Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for snafu

Comments matching the search snafu:

Sea level rise is exaggerated

MA Rodger at 20:18 PM on 15 November, 2017

NorrisM @265.

Indeed, you do not have it right.

I have taken the data from C&W and from NASA. For each of the two records, I have calculated linear trends through 11-years, from beginning to end of each record.

Thus the latest such trend for C&W is centred on 2008 covering the years 2003-2013. It has a trend of 4.2mm/yr. The data centred 2005-08 all yields trends above 4mm/yr and the data centred 1998-2004 yields trends 3mm/yr ot 4mm/yr. Levels of SLR above 3mm/yr are not evident on the C&W record even in a single year. Prior to this latest acceleration, only 10 years on the 134 year record managed to top 2.5mm/yr.

Your second paragraph begins "From what I have read..." and then delves again into nonsensicalnessism. What do you mean by "They can still show the same acceleration but the measurements do not coincide."?

I should perhaps add that the dip in satelite-derived SLR shown by these 11-yr OLS calculations, illustrated @258 and described @262: that dip would disappear if the suggested-but-unpublished adjustments to TOPEX are borne out. (Note the researchers were not at all happy with Nature's use of the word "SNAFU".) The adjustment removes the dip and reveals a strong acceleration as per the C&W data.

Nerem SLR with TOPEX adjusted

Temp record is unreliable

randman at 08:42 AM on 25 September, 2017

Tom, this is the paper by Hansen with 288 Kelvin as the mean. I think you've already seen the press comments by Hansen and Jones in 1988 of 59 degrees F and "roughly 59 degrees" respectively, right?

LINK

Obviously regardless of looking at anomalies, there is a reason they believed the mean was 59 degrees. The fact climatologists like to look at anomalies does not change that, does it? Not seeing your point.

On a wider note, this appears to be a pattern. 15 degrees was later adjusted down to 14 degrees, which had the effect of making the then present temps appear warmer, whether correctly so or not.

More recently, we've seen satellite data that showed no sea level rise to speak of "adjusted", perhaps correctly so or not, to now show sea level rise.

http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312

Prior to that we saw the posited warming hiatus changed by some, which changes including lowering the past means among other things. One climatologists somewhat famously has complained about this, Judith Curry. Some of her comments here:

""This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set," she wrote. "The global surface temperature data sets are clearly a moving target. So while I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama Administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.""

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150604-hiatus-climate-warming-temperature-denier-NOAA/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/09/recent-hiatus-caused-by-decadal-shift-in-indo-pacific-heating-2/

As I understand it, Curry was a proponent of AGW and perhaps still is in some respect, but has had problems with the way the data has been adjusted and the accuracy of the models among other things.

She's not the only scientist raises these questions. So it's not just laymen like myself who wonder why there appears to be a pattern of data that does not line up with predictions simply being "adjusted." These adjustments are not just one-off things either but a fairly consistent feature here.

Temp record is unreliable

randman at 12:55 PM on 24 September, 2017

I am a little concerned about rebutting you on sea levels as not sure it's OK here to do that or not. But be that as it may, consider the following:

"The numbers didn’t add up. Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady — or even declining.

Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar. Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year."

http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312

1. The July 2017 report says the satellite data did not show sea level rise. My question to you is did you know that or were you led to believe prior to July that the satellite data showed sea levels rising? Be honest and ask yourself how that happened if "scientists" actually knew the data said something else.

2. Note the solution of adjusting the data. (Note to mods: this is why I think responding on this is appropriate on this thread because we are discussing the trustworthiness and reliability of data.)

If "adjusting the data" were just a one-off thing, this would appear unobjectionable perhaps. Would have to look at the technicals on the sensor stuff, but this seems like part of a pattern. Baseline in the 80s was 15 degrees celsius and then that's "adjusted" to 14 degrees which just happens then to show warming.

You don't find that suspicious, especially in light of the recent paper questioning such "adjustments" along with many scientists also questioning the adjustments with some of them having been much more pro-AGW.

I think there is an issue here and should be looked into. Are we merely being sold a story based on adjusting data to fit a narrative?

Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

scaddenp at 06:52 AM on 12 March, 2013

Snafu - lets get this clear. Science works like this - you build hypotheses into models from which you make predictions. You test these predictions against the real data. Now you think you doing this. "Look AGW says xyz, and he is abc which shows its wrong". However, what you are really doing is constructing a straw man agument because climate models predict no such thing and all the handwaving in the world doesnt change that. So instead of constructing your own wild ideas on what the science predicts you could instead see what is actually predicted and compare that with systematic analysis of global records.

So far you are sloganeering. Before we waste further time, perhaps we should ask whether data would change your mind or are you only looking for something to sure up an opinion that wasnt based on data in the first place?

Skeptical Science launches PDF

Rob Honeycutt at 03:25 AM on 12 March, 2013

snafu... I would think you could do better than that! Try Aug 1998 of +0.83C and Jan 2012 of +0.32 (GISS LOTI). Yikes, we're headed for an ice age in the next 50 years! (/sarc)

Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

Composer99 at 03:03 AM on 12 March, 2013

snafu:

At the risk of being accused of 'cherry-picking' single events [...]

Got it in one.

A handful of individual weather events is not the equivalent of a global aggregate of extreme weather events over long time frames.

Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

Rob Honeycutt at 02:30 AM on 12 March, 2013

snafu... You know that you're not making a lot of sense here. How do you come to the conclusion that weather events are getting more extreme but not because of global warming?

2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10

Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:54 AM on 12 March, 2013

If anyone is interested (in light of snafu's comments), I made a gif animation of part of that incredible heat wave over Australia. (You probably need to know what's 'normal' in January to fully appreciate it. Definitely what happened was a long way from 'normal'.)

Not that what we're getting now down in SE Australia is 'normal' for autumn, either. It's too hot for this time of the year.

2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10

Robert Murphy at 00:36 AM on 12 March, 2013

What Snafu is leaving out is the fact that,
"On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year. The town is far enough inland that, during the summer months, the only mechanisms likely to prevent the air from reaching such a temperature involve a southward excursion of humid air associated with the monsoon trough, or heavy cloud, and/or rain, in the immediate area. This may sometimes be associated with a tropical cyclone or a monsoon low. In the record year of 1923-24 the monsoon trough stayed well north, and the season was notable for its lack of cyclone activity. (In fact, the entire Australian continent was untouched by tropical cyclones throughout the season, a rare event in the 20th Century)."
www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm

This "great record" only broke the average number of 100+ days at Marble Bar by 6, and it was weather freakiness that year that did it. That's not much of a heat wave; that's just a touch above normal for Marble Bar. It says absolutely nothing about the relative global temps from back then and now. How coould it possibly?
You'll have to do a lot better than that to even begin to make a case it hasn't been warming.

2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10

DSL at 00:18 AM on 12 March, 2013

snafu, I don't know if you've noticed, but the general circulation system is quite complicated. If it were a fixed system, some of your complaints would be valid. It is not a fixed system. First, there are a variety of short- and long-term regional oscillations that pulse energy across the system. These oscillations are dynamically integrated, and the pattern of that integration can result in anomalous regional conditions regardless of global warming. Second, when energy accumulation is taking place (as it is now), the system itself begins to change. For example, the Hadley circulation has shifted about 5 degrees poleward in the last 30 years. That's a change to a major system component, and it is affecting other components. The polar cell is going through a fundamental change. If you look at a close analogue to the current warming, you'll see that the general circulation system has been radically altered by rapid global warming in the past.

Do you get it? The circulation system is complex and can concentrate energy in specific regions while other regions remain "normal" or even undergo record cold. The confidence with which you speak is not supported by your demonstrated understanding of the science.

2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10

Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:10 PM on 11 March, 2013

Snafu, you are cherry-picking temperatures at one location whilst the report looks at all extreme weather events happening in the whole of Australia, including national records.

Ironic that you have a dig at this blog when you are going out of your way to misrepresent a report.

Skeptical Science launches PDF

Doug Bostrom at 17:10 PM on 11 March, 2013

Snafu, try the "search" box to learn more about the topics you're wondering over. This thread is a housekeeping announcement and isn't going to be a productive place for your sense of curiosity, or much of a useful soapbox for that matter.

Skeptical Science launches PDF

Doug Hutcheson at 16:53 PM on 11 March, 2013

snafu, if you want proof without any doubt, you are wanting religion, not science, which means you are in the wrong place.. If, on the other hand, you want reasonable projections based on the available evidence, you are in the right place. Which will you choose? I think double-posting may not the only thing you have trouble with at SkS.

Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming

dana1981 at 08:13 AM on 9 March, 2013

snafu @67 - two simple reasons. 1) As Composer99 @68 noted, the Escalator is simply a tool to show that you can cherrypick short periods of data to get flat trends at any point over the past 40+ years. Cherrypicking is the whole point. 2) Because the bulk of the human-caused global warming has occurred since 1970.

Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming

KR at 00:47 AM on 9 March, 2013

snafu - In reverse order: With regards to variations up and down over the last 160 years, see CO2 is not the only driver of climate; also the IPCC AR4 section 9 on attributions:

IPCC AR4 Figure 9-5

AR4, Fig. 9-5, simulations run with/without anthropogenic contributions to forcings.

Up until the last 50 years or so it might be plausibly argued that what we were seeing was simply natural forcing variations. That's no longer the case - the physics shows that recent changes are dominated by anthropogenic influences.

As to why start at 1970? Isn't that a sufficent extent of time to show (a) a real trend, and (b) the 'skeptic' cherry-pick of short-term negative trends due entirely to noise? Besides - I don't recall any of the 'skeptic' crowd claiming negative trends in the 1930-1940 time frame using the same tactics, do you?

Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming

Composer99 at 00:29 AM on 9 March, 2013

snafu:

I believe there is statistical & physics-based reasoning behind it, but I am not up to speed on that aspect so I will not comment on it (except for one point).

I can note that the Escalator graph isn't really meant to illustrate what is going on with global warming. It's a debunking tool, meant to show how easy it is to construct "pauses" or "cooling periods" in the data which are not statistically or physically significant.

If one were to extend the graph to, say, 1850, it would rather belabour the point. Plus, the period 1940-1970 (approximately) had (surface temperature) cooling that was both statistically and physically significant, so it would be inappropriate to use the Escalator graph to suggest that period was a cherry-pick.

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Composer99 at 23:59 PM on 29 January, 2013

snafu:

Given your posts were in violation of the Comments Policy and were rather disrespectful & unreasonable themselves, I don't feel you have grounds to complain that others were snarky or sharp-tongued in response.

----------
Charliec65:

I'm not sure where your charge of 'elitist' comes from. Retirees belong to one of the largest and more affluent demographics in the US. In addition, we are talking about retired NASA personnel from its "glory days" in the 1960s & 70s, whose efforts to muddy the waters of climate-related policymaking are spearheaded by a former fossil fuel executive (aka 'wealthy person connected to a wealthy & politically powerful industry').

Surely, if anyone belongs to any sort of elite, it is the authorship of this "climate report".

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Dikran Marsupial at 18:28 PM on 29 January, 2013

@snafu While I did indeed give a reasonable response to your two questions, you have not given an adequate response to those answers. Do you accept those answers? If not, please explain your objections.

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Dikran Marsupial at 02:50 AM on 29 January, 2013

snafu wrote "What is the 'optimal' temperature/climate of Planet Earth?"

A reasonable answer to that would be "the climate to which our civilisation (and especially agricultural practices) has become highly adapted".

It is the change in climate that is the principal problem, as adapting to change has costs. It seems likely that mitigation will reduce the cost of adaptation, so that would appear to be the rational strategy. It isn't rocket science.

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Rob Honeycutt at 02:05 AM on 29 January, 2013

snafu @26... Regarding "the optimal temperature of planet earth." I've seen this question proposed dozens of times and it's really rather meaningless.

The issue at hand is whether an abrupt, human caused shift in the earth's climate will cause massive disruption for humanity and other living species.

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

DSL at 12:01 PM on 28 January, 2013

Chuckle, snafu. It's ok to accept money to perform science. It's not ok to accept money to misinform the public in order to delay action on a serious, global problem. Your analysis is too simple to be useful.

Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming

dana1981 at 03:17 AM on 15 January, 2013

snafu @96 - naturally. Solar activity has nothing to do with GHGs, and the link between GHGs and ENSO is unclear, but by definition it's cyclical and will eventually transition to more El Niños.

Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science

John Hartz at 03:50 AM on 9 September, 2011

“The most striking part of the first full-blown debate in the Republican primary was the total rejection of science.

“In a surreal scene near the night's end, Gov. Rick Perry likened the people denying global warming science to Galileo. To observe that he has that history exactly backwards -- it was the Church that accused Galileo of heresy in 1633 for scientific theories which were on the right track -- is merely to observe that Perry's substantive errors come with their own stylistic snafus. Perhaps that is fitting. More consequential, however, was the answer that Perry failed to provide.”

Source: “GOP Debate: From Birthers to Earthers” by Ari Melber, Huffington Post, Sep 8, 2011

To access this article, click here.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results