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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next

Comments 61551 to 61600:

  1. Bob Lacatena at 00:51 AM on 13 May 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
    60, SteveS,

    Interesting paper.

    I haven't gone through it yet, but it gives barely a nod to temperature and climate, and makes no statement at all beyond "the climate warming during the steady increase in solar activity in the first half of the twentieth-century." It seems they're just trying to use proxies (sunspot counts, and tree rings and ice cores) to compile a more precise record of TSI and SSI prior to the existence of adequate instrumental observations (last 30 years) back to 1600 (based on proxy data availability).

    If someone wanted to read into it, though, I think you're right in saying that it can't explain post 1950 warming. Really, if anything, it helps disprove solar influence. Looking only at their graphs as compared to temperatures, the implication is that increasing TSI through the first half of the 20thcentury could account for the warming in the first half of that century, as well as some reason for the leveling of temperatures starting around 1950, but then cannot account for the warming in the last 30 years.

    But in the end, the paper isn't about climate change at all. It's just about coming up with a new and hopefully better interpretation of proxy measurements to establish TSI and SSI back to 1600.
  2. Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
    Can you post the link to the ABC podcast when it is available?
    Response: You can now listen online to Robyn William's Science Show interview with Haydn Washington & myself. It's actually quite good (coming from someone who cringes at the sound of his own voice) - Robyn Williams is a very good interviewer.
  3. Bob Lacatena at 00:24 AM on 13 May 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    79, Ken,
    Funny how I never heard this argument highlighted on SKS before. The 'delayed Pinitubo' effect seems hard to believe in energy uptake terms.
    Gee. Do you think maybe it's because it's an idea proposed by Hansen in a paper that hasn't been published yet? Is SkS supposed to do all of its own science, and beat Hansen and Schmidt and all the others to the answers, in order to make you happy? Otherwise, it's just part of some bizarre conspiracy to hide the truth from you?
  4. Bob Lacatena at 00:16 AM on 13 May 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    79, Ken,
    The aerosols either reflect incoming energy while they are there and don't reflect it when they dissipate. How can this effect be 'delayed'?
    Again, why don't you just read the relevant section of the paper? It's all of 2 short paragraphs long. Just search for the word "rebound" (it only occurs 4 times in the document).

    Come on, Ken. It's one thing to take an educated stance on something, and it's another to take an intricate, complicated, pretend-to-be-educated stance on something... but it's really unnecessary to just drop all sorts of "what the f..." attacks on something that you admit that you yourself just haven't bothered to read and comprehend.

    It just doesn't "look right" to you, when you read bits and pieces without bothering to study the whole?

    Sheesh.

    Please take the time to read before disparaging something.

    [Now you'll go read the paper, try as hard as you can to come up with reasons why it can't be true, maybe check with Tisdale or Watts for some good ideas, and then come back with all sorts of numbers and calculations that "prove" that you and they are so much smarter than Hansen.]
  5. Bob Lacatena at 23:59 PM on 12 May 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    79, Ken Lambert,
    It might not exist but we can put a number on it? This is bizarre reasoning.

    My Lord, the section you quoted even tells you where to look. You could bother to glance at it (it's a pretty short section) before labeling it "bizarre reasoning." From the paper:
    Tung et al. (2008) argue that observed global temperature change in recent decades reveals a response in phase with solar irradiance change, with amplification up to a factor of two greater than expected from the direct solar forcing. However, the analysis of Tung et al. does not fully remove the effect of volcanic eruptions that occurred approximately in phase with the solar cycle, so their inferred amplification is an upper limit on what is possible.

    We use the measured solar variability (Fig. 21) to define the solar forcing for calculations without any amplification for indirect effects. However, we bear in mind that there remains a possibility that moderate amplification of the direct solar forcing exists.
    Really, Ken, it's not that difficult to get it right (although it's certainly very, very easy to just cast random aspersions).
  6. Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    Albatross #78

    Thank you for the reference to Hansen (2011) in #71.

    I have not studied the very long paper in great detail, but this startling statement cannot be ignored:

    Quote
    "The reduction of planetary energy imbalance between 2000 and 2009 due to declining solar irradiance is about 0.14 W/m2. If there is an indirect effect magnifying the solar forcing, the calculated effect on the planetary energy imbalance must be increased by that magnification
    factor. As discussed in section 12.2, empirical correlations of the solar cycle and global
    temperature show that any magnification cannot exceed a factor of two at most. In summary, precipitous decline in the growth rate of GHG forcing about 25 years ago
    caused a decrease in the rate of growth of the total climate forcing and thus a flattening of the planetary energy imbalance over the past two decades. That flattening allows the small forcing due to the solar cycle minimum, a delayed bounceback effect from Pinatubo cooling, and recent small volcanoes to cause a decrease of the planetary energy imbalance over the past decade."
    Endquote

    What on earth does this mean?:

    "If there is an indirect effect magnifying the solar forcing, the calculated effect on the planetary energy imbalance must be increased by that magnification
    factor. As discussed in section 12.2, empirical correlations of the solar cycle and global
    temperature show that any magnification cannot exceed a factor of two at most."

    How can Hansen suggest that if something like Solar magnification exists it can't have a quantity more than 2. It might not exist but we can put a number on it? This is bizarre reasoning.

    Further, what are we to make of this?:

    "In summary, precipitous decline in the growth rate of GHG forcing about 25 years ago caused a decrease in the rate of growth of the total climate forcing and thus a flattening of the planetary energy imbalance over the past two decades.

    That flattening allows the small forcing due to the solar cycle minimum, a delayed bounceback effect from Pinatubo cooling, and recent small volcanoes to cause a decrease of the planetary energy imbalance over the past decade".

    0.9W/sq.m down to 0.5W/sq.m is not a flattening - it is a large drop.

    So the ripple of the 11 year solar cycle of amplitude 0.25W/sq.m (0.13W/sq.m from a mean), plus delayed Pinatubo effects and small volcanoes have dropped the planet's imbalance from 0.9W/sq.m to 0.5W/sq.m (von Schukmann OHC calc) over the last decade. Funny how I never heard this argument highlighted on SKS before. The 'delayed Pinitubo' effect seems hard to believe in energy uptake terms.

    The aerosols either reflect incoming energy while they are there and don't reflect it when they dissipate. How can this effect be 'delayed'?

    Was not the CO2GHG effect plus positive feedbacks from WV and ice albedo supposed to have a forcing effect which produced an increasing warming imbalance as CO2 emissions have risen in absolute terms?

    Even then, Hansen only quotes von Schukmann's Argo OHC analysis to produce the 0.5W/sq.m warming imbalance, and nowhere in the discussion could I find Josh Willis' analysis mentioned.

    Dr Willis is only mentioned as co-author in a couple of papers in the reference list, despite being one of the most prominent scientist involved in Argo analyses. There are several other Argo analyses which Hansen seems to ignore in the text as well, choosing only the highest number from von Schukmann to weave his analysis around.

    This is an extraordinary paper from the leading proponent of AGW.

    There will be a lot of bafflement flowing from this one, and I will have tickets for a front row seat.
  7. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    I'm inspired. I'll apologize as well, for my ad Harrinem attack.

    Nevertheless, this whole bandwagon thing is irritating. Yes, if one is unwilling or unable to do the math, one must trust the experts. The experts are the climatologists, the atmospheric scientists, and the wide variety of ocean scientists. Their word should trump that of materials scientists and unpublished high school science teachers. How am I supposed to take someone's analysis of the science seriously when he/she brings forth a list like Bern's or Poptech's to present as evidence that experts disagree with AGW? And how am I to take so-called 'skeptics' seriously when they remain silent on the dubiousness of these lists?
  8. Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
    Dana@92, I would be pleased if you would supply your numbers for review.
  9. Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
    I think you mean this one: Shapiro, et al. 2011.

    Someone pointed it out to me a couple days ago, thinking it proved the sun was responsible for the current warming. I'm not in a position to judge their methodology, but their results don't seem to me to contradict the idea that the sun isn't responsible. They show that the output from the sun has been pretty flat for the latter half of the last century, so it doesn't seem that the sun could be causing the current warming (at least from their results - and the paper says explicitly that their results don't deviate from previous results for the more recent data). I assume that this would call into question the climate sensitivity, but since that's never been given an exact number, that doesn't seem too earth shattering. I would be interested in seeing someone more qualified comment on it, but all I could find from Google was comments from the blogosphere, and it's hard to lend credence to anything there.
  10. Harry Seaward at 22:18 PM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Even though it was off-topic, I think the posts concerning the terms warmists and deniers can be put to good use. Neither camp appreciates the terms and I think we can agree to quit using them.

    Actually, we are not that far apart. Any reasonable person agrees that the climate changes due to natural phenomena. Any reasonable person agrees that the actions of man have artificially altered the climate.

    The extent of the effect man's actions have had on the climate are the debating points.

    So, let's agree to get along, quit using negative terms to describe each other, and continue using this site to have reasonable scientific discussions.

    (Note: If anyone was offended by the defintion of warmist that I posted, I do apologize. I posted it with the caveat that it was not my defintion of the term. Skeptics feel equally strong about the term denier.)

    Peace!
  11. kampmannpeine at 21:59 PM on 12 May 2011
    Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
    ... and I forgot: I bought it two days ago ... together with the almost one hour youtube clip of Naomi Oreskes this is just gorgeous... congratulation for this book
  12. kampmannpeine at 21:55 PM on 12 May 2011
    Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
    hi, if you need some help for translation into German, tell me. I might like to translate one or the other chapter ...
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 17:43 PM on 12 May 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    drrocket"39 wrote "The CO2 concentration rise is surely natural"

    If this were true, then the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than anthropogenic emissions (as both man and the natural environment would be net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere). However, we know this is not the case, we have good estimates of anthropogenic emissions and good measurements of atmospheric CO2, and these show that the annual rise is only about half the level of anthropogenic emissions. This means that the natural environment (as a whole) is a substantial net carbon sink, and hence is not causing the observed increases.

    The CO2 concentration rise is surely anthropogenic. It is one of the few things in climatology that we know for sure.
  14. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    I used to work in claims. One of the things I noticed was that in terms of assessing an issue, the "experts" always managed to favour the point of view of whoever hired them. Exxon and other fossil fuel giants understand this. Climate change deniers, apparently, do not.
  15. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    This just in:

    Steve McIntyre believes the methodology was flawed and there was actually better responses during the Medieval Survey Period.

    Bjorn Lomborg refutes the survey with proof … a link to a telephone book.

    Senator Inhoffe vents that the survey is the second greatest hoax in history.

    Richard Lintzen intends to publish an article showing that it’s just natural variations in opinion; with pictures of tropical fruit picked since 1995.
  16. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Interesting definition of "global warmist". I guess you might find one at Greenpeace meeting but I havent run into one in the science world. Is anyone here a "warmist"?
  17. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. "

    So a "warmist" is a straw man. I kinda figured, but thanks for confirming it.
  18. Eric (skeptic) at 11:53 AM on 12 May 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    drrocket, I am looking at the diagram that you linked (just to confirm: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html) and I see only 0.8 - 70.6 + 70 or "net 0.2 into the ocean" for nCO2. For red arrows interacting with the ocean I see only 22.2 in and 20 out or "net 2.2 into the ocean" for ACO2. Seems a little odd until we consider that the red ACO2 is really the "new" CO2 and about 1/3 of the 6.4 "new" Gt/yr goes into the ocean, about 1/6 of the 6.4 into the biosphere and the rest (1/2 of the 6.4) ends up in the atmosphere.

    I'm not sure the IPCC directly defines "well-mixed" but (CAGW skeptic) Jack Barrett has a nice graph of the isotope ratios as they vary by season and latitude: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page33.htm which shows that mixing between hemispheres is generally slower than a season otherwise the NH peaks would bleed into the SH instead being damped out by the seasonal vegetation uptake in the NH. Both Barrett and Ferdinand Engelbeen (another skeptic) show that CO2 is well mixed in most circumstances (F.E. here: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#Variations_due_to_local_circumstances:)

    #3, some of the rise in CO2 is indeed "surely natural" but only a few percent. The reason is that without man-made CO2, there would have been a natural rise in CO2 of about 5 ppmv due to natural warming from the LIA (sorry I don't have a reference from that, but again it is from CAGW skeptic sources that consider the majority of observed warming to be natural). The analysis of M Loa raw data is in the link from F.E. above, very much worth reading. In particular, where he talks about reasons for local variations (e.g. upslope winds from local agriculture which lowers the CO2). No mention of pacific ocean outgassing and F.E. is nothing if not thorough.

    BUt remember that even though some small amount of the rise is "natural", the entire increase in CO2 atmosphere comes from the anthropogenic sources since nature is actually absorbing about 1/2 of the ACO2 as I pointed out above.
  19. Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    Ken @77,

    I'm not sure how your quote is meant to help your case, I know that you have attached your horse to this "missing heat" cart and are reluctant to change your mindset, but please be open minded. I'm not sure why you insist on being focussed on the 0-700 m layer (although I have an idea or two), von Shuckmann's research (and that of Hansen et al. and Trenberth) suggest that one really ought to be going two to three times that depth to better capture what is going on. So using the 0-1500 m or 0-2000 m data versus the 0-700 m data makes a notable difference, and we all know that the mean depth of the oceans is much, much greater than 700 m.

    You say "It looks like Von Schuckmann is the likely outlier amongst the OHC analyses here.
    "


    That would be your opinion, but von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) is a published paper, not preliminary data as you admit. Willis is looking at only the 0-700 m Argo data (see above comments), so that makes comparison with von Shuckmann's data difficult. And that is likely the reaosn that Willis is 'finding' a much weaker warming trend. This is not new, Trenberth came to the same conclusion back in 2010.

    Please read Hansen et al. (2011, in review), I was quoted some pertinent portions of the text. You seemed to have missed/ignored this on the first pass (see #71 for full quotes).

    "A verdict is provided by the ocean heat uptake found by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011), 0.42 W/m2 for 2005-2010, averaged over the planet. Adding the small terms for heat uptake in the deeper ocean, warming of the ground and atmosphere, and melting of ice, the net planetary energy imbalance exceeded +0.5 W/m2 during the solar minimum.
"

    "The error estimated by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) for ocean heat uptake in the upper 2000 m of the ocean, ± 0.1 W/m2 for the ocean area or ± 0.07 W/m2 for the planetary energy imbalance, does not include an estimate for any remaining systematic calibration errors that may exist."
  20. CO2 has a short residence time
    I tried reading it slowly JG but you still aren't making much sense.

    Are you saying that the oceans have not absorbed a lot of CO2? If so, do you have an alternative explanation for the observed decrease in ocean pH?

    Currently the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. This means the supply processes are greater than the removal process. That is, once CO2 is added to the atmosphere it stays for a long time (= long residence time) because it is not removed.
  21. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Harry Seaward,

    Please answer my question posed @45. Thanks.
  22. Models are unreliable
    "I have seen many projections of the models into the future. You claim that the models are hindcast, but I have never seen a graphic to demonstrate."

    Running a full climate model over 800,000 years or so? Um. That would be tricky so you need simplication. More common to do full runs for specific period of interest like LGM, PETM, YD etc. Again, IPCC WG1 is place for the references.

    You could see the Hansen and Sato for a much simpler calculation covering last 800,000 years.
  23. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Firstly, I'd like to say "well done!" to everyone here for keeping the discussion as civil as possible (and also the mods for ruthlessly keeping it that way!). It makes it so much more pleasant to read the comment thread, to the extent that I actually *do* read the entire comment thread, rather than giving up after the first half a dozen posts.

    Secondly, in regard to definition #2 in Harry Seaward's post on the Urban Dictionary definition of 'warmist': yep, that one all by itself rules out pretty much everyone commenting on this site, and every climate scientist who's written a paper I've read.
    In fact, I recommend Hansen's Milankovic paper to see a nice discussion about how natural forcings affected climate over the past 60-odd million years. I found it to be quite a fascinating read.
  24. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Harry Seaward @60,

    It's clear you are no scientist.

    The only thing a scientist believes in absolutely is the scientific method: observation -> hypothesis -> experimentation -> disproof.

    Every climate scientist worth their salt will acknowledge that it is possible that the current warming is natural in origin due to some as yet unknown phenomena. They will then go on to say that the probability of that is vanishingly small due to the weight of multiple lines of evidence in many scientific disciplines, and because other plausible explanations (eg: it's the sun) have been disproved.

    On this basis, according to your definition, I have not seen a "warmist" as yet, because no scientist I've met holds absolute beliefs about global warming. Though, being a scientist, I do admit the possibility that such people exist.

    On the contrary, I have meet a very large number of deniers, who have remarkably similar characteristics to your "warmist":

    1) An absolute belief that humans cannot change the average temperature of the planet. There is even a subset who believe that temperatures are really constant or declining and that there is a global conspiracy of meteorologists to forge the temperature record to make it look like there is warming.

    2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that CO2 emissions may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence.

    3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies at coal and oil companies, "just to prevent economic catastrophe."

    4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes cannot possibly be related in any way to humankind's CO2 emissions.

    5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.
  25. CO2 has a short residence time
    "The CO2 concentration rise is surely natural. As the Vostok record shows, it is in sync with temperature, but always lagging."

    Nope. CO2 isotope signature in ice bubbles shows is carbon-cycle CO2. CO2 in atmosphere today shows its FF in origin. By your logic the isotope signatures should be the same.
  26. CO2 has a short residence time
    IPCC summaries the published science for consumption BY policy makers. The IPCC are not policy makers themselves.

    Your other assertions are simply political statements. They express what you wish to believe without a trace of supporting evidence and are laughable to those who know the people involved.
  27. adrian smits at 10:15 AM on 12 May 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
    Has anyone seen the peer reviewed article that seems to be suggesting TSI is close to six times greater than previously estimated for solar max and minimum?
    Response:

    [DB] You'll have to provide more info than that.  Publication, author, title, year is usually the minimum.  Direct link is best when you want an opinion on a paper.  Thanks!

  28. Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    I think one of the things that really floors me about those in denial about climate change is that they think that we -- the people who trust and understand the science -- are just like them, that our understanding is a "belief" that we've arbitrarily chosen, that we cling to it like a dying man clings to a tree in rising flood waters, that we ignore evidence because somehow climate change is a good thing that we want to happen, and that we're the ones who are putting civilization at risk... because if Exxon doesn't make 30 trillion dollars in the coming decades, the economy will crumble and we'll all be thrown into the stone age.

    It's really just amazing the way they stand everything on it's head, so that down is up, hot is cold, the incline is a decline, the MWP is but current temperature increases ain't, CRU engaged in a global conspiracy but Exxon Mobile is funding research, and on and on and on.

    With a straight face, they say things like:
    And, I agree with your last paragraph as long as you agree that sometimes the answer might not agree with what your ideals hold.
    (implying that research funded by Exxon Mobile and other businesses is real research that is not looking for a predetermined conclusion, but the work done by scientists on government grants is -- but I'm too darned silly to realize the truth of it all).

    *sound of muffled gunshot, then a thud as something heavy hits the floor, followed by the clunk of the gun also hitting the floor*
  29. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Harry Seaward @28, read my statement again. Unless you wish to suggest the negative forcing (ie cooling effect) of aerosols and land use changes have been mistaken for positive forcings (warming effect) by climate scientists; or that climate scientists mistakenly believe the 0.1 W/m^2 forcing of black carbon some how dominates the 3 W/m^2 forcing from GHG your original point is still wrong, and your attempt to suggest the respondents where confused about the significance of the questions they were answering is still laughable.

    Seriously, where I not so familiar with the regular output of denialists, I would have thought your comment a parody.

    The whole output of denialists on this thread has been absolutely ridiculous. It is premised on the suppositions that:

    1) Climate scientists are so confused that they cannot understand questions regularly put to the general public in polls; or

    2) Multiple surveys of scientific opinion which regularly show agreement in the high 90's with the two simple propositions polled by Doran can some how be out by multiples of 10% because of methodological flaws (which are only ever hinted at, not pointed to); or

    3) The existence of three dentists in Woking-on-Rye who disagree with the IPCC (or some equivalent) somehow invalidates the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists who have actively researched the issue to a standard that can pas peer review agree with the IPCC (or think it is too cautious.
  30. Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    DB & Albatross #75 #76

    Thank you for acknowledging my suggestion of a "global gridded system of floats to measure the deep waters as well remains a good one. The task is to convince someone to pay for it..."

    China (a 20% AGW contributor) is cashed up at the moment - maybe a call to Mr Hu??

    This is from von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) - (excuse the length of the quotation)

    Quote
    "Many attempts have been made to estimate long-term as well as recent global OHC changes. But the underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are still unclear. An
    overview on the different analyses estimating OHC can be found in Lyman et al. (2010). For example, several teams have recently produced different multi-year estimates of the annually averaged global integral of upper-ocean heat content anomalies. Patterns of interannual variability, in particular, differ among methods. Especially correction methods of historical measurements (XBTs) dominate among method variability in estimating this GOI (Domingues et al., 2008; Lyman et al., 2010; Gouretski and Reseghetti,
    2010).

    Recent short term estimations of global OHC are mostly based on Argo measurements,and thus reduce possible errors due to large data gaps in space and time as well as due to inhomogeneous sampling. But nevertheless, as interannual variability of OHC is large in the long-term estimations, analyses of global OHC during the last decade differ as well among methods (von Schuckmann et al., 2009; Willis et al., 2009; Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010)."
    endquote

    All of the Argo analyses show a flattening of the Upper 700m OHC since around 2003.

    Your references to the Tisdale manipulated 'cherry pick' - which explicitly produces a plot of Argo analyses only, does nothing to explain why several teams analysing Argo are getting small if any OHC increase.

    The 'step jump' in OHC from the NODC Upper 700m plot in 2001-2003 period of transition to Argo data is glaringly apparent. This 'step jump' has never shown in any satellite record measuring TOA imbalance.

    The suggestion that it is quite legitimate to splice XBT, and other methods with Argo and linearize into a 1993-2010 chart timeline, yet manipulative and bogus to look at the recent and probably more accurate Argo data by itself really defies logic.

    We should wait for Josh Willis published analysis of the **preliminary** data he shared with Dr Pielke - however unless Dr Willis is out by a factor of 2 or 3 in his prelim analysis - the chances are that he is finding less than half the heat of von Schukmann and less than a third of the heat of the purported warming imbalance.

    It looks like Von Schuckmann is the likely outlier amongst the OHC analyses here.
  31. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Bray and Storch, "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (2008) is a detailed survey of 373 climate scientists. Regarding the key questions that match the Doran survey, it shows the following results:

    20. How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?

    With 1 being "not at all" and 7 being "very much", 97.6% of respondents scored 4 or higher, and 67.1% of respondents scored 7 (the highest possible confidence). (Mean score 6.44; median score 7; mode 7)

    21. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?

    Again 1 is "not at all" and 7 is "very much".

    88.9% of respondents scored 4 or higher, and 34.59% scored 7, with an additional 31.89% scoring 6. Only 1.351% scored 1, and 2.973% scored 2. (Mean score 5.68%; median score 6; mode 7)

    Also of interest are a series of questions about the IPCC and the scientific consensus, of which I will give one example:

    39. The IPCC reports tend to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or over
    estimate the magnitude of the impacts resulting from changes in:
    39a. temperature


    In this question, 1 is interpreted as "underestimates" and 7 as "overestimates", with 4, therefore, indicating accurately estimates. 89.8% of respondents thought the IPCC predictions where reasonably accurate (responses 3 to 5). Slightly more (5.248% vs 4.972%) respondents thought the IPCC significantly overestimated the temperature increases (responses 6 and 7) than thought they significantly underestimated it (responses 1 & 2). (Mean score 3.99; median score 4; mode 4)

    In questions regarding precipitation, sea levels rise, and extreme events, respondents where slightly less confident in the IPCC, with the lowest confidence being in predictions of extreme events with just 75.9% of respondents agreeing (scored 3 to 5) with the IPCC. The general pattern is that statements given high confidence by the IPCC in their reports are very widely agreed to, while statements given less confidence have greater dissent. That suggests the beliefs of the scientific community as a whole (rather than those of individual scientists) are determined by the quality of evidence; and that the IPCC is accurately reporting on that evidence.

    So, the general pattern is very clear! The IPCC is reporting on a genuine consensus amongst scientists. The scientists, however, have a variety of opinions on detailed points which shows they are not practising "group think" or following dogma. Indeed, where the evidence is assessed by the IPCC as very good, support of the IPCC position is near universal amongst climate scientists.

    Deniers such as Harry Seaward and Bud are terrified that the general public might realize this, ie, that the scientific controversy over the core issues in climate change are manufactured by a very few ideological warriors who seem unable to follow evidence. Therefore they will try every trick they know to try and distract from these facts - as can be seen on this thread.
  32. Wakening the Kraken
    Hi Daniel and Agnostic,

    As I have little scientific credibility, and have already posted on this subject before elsewhere, I have thought long and hard before commenting on your excellent article.

    I have two criticisms.

    1. I think that you have not distinguished enough between two possible nightmarish processes; the first that the clathrate stability zone begins to melt, at 50 metres depth, and thus 6 bars atmospheric pressure, releasing 168 x 6 litres of methane at surface pressure; the second, that the melting of the East Siberian shelf could then "uncap" much larger deposits of already gaseous methane.

    In the second of these scenarios, the venting of a whole gasfield directly into the atmosphere would be possible. This may, or may not, be an event similar to the Storegga shelf collapse of approximately 8100 BC.

    2. ...which brings me on to the Kraken - a scary beastie.

    To digress slightly, high on the coastal hills of Eastern Japan, covered in lichen and moss, and almost completely forgotten until the last few months, when they have achieved a certain cyber-fame, there are a series of inscribed stones, which say something like "Please, children, do not build anything below this height. It is not safe."

    This, in a written solid form, is an unmistakable warning from people who had seen a tsunami, and who cared about their descendants' fate. It is now clear that ignoring this advice was bad policy.

    Akin to these concrete written warnings, I would suggest, there are numerous very old folk tales, oral traditions which were passed from mouth to mouth, that were perhaps the ancients' way of passing on essential survival information to their descendants. The treasure of the tribe, as described for example by Bruce Chatwin, in "The Songlines".

    Many of these old tales concern floods and terrifying sea-monsters. I would suggest that these are precious ancestral heirlooms, which we ignore at our peril; and which may very often have their basis in real pre-historical events - the Thira eruption, the flooding of the Mediterranean basin, the flooding of the Black Sea, etc.

    On the other hand, some are just the deranged ravings of a pack of Stone Age loons predicting events so far in the future, or so far beyond their actual comprehension, as to be entirely meaningless.

    I am slightly discomforted by this Kraken, as I'm not sure enough of the corpus of Scandinavian myth to know which it might be... a folk memory of the awful Storegga tsunami; or a load of old bollocks about the end of it all.

    It is easier for me to draw a distinction using classical Greek texts. I don't think there is much to be gained by invoking the stories of the patricidal Zeus usurping Chronos and all of that Gaia stuff out of Hesiod... This pertains to the gods, or God, or whatever.

    Now, while I concede that we may already be completely fracked already, I still hope that we may yet be in the condition of the first recognisable human hero to arise from the sea of Greek myth: wily Odysseus. Who survives.

    Despite picking a fight with the ocean, despite provoking the anger of the sun, and despite the various monsters he meets...

    At any rate, I thought your article was excellent, and thought you'd also be amused to learn that your reference to the Kraken was the second I'd seen recently.

    Try searching for "Kraken" on "The Onion"; still America's finest news source.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! We have plans for a sequel: The Kraken Returns...
  33. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Harry Seaward:

    "2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. "

    So none of us are "global warmists".

    And you won't find a single climate scientist who is not aware that natural phenomena not only MAY cause climate change, but DOES cause climate change. Milankovich cycles, variations in solar output, positions of the continents (over geological timescales), etc are all know to affect climate.

    This information comes from science in the first place, thank you very much.

    The denialist position is that ONLY natural phenomena can cause climate change, which is, of course, incorrect. Denialist is an appropriate descriptive term because to believe this, you have to deny the physical properties of CO2, the fact that when plenty of water is available that rising temperatures don't increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (or that water vapor is not a GHG), etc .
  34. JosHagelaars at 08:16 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    For those interested, you can find the list of the 77 scientists mentioned in response #30 on http://tinyurl.com/ltakyk. EIKE is a German lobby group of climate sceptics, their slogan on the website says "Not the climate is threatened, but our freedom!". I don't have the impression that a climate scientist is present on the list, in fact in a German newspaper article the public relations man of EIKE states : "We don't need climate scientists" (If you can read German : http://tinyurl.com/2a8354c).
  35. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    apirate - the likes of NSF fund scientists to find out what isnt known. The funders have no interest in the whether your research ends up supporting one theory or another.

    By contrast, funding from lobby groups is interested in finding out particular results that support that lobby. This doesnt necessarily mean that the research was badly done but it obviously needs deeper scrutiny. Contracts for research in areas where there is a political interest by lobby group tend to be rather particular about what can be published from that research! In contrast, NSF funded research requires data openness to other researchers.
  36. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    HS@60
    By that definition I would consider "warmist" to be an insult and not applicable to any of the regulars here at SkS.

    @62
    I must have missed that one.
  37. Rob Honeycutt at 07:49 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Harry... Again, you're getting some stuff wrong.

    1) There is NO absolute here. Nothing in science is absolute. Given a competing theory that would explain all the current empirical evidence every one of us here would change their opinion.

    2) We continually entertain other possibilities. The problem is, every other explanation is not consistent with the data or even between ideas.

    3) No. We believe that science clearly understands the problem and if we don't start applying solutions (that cost, yes, billions of dollars) we are going to have a much much bigger problem on our hands, and one that is likely not to be solvable.

    4) No again. The frequency and severity maybe. That's different.

    5) Have you ever tried posting as a person who believes AGW over at WUWT or JoNova? This is a pony ride you get here.
  38. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    apiratelooksat50 @50, sure apirate, all those American climate scientists produced studies that show global warming is dangerous because it would ingratiate them with the Bush administration.

    The fact is that funding from governments in western democracies is tied to quality of research; while funding from commercial interests is tied to furthering those commercial interests.
  39. CO2 has a short residence time
    scaddenp, 5/11/11, 13:50 PM [sic] CO2 residence time

    IPCC's First Assessment Report (FAR) has an introductory part titled Policymakers Summary. The Second (SAR), Third (TAR) and Fourth (AR4) have an introductory part titled Summary for Policymakers. IPCC explicitly addresses no one else in its Reports.

    The Policymakers associated with the IPCC would include US Democrats, formerly including Al Gore, and other Western politicians on the left. What they are supposed to do is heap honors on IPCC and its climatologists, turn a blind eye to scientific challenges to IPCC's model, fund evermore super supercomputers and studies with them, and redistribute world GDP among all nations by voluntarily crushing energy use in proportion to national GDP.
  40. Harry Seaward at 07:45 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    PBJAMM@56
    The comment I was referring to was deleted because it was ad hominem. It referred to my initials being HS being the same as high school just like my thinking pattern.
  41. Rob Honeycutt at 07:44 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    JMurphy... I prefer the term: Warmanista ;-)
    Response: [JC] Rob, weren't you the one that tried floating the term "hottie". I notice it never took off.
  42. Harry Seaward at 07:43 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    JMurphy @ 58
    From the Urban Dictionary (these are not my words)
    To be defined as a global warmist, a person must have all of the following traits:

    1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet.

    2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence.

    3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case."

    4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change.

    5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.

    And while we are at it:
    Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.
  43. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    warmist = realist
  44. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    So, can anyone explain what the made-up word "warmist" means ?
  45. Harry Seaward at 07:34 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Rob @ 55
    Apologies accepted.

    Thanks.
  46. Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    HS@52
    Arguing that "you look like a boiled prawn" or that "you are ugly and your Mom dresses you funny" would be ad hominem.
    Saying "You're digging very hard, Harry" (DSL@46) is not.

    The pros/cons of the surveys have been hashed out on SkS more than once before.
    Is There a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming?
    How Many Climate Scientists are Skeptics?
  47. Rob Honeycutt at 07:28 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Harry... Okay. I can accept that. I just wanted to make sure you weren't some teenage troll with a bad attitude and an overly clever pseudonym. Believe me, I've heard plenty of derivations of my name. My apologies.
  48. Harry Seaward at 07:19 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    Sphaerica at 53
    Why not use warmists? Deniers is frequently thrown around on this site.

    And, I agree with your last paragraph as long as you agree that sometimes the answer might not agree with what your ideals hold.
  49. CO2 has a short residence time
    Eric (skeptic), 11:22 AM, 5/11/11, CO2 has a short residence time

    1. Take a look at the air-sea flux in IPCC's carbon cycle for the 1990s here. AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515. The natural fluxes in black, left to right, positive into the ocean, are 0.2-119.6+120-70.6+70 = 0. The anthropogenic fluxes in red are 2.6-1.6+22.2-20-6.4=-3.2 GtC/yr. In other words, 100% of nCO2 emissions are absorbed each year, but only 69.2% of ACO2 is absorbed per year.

    If the nCO2 and ACO2 uptake has the same mix as the emissions, then the absorption for 13CO2, x13, and correspondingly x12 must be equal to 1 for nCO2, and equal to 0.692 for ACO2, where 0 ≤ x_i ≤ 1. But how could x13 or x12 be aware of the origin of the species?

    The ratio of 13CO2 to the total CO2 is the variable R, and for the two species, R_n = 1.11123% (R_PDB) and R_A = 1.08101 ((1 + delta_13C)R_PDB = (1-0.0272)R_PDB).

    If we aren't particular about the mix of each species, then R_n*x13+(1 - R_n)*x12 = 1 and R_A*x13 + (1 - R_A)*x12 = 0.692. The solution, x13 = 1007.7 and x12 = -10.3, is not possible.

    2. IPCC can't be pinned down on its well-mixed conjecture because it never quantifies what well-mixed means, (and because it has no mechanism to respond to challenges). IPCC ought to report the mixing as the variability in standard deviations divided by the average, or something equivalent, and then compare the ratio to a standard or requirement before qualifying it. IPCC admits that gradients exist in atmospheric CO2, detectable EW and an order of magnitude greater NS, which seems to be an admission that the gas is not well-mixed.

    IPCC shows that the ocean outgasses CO2 dominantly in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, and absorbs a major portion in the polar regions, which are the headwaters of the thermohaline circulation. IPCC shows these effects in its Takahashi diagram. AR4, Figure 7.8, p. 523. However, the fluxes in the Takahashi diagram add to about an order of magnitude too small compared to IPCC's total fluxes in Figure 7.3. Deep, cold water saturated with CO2 is drawn to the surface by the Ekman suction on the Equator, where it is warmed to tropical temperatures to outgas CO2. The surface water then follows mean surface circulation patterns, arriving at the poles about a year later to feed the THC at about 0ºC. All along the year-long route, surface water cools, on average absorbing CO2. This creates a background flux of CO2 in the atmosphere that should be detectable without IPCC's calibrations. IPCC gives no indication in any of its Assessment Reports that its models account for these ocean and atmospheric circulations.

    NASA published a July 2008 image from AIRS of mid-tropospheric (8 km) CO2 here. The AIRS chart from July 2003 here showed much weaker patterns. NASA's 2003 caption includes this under-stated observation:

    This global map of mid-troposphere carbon dioxide shows that despite the high degree of mixing that occurs with carbon dioxide, the regional patterns of atmospheric sources and sinks are still apparent in mid-troposphere carbon dioxide concentrations. Climate modelers are currently using AIRS data to study the global distribution and transport of carbon dioxide.

    Note that atmospheric CO2 in 2003 had a high degree of mixing, no longer well-mixed. Still apparent indeed. CO2 patterns at the surface must be much more pronounced than the extreme lumpiness of CO2 evident at 8 kilometers. The atmosphere acts as a filter to reduce both resolution and evidence of surface patterning. It is not well-mixed above 8 km; it is even less well-mixed below.

    Whatever IPCC means by well-mixed, the satellite measurements puncture the conjecture.

    3. The CO2 concentration rise is surely natural. As the Vostok record shows, it is in sync with temperature, but always lagging. The increase is a local effect at MLO, and IPCC's calibration to make other measuring stations agree with MLO is unwarranted. Furthermore, an intense pattern of CO2 rising from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific splits poleward, enters the Hadley Cells, then the Westerlies, with half descending across MLO as it cools. This puts MLO in a plume of outgassing, a major source amounting to about 60% of the estimated 90 GtC/yr from the ocean. The bulge at MLO is not 30-40% of 8 GtC/yr, but about 3-4% of 90. If that plume were stationary, then the rise seen at MLO might be just due to sea surface temperature. However, the plume might be wandering, a slow, climatic effect moving its ridgeline closer to MLO in modern times. This is speculation, but necessary on the heels of the failure of the IPCC model. An analysis of MLO data closer to raw data, along with wind vector, might shed light on why MLO CO2 concentration has been rising for the last half century.

    4. Nothing can be established using thermodynamic equilibrium because it doesn't exist on Earth. It is precisely IPCC's reliance on that fiction that leads to a severe debunking.

    5. I don't find any use for a net effect of the ocean. It always uptakes CO2 at 0ºC and at today's partial pressure before the water descends to the bottom. It outgasses CO2 from water 500 to 1000 years old, effectively at the concentration then, but released at the tropical temperature now.
  50. Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 12 May 2011
    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
    50, apiratelooksat50,

    Don't use the term "warmists."

    As far as funding... the difference would lie in whether the funding was supplied to actually do research and find the correct answer, whatever it may be, or if it was supplied to find a specific answer (along with any twisted, convoluted method to support that answer), no matter where the truth lies.

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next



COP21 LiveBlog


The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2016 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us