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

Recent Comments

Prev  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  1292  1293  1294  1295  1296  1297  1298  1299  Next

Comments 64451 to 64500:

  1. Climate sensitivity is low
    scaddenp, RW1 - George White has stated that running the HITRAN models results in an imbalance of 3.6 W/m^2 (here, post #19).

    And then he, for some reason, halves that value. Which I cannot consider as other than a blatant mistake.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed URL link.
  2. Prudent Path Week
    Chemist1 @ 16: I haven't read through that paper yet (and I suspect the statistical discussions are beyond my skills in that area), but the site selection immediately leaps out at me as being very, well, odd for Australia. For comparison of precipitation, for example, 3 out of 4 sites in Australia are in the "red centre" - very sparsely populated areas which get very irregular rainfall. It seems very odd, considering the high density of good weather records in the rest of the country...

    @mod response at 15: thanks, but I was mostly commenting on the fact that there doesn't appear to be a handy link to those graphics anywhere on the standard page layout - I've previously found it by searching for the blog posts that mention it.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fair point. While the link I provided originally appeared in this blog post, they seem to be unreferenced anywhere easily findable. A fix is in the pipeline; stay tuned for future developments.
  3. Models are unreliable
    The title of the link desribes some of the issues with models being unreliable in peer review like this one:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

    The reason I am posting this link is to show there is considerable controversy and evidence of GCM's not being reliable or valid from 1900 to 2011.
  4. Climate sensitivity is low
    I'm not following.
  5. Climate sensitivity is low
    If George was right, (ie should be 1.85W/m2), then the model result that calculated 3.7W/m2 would not agree with the actual measurements of IR. Similarly, if you compare spectrum measured in 1979 with that in 2004, if the incremental change in IR was wrong then the measurement wouldnt agree. This is experimental verification that 3.7W/m2 for doubling is correct. Furthermore, you check that the change in IR is due to CO2 by looking at the spectrum.
  6. Models are unreliable
    ( -Snip- )
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no link only. Future comments containing links without some description of why you are posting it and why you think it's relevant to the discussion on this thread will be deleted. Thanks!
  7. Models are unreliable
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+models+unreliable&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_ylo=2009&as_vis=0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no link only.
  8. A broader view of sea level rise
    To get the discussion back:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/09/gps-aids-in-sea-level-rise-debate/

    Thoughts? I do not want to flood the thread with references. Let's go at it one at a time, if we can.
  9. Prudent Path Week
    The idea may be established but its reliability is not. But I will defer further reference to GIA to the appropriate thread as per the moderator's comment.
  10. Prudent Path Week
    Bibliovermis here:

    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928
  11. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    HR @152, pointing out a limited truth without context in such a way as is likely to deceive is a form of lying. People who do it are said to be telling half truths, and are appropriately described as disingenuous.

    Had you pointed out that there are natural forcings that have caused polar amplification in the past (half the truth), but that those forcings are now acting in opposition of polar amplification (the whole truth), then I would not have called you disingenuous. But had you done that, of course, you would not have opened up any doubt as to whether the current arctic amplification is natural, or anthropogenic in origin.
  12. Climate sensitivity is low
    scaddenp (RE: 79),

    I don't understand, sorry.
  13. Climate sensitivity is low
    (Oops, the above is response to comments from RW1 at A swift kick in the ice
  14. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 - I have responded Climate sensitivity is low
  15. Climate sensitivity is low
    RW1 - there is another way to look at whether the radiative change is correct or not without going into the mathematics deeply.

    Step 1/ assume scientists have the maths and physics right. Use the model to calculate TOA emissions. Not just the energy, but also the spectra. Compare with REAL measured spectra.

    Step 2/ Assuming that was right, you can see whether the calculation for incremental CO2 increase is also correct by doing the same procedure but doing it for different decades and seeing whether the change matches the change in CO2.

    Sound fair enough test? In fact you could do the calculation for downward IR at surface or for outward IR by satellite. For results, see the papers on this

    Now lets see George White produce some calculations from his approach that can match these empirical results.
  16. Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
    This is a terriffic resource!
    I have been linking to SKS more and more often on my facebook Wall, and get a good response. (I have over 4,000 friends there.)

    I took the liberty of posting this with a short intro as a Note at
    Skeptical Science's Quick Guide Toolkit to Global Warming Baloney

    Numbering the list makes it even more impressive, IMHO.

    Thanks again.
  17. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    The correct thread is this one.

    The issue I was raising was not climate sensitivity, or the Earth's energy balance. It is that RW1's self proclaimed "critical thinking" is neither.

    I am not going to bury that point by pretending that whether or not the doubling CO2 would have an atmospheric forcing of 3.7 w/m^2 or 1.85 w/m^2 (as Geoge White would have us believe) is a matter open to discussion. The later opinion is simply an error, an error only possible in some one who does not even know the meaning of "atmospheric forcing".

    The correct response in this situation is not to discuss this on some other thread but for RW1 to admit the error, and to stop swallowing uncritically any sort of nonsense churned out by denier hacks.
  18. Prudent Path Week
    BTW, is there a handy link anywhere to the SKS graphics? I can't see one up the top of the page anywhere...
    Moderator Response: [DB] Try here.
  19. Prudent Path Week
    Bibliovermis, you're absolutely right - I had second thoughts about that post almost immediately after I hit the "submit" button - luckily, the mods here are on the ball and deleted it. :-)

    Back on topic - the rate of change projected by all the climate models is very high. A common skeptic argument is that there have been large changes in climate previously. Does anyone know of a chart which plots, say, the temp rise at the end of the last ice age (even just the steepest 1,000 years) against the temp profile as presented in Figure 2 above?
    I should probably dig up the source data and chart it myself - I'd like to do the comparison for a presentation I'm putting together for work. CO2 & temp would be a useful pair of charts to illustrate how what's happening now differs from past episodes of climate change.

    There's also an interesting post over at ClimateSight about the potential for mass extinction as a result of warming events.
  20. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom Curtis (RE: 209),

    What thread do you want to take it to? Moderators - any suggestion?
    Moderator Response: [DB] KR has suggested the How sensitive is our climate? thread, while RickG has suggested the Measuring Earth's energy imbalance thread. Depending on your desired focus, pick the more appropriate one. Or use the search function to find one you feel most appropriate. Thanks!
  21. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom Curtis (RE: 209),

    Let's take this over to the appropriate thread.
  22. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    HR - why would the fact that natural forcing have acted in the past (and act today) give anyone palpitations? Someone is denying it? However, the natural forcing that might have resulted in ice-free pole are NOT acting now.
  23. Prudent Path Week
    Bern,

    Implications of "being on the payroll" as the basis for being a supporter are unwelcome here, regardless of the position being supported.
  24. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus @ 205... Just trying to extend a little in order to build a connection. I actually believe that the hypotheses being put forth from the skeptic side are not consistent with observations. Low climate sensitivity for Lindzen just doesn't jibe with paleoclimate reconstructions. And there are various fundamental problems for GCR's being a serious driving force in climate.
  25. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @189, George White's arguments are rife with errors. (There was going to be a third and fourth post on his errors, but the page containing his essential argument is currently down.) One of the most egregious is the halving of the reduction in outgoing radiation due to IR gases. This is very easily verified for your self using the modtran model hosted by David Archer. This is an obsolete model available on the public domain, but it still shows a change in TOA OLR of -3.17 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 from the default settings. Note, that is the reduction in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, it is not "the amount of IR radiation captured" or some other vague term designed to confuse. Based on this model, with 375 ppm CO2, approx 287.8 w/m^2, while with 750 ppm, approx 284.7 w/m^2 leaves the planet.

    As I said, this is an obsolete model, built in the early 1990's. More recent and more accurate models have since been built which refine the prediction to 3.7 w/m^2, a result consistent by satellite observations.

    When you have a dispute between a single amateur and the whole of the world's scientific community on a single well known value, it is not "critical thinking" to simply accept that word of the amateur. It is gullibility. It is no less gullibility if people cannot find published papers establishing some thing taught in first year climate science courses. For some reason, journal editors are loathe to accept papers that merely reestablish some well known result (unless it is done with a novel and interesting method).

    However, in this case it is not true that nobody could point you to an academic source for this value. They, after all, will have pointed you to the IPCC at minimum. That you and George White do not understand the definition of "atmospheric forcing" is not their fault. Nor is it "critical thinking". Rather, it is simple ignorance, and in anyone who has read up on climate science as you claim to have done, willful ignorance.
  26. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it.
    I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who."

    Yes, & your answer proves you to be a conspiracy theorist-not much better than a Young Earth Creationist or a 9/11 Troofer. I'm sorry, but *when* have you ever proven that your conclusions are based on "logic & evidence"? You've just revealed that you believe the whole of Climatology is just one long conspiracy-all financed by an as yet undisclosed group/individual. I see nothing logical or evidence based in that. My conclusions, by comparison, are based on reading *all* the available data, & using a mind that's been *trained* to read scientific papers (as I have a B.Sc (Hons) & work in a scientific field) to determine whether what they're saying is accurate or not. What the majority of the world's climatologists fits in with *everything* we know about how the world works-& has yet to be overturned by any competing hypotheses/theories-whereas the Denialists (like yourself) rely mostly on conspiracy theories & straw-man arguments. So, based on that choice, guess which side I'm going with?
  27. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high.

    So, by your own words you have no problem with GHG physics. As for climate sensitivity and feedbacks I was going to recommend the thread, "Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements", but reading through it I see you have already been taken to task on your misunderstandings quite well. It also seems in that thread that you also seem to ignore the plethara of peer reviewed literature and care to learn no "real science".

    Again I'll ask you, list your sources that back up your claims for a large positive feedback nullifying the GHG forcings. You know to do this you also have to deny the 5 major global temperature measurements (GISS, HadCrut3v, NCDC, RSS & UAH) that all show significant warming is happening.

    Also, you seem to be drifting off topic, there are more appropriate threads concerning feedbacks and forcings.
  28. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 - what I want to see is your evidence. Your logic so far has been based on invalid assumption.

    If you want to talk science, then please go to appropriate thread and we can try to continue. Very important - have you got your head around Ramanthan and Coatley 1978? Science of Doom has some excellent aids to understanding the RTEs but discussions about where the 3.7W/m2 etc is going to be pointless without grasping these at some level.
  29. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories."

    In fairness, they don't even have alternative *theories*-they have *hypotheses*-ones which haven't even been supported by additional research. Lindzen's "Iris Effect", for example, has yet to receive any support from actual observations of cloud behaviour. Its not looking good for the Denialist Cult right now.
  30. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Rob Painting - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis:



    It appears that respiration and photosynthesis drives the CO2, O2 and pH profiles of the oceans...

  31. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus (RE: 203)

    Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it.

    I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who.
  32. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    @RW1
    "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'."

    Oh yeah, unlike your denialist mates, who are often *proven* to be financed by the Fossil Fuel Industry. Are you suggesting that Arrhenius & all the other physicists & climatologists over the whole of the 19th & 20th centuries were also just trying to show 'what their financiers are more or less looking for them to discover'? If so, then that's a conspiracy with one *hell* of a lag time. With the sentence above, you've pretty much proved that you're not only a denier, but also a bit of a simpleton to boot. If these are the best "arguments" you can come up with to 'debunk' climate change, then its no wonder you probably spend most of your time hanging out with PopTech, Monctkon & Anthony Watts!
  33. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Rob Honeycutt,

    "I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions.

    So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand.

    On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories.

    There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake.

    Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion?"


    I'd respond, but the moderator is deleting my posts, so I'm done here. You're asking good questions, BTW.
  34. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1... I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions.

    So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand.

    On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories.

    There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake.

    Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion?
  35. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    ( -Snip- )
    Moderator Response: [DB] You persist in posting things that are not only off-topic, but in violation of the comments policy, such as allegations of impropriety. Your comments must stand on their own based on the science (preferably with peer-reviewed sources to back them up) or not at all.
  36. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1,

    I politely suggest that you apply your critical thinking skills to your base assumptions.

    Independently validated, empirical researched is not overturned by vast conspiracy notions and lack of understanding.
  37. Portuguese translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Hi!
    No problem. Keep up the excellent work and thanks to Alexandre as well.
  38. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 - "their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'."
    That is utter unsubstantiated nonsense that as far as I can see arises from an extremely poor understanding of science, and frankly looks like violation of comments policy.

    This is not "interpreting" data. Its actually doing the maths which you appear not to be. You can what political opinions you like but you cannot have your own version of reality. If you cant do the maths yourself, then unfortunately you have to accept the result from those who can. The 3.7W/m2 is result of very complex numerical integration; there is no "opinion" in it. If you want to dispute it, then refute the equations, but you cant do that with a half-baked piece of simplistic nonsense that this "gain" stuff is.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Yes, indeed it was. Please do not continue responding to these kind of comments.
  39. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Gentle reminder: This is an ice thread. Sensitivity and energy imbalance discussions have their own threads; although I doubt if anyone wants to start that up again.

    Conspiracies, 'financiers,' etc are never on topic.
  40. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1@193
    "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'."

    And with that we move from discussing Scientific Theory to Conspiracy Theory.
  41. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    KR (RE: 191),

    I'm not getting into that with you here, nor am I going to speak for George.
  42. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 - surely you still dont think that doubling CO2 actually is producing extra radiation at the TOA? (where by definition there is no atmosphere?). Its a EFFECTIVE 3.7W/m2 of rad. This has been explained so many times, I dont know how to make you understand it.
  43. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Rob Honeycutt,

    "So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions?

    Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'.
    Moderator Response: [DB] You are making an allegation of impropriety here, which is in violation of the comments policy. Future such comments will be deleted.
  44. Prudent Path Week
    steve anthoney

    "Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming."

    Unless you're living in a mainland European country, I doubt very much that your claim is true-as Governments in every other industrialized Country are very much joined at the hip to the Coal/Oil Industry. Here in Australia, $10 billion per annum of tax-payers money is effectively shoveled into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry-in direct & indirect subsidies-but listen to the politicians *scream* if you suggest giving even 1% of that kind of money to the renewable energy industry.
  45. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @ 189... So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions?
  46. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 - George White has admitted that his own running of the models comes out with an imbalance of ~3.65 W/m^2. That is the difference in energy between what goes into the atmosphere and what comes out. Not half of it, but all of it.

    The difference is because of (a) increased absorption by CO2, and (b) a rise in the level of CO2 emission, where CO2 density is low enough for IR to escape to space, and due to the lapse rate is actually colder - hence less energy.

    These numbers are obtained by running line-by-line models (as GW has done), much as numeric integration does for equations without symbolic solutions. For some reason GW doesn't believe his own results, and goes halving them - that's no reason for you to make the same mistake.

    I would suggest that further discussion of climate sensitivity take place on the Climate sensitivity is low thread, where the data and the discussion on this topic are actually being presented. You are way off topic here.
  47. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Both would also appear that a back-of-the-envelope calculation ignoring a mass of known physics (plus a mass of invalid assumptions) outweighs any calculation where its done better. This the thinking that leads to "bumblebees shouldnt be able to fly". Also, the question as to how long is long enough to distinguish a trend from internal variability is not a matter of opinion - you determine it from statistics.
  48. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Rob Honeycutt (RE: 181),

    "Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science?"

    I've read a lot of books and papers and thought about it from a whole bunch of different angles, but most of my conclusions and views come from mixing and meshing the behavior and evidence coming from both sides using logic and critical thinking skills.

    And yes, I have gotten a lot of information from George White. I've taken the time to understand a lot of the work he has done and have spent time watching and observing others try to discredit it only to fail in my estimation. For example, it is claimed around here that the halving of the 3.7 W/m^2 is incorrect because it's already been halved, yet I've asked numerous times for a source documenting the incremental absorption from 2xCO2 is actually 7.4 W/m^2. So far no one has provided it, and I've even searched around myself and found nothing of the sort. These kinds of things reveal things to my critical thinking mind and I then mix and mesh them in with all the other stuff I know. Eventually, I believe at least, I figure out who really knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
  49. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @ 186... That's good. At least you aren't a complete denier. I run into way too many people who try to tell that CO2 has zero radiative properties or hang their hat on the idea that the CO2 effect is saturated.
  50. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 - Those 'gain' calculations were discussed to the point of exhaustion on previous threads, along with the quite incorrect 'halving' of TOA imbalances.

    I have no wish to rehash it here - I think you were clearly answered on the earlier thread. The 'gain' you have discussed is inappropriate for climate calculations. Please read the Climate sensitivity is low thread for the peer reviewed work and actual data on sensitivity to forcings.

Prev  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  1292  1293  1294  1295  1296  1297  1298  1299  Next



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 2015 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us