But it hardly seems an egregious example of bad journalism, including paraphrasing statements or responses by Pachauri. That a host of commenters have seized on a single ambiguous lead-in to the generally thoughtful and carefully-worded comments by Pachauri is a reflection on their desperate scramble to grasp at straws.

    The concluding half of the article is as follows:

    (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] En masse block-quoting snipped per the Comments Policy.
  32. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Dr. Pachauri doesn't recall his exact words, hence the IPCC request to The Australian (not yet answered) for the interview transcript and/or recording.  However, Dr. Pachauri does not think the '17 years' comments are an accurate representation of what he said (though it's possible he misspoke), and certainly not of what he believes, as noted in the post.

    Regardless of what he said, the most important point is that global surface air warming is not the same as global warming/heating.  Certain parties intentionally conflate the two because the former has 'plateaued' while the latter has not, so it allows them to pretend global warming has 'stalled'.  This is simply wrong, and a misinformative error which must be corrected.

  33. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    If there is a question mark about what The Australian actually said, then Googling for this

    "nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/"

    (complete with quotes) leads me to a scanned version of the print edition. I am not sure I can provide a direct URL as it seems to link ot a generic URL for the viewer that shows the latest copy. The URL is here if you are interested http://theaustralian.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

     

  34. There is no such thing as climate change denial

    https://acontent.atutorspaces.com/home/course/content.php?_cid=576

     

    I am interested in how to calculate hiroshima bombs/second. Figure two gives me a view of earth as a flat disk or as a spheriod.

     

    LINK

     

    The link above calculated the earth as a flat disk and calculated bombs per second with an energy of 2 thru 9 joules/sec.

    I noticed that the numbers from comments above were in the .3 watts/meter*2 to about .7 watts/meter*2. I assume this was calculated from the view of the earth as a spheriod.

     

    Assuming I am correct, how are the joules/sec or watts/meter*2 arrived at?

    Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting.
  35. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Pauchauri should speak up on this - It would be great for the Australian to get a follow up smackdown.

  36. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Kiethpickering is entirely correct. A horizontal line is arbitrary and implies a system in stasis. IOW - starting with a flat line is automatically cherry picking the result you are looking for.

  37. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    It's just an unfortuante reality that technically incorrect definitions are sometimes used by scientiests when they are earnestly responding to a question.The crux is that it is difficult for experts to always avoid "shorthand-speak" in interviews or general explanations of the science, yet so easy for "skeptics" to use that inexact terminology to misrepresent.  

  38. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Rather than speculate on whether Dr Pauchauri was misrepresented, can't you ask him directly?

  39. 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction

    What fun.  Assuming we are talking about Sept 15 and not Sept as a whole and with no mathematical justification at all, I predict that the ice extent will be a little lower this Sept 15 than in 2012.  In 2014 or 2015 it will shoot down again and may well reach close to zero by 2016.  Note that as  a first approximation, ice volume should be: extent raised to the 3/2 power.  That is, if there is 80% as much ice area this year compared to last year, the ice volume should be 0.803/2 = 0.72.  This assumes that thickness decreases at the same rate as length and width.  By the by, with no ice cover to insulate the ocean we would expect more ice to form during the winter and this is what is happening.  In so far as the brine produced is sinking and sucking more surface water northward we would expect the ice cover around and north of Svalbard to decrease each winter and that is what is happening. 

  40. Pete Dunkelberg at 05:29 AM on 26 February 2013
    Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    It would be perfectly reasonable to have a desire for different terms, or to think that also mentioning ocean heat content would give people greater understanding. But such desires and views do not make others, using a standard term in the standard way, mistaken. Recall if you will the discussion of "ocean acidification."

  41. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    The full article can be found here: Nothing off-limits in climate debate

    Relevant excerpt:

    Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.

    “The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.

    “If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.

    “What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.

    “This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”

    He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.

    Moderator Response: [DB] Your linked article, itself based on a GWPF document, does not contain a link to the actual quote but to paraphrased versions of the quote, as noted in the OP of this thread. It is thus hearsay and not very germane to the discussion.
  42. Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?

    I should have added the Alarmist label to the above.  I would have made more sense.

  43. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    We are using the wrong null when we (or anyone else) says something like "no significant" warming in the past x years. 

    The fact is that we have solid physics-based reasons to know that the planet is warming. Therefore the correct null is that current warming is running at the same rate as past warming, and not that current warming is greater than zero.

    For example: HADCRUT4 dataset (annual time series) has a slope of .0047° C per year during 1997-2012, with a 95% confidence range from -.0041 to +.0135°C. The relevant question is not whether this range includes zero; the relevant question is whether this range includes the warming rate of the previous 30 years. Since the warming rate from 1967-1996 was .0128°C per year, there is no statistically significant difference between the current warming rate and the previous warming rate.

    And that's the message we need to send.

    Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps usage converted to italic bold, per Comments Policy.
  44. Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?

    My background is in Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture.  A number of my required first year text books were selected based upon their ability to explain broad fundamanetal concepts.  As I moved from my first to fifth year, the books became more technical and specialized based upon my particular interests and major.

    I haven't read the book mentioned above, but anything that can speak clearly to a broad audience, most of whom may never enter science as a profession, is of extreme value, I should think.

    Regarding denier and sketpic...these two terms do nothing for science at the social level.  We have to recognize that much of global warming/climate change debate, like it or not, occurs at a social (amature) level - I place many of our politicians in this category.  A book could be written about these two labels and the sad outcome is an obvious and unwhittingly manufactured social obstacle.  Curiosity and skepticism are two foundations of science, yes?  

    ...thought the escapist may believe this is devine and meant to be...

     

     

  45. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    It's a failure to communicate the obvious by people who should know better. As Dana points out, extra heat has built up in the subsurface ocean. That has led to limited warming of surface air temperatures over the last decade but, based on past observations, it will not last. When the climate moves into a period dominated by El Nino (a lot of heat escaping the ocean) it is going to get warm very quickly, and the weather that accompanies this is likely to be very nasty.

  46. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Pete @1 - climate scientists often make this mistake when communicating with the public.  If you want people to understand the subject, you can't refer to surface air warming as 'global warming', because then when we have a temporary 'plateau' in surface air temperatures as is currently occurring, people think global warming has stopped.

  47. Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    Physically, the term 'global warming' can only refer to one thing, the globe.  I understand that atmospheric scientists have loosely referenced the atmosphere when using the term but it doesn't change what's implied by the words in the phrase.  The proper term is 'global heating', but they got the 'global' part right.

    Its necessary to point out because as this article states, the REASON the atmosphere isn't warming as rapidly as expected is because of an unexpected preponderance of La Nina events in the last decade.  Which basically means the atmosphere isn't heating as rapidly because the ocean is pulling more of that heat into her deep layers.  What does this mean for the 'globe'?  Nothing.  Its still heating.

  48. Pete Dunkelberg at 03:53 AM on 26 February 2013
    Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

    One does not expect the Australian to accurately climate change. However, I don't think climate scientists "mistakenly equate the warming of global surface air  temperatures with global warming. Instead, I think that is the meaning of the term in the literature. Planetary heat increase is another thing.

  49. The BEST Kind of Skepticism

    On the following version of one BEST temperature graph, it shows a marker labeled "post 1956 rise attributed by IPCC to humans":

    Berkeley Earth Results

    Does anyone know what is significant about this date?  I'm pretty sure it's not when temperature and solar output started going in opposite directions, as that happened later on.  Thanks in advance for any info...

  50. Reconciling Two New Cloud Feedback Papers

    @jsquared #7

    "What could be so different in the short-term and long-term response of water vapor? "

    The measured responses in the papers listed here depend on numerous data sets on temperatures and clouds, which average over large areas (hundreds of kilometers) and times (weeks to months). As aerosols are short-lived in the atmosphere (order of one week) their impact will be averaged in the data. If aerosol emissions and abundance drastically changed over the observational period, it could have biased the cloud data. Not likely when looking at large areas of the globe, but possible if you only looked downwind of China.

    But on the short- vs. long-term: 10 years are not long enough to judge whether GW will cause a major redristribution of cloud heights, e.g. driven by changing convection schemes and higher water vapor amounts. Look at Figure 1 again: If you redistributed high clouds to low clouds, you would counteract GW. If you redistributed low clouds to high clouds, you would reinforce GW. However, there is no evidence for either yet AFAIK, meaning the data sets studied do not provide enough information. A major complication is overlapping clouds, i.e. situations where your satellite "sees" only the high cloud, but not the lower one below. In such a scene, you expect a warming but you may actually get a cooling. People are working on better retrievals though such that lower clouds can be detected in the presence of higher ones.

Prev  963  964  965  966  967  968  969  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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