Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Term Lookup

Settings

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

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  Next

Comments 63401 to 63450:

  1. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    KR: "Skipping over the implied moderation complaints, can you point out any Monckton arguments that actually hold water? " I can think of one, i.e. his argument that mocking his appearance because he has Graves' disease is unkind and insensitive. Though in making that argument he is guilting of throwing stones from a very glassy house, given his track record. Still, the bug-eyed fella's right, it is unkind and insensitive :)
  2. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    What about Door#3, as shown in the Intermediate version of this rebuttal? Perhaps the MWP wasn't really a global warm period after all. That solves the problem of a less-than-stunning TSI increase (from your Svalgaard slides), without upsetting the cherished 'climate sensitivity is low' meme. All you need to do is accept that what some call a global 'MWP' should really be a very local 'MCA.' But that would mean 'it's not about the hockey stick.' Maybe this is why many pseudo-skeptics don't like it when their arguments are held to the standard of logical consistency.
  3. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Chris, 29 I've had a look at Huang's 2008 paper, and I agree with you that their 1997 paper was not the best choice of study to include as evidence of a MWP. Although I do not believe that there was anything nefarious about Monckton including it in his talk. It was probably just an honest mistake. And might I once again point out that it is only one paper. Monckton showed graphs from eight other studies showing MWP temps were the same/higher than today. You can't just pick out one single study from his talk, and then just act like everything he said was wrong. And might I also point out in their 2008 paper, they clearly state Holocene temps were warmer than today (which Abraham left out of his presentation) Also, in Hunag's 2008 paper, they are vague about what data they are using for 20th century temps. It's likely surface data was spliced onto the graph, although I don't know for sure. But nowhere in their paper do they mention satellite data over the past three decades,, which show less warming than the other datasets. They state that “the maximum of the MWP is at or slightly below the reference level”. However, their conclusion might have changed if they had chosen to use satellite temps in their study. Tom Curtis, 42 “Because an adequate rebuttal already existed in the form of his pre-existing presentation (duh). “ Might I once again ask if you have actually read Monckton's reply to Abraham? Chris, 43 “he asserted (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists supported the interpretation that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures. “ He was referring to the Co2science MWP project. “The pictures he showed to accompany this assertion turn out not to support it at all. In fact in the case of Huang's borehole data that include much of the 20th century, the latter indicate that that current temperatures are warmer than during the MWP.” Read my paragraph above. Jmurphy, 44 “That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality. You have shown your true colours and I'm sure Monckton would be proud of your dissembling. “ Jmurphy have you read Monckton's reply? He gives numerous examples of Abraham misrepresenting his arguments, when contacting the scientists. Read questions 66 -77 (page 12) Abraham makes out Monckton had misrepresented the work of a paper showing 4 polar bears died in a storm. Yet Monckton clearly stated what that paper said accurately and, didn't even mention any possible predictions regarding polar bears. “77: Though you say, “Chris Monckton doesn’t agree with that author, even though he used the citation in his presentation” (15), is it not in fact correct that I correctly reported what the authors said about the cause of death of the four polar bears, and that I did not even mention, still less attempt in any way to challenge, the prediction by them that you say I disagree with? Again, are you bearing in mind the difference between the evidence that I relied upon in Dr. Monnett’s paper and the predictions that he made. It is on the evidence that I spoke, not on the predictions. Would you not agree with me that there are too many predictions in climate science today, and not enough in the way of evidence to give those predictions some real-world credibility.” On Pages 13 – 15 Abraham claims that Monckton misrepresented the work of Barber et al, 2009. Yet, as Monckton pointed out in his reply (Q.84), he didn't even mention Barbers paper in his talk. On page 15 Abraham claims Monckton misrepresented the work of Norris and Rosenstrato. Even though as Monckton pointed out, their graph did indeed show polar bear populations increasing He claims Monckton misrepresented the work of Dr Keigwin. He provides no evidence for this. In Abraham's email he didn't even mention the MWP. He claims Monckton misrepresented Caillon 2002. Yet as Monckton pointed out he didn't even mention that paper. There are numerous examples of Abraham misleading authors throughout the whole rebuttal. (And might I once again point out Abraham has not responded to the letter) So your claim that “That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality.” is false. And you would know this if you had actually read Monckton's reply. Dhogaza, 45 “Oh, we know all about poptech, alright: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=poptech&x=0&y=0” Might I point out that nobody here has responded to Poptech's rebuttal to one of your articles. Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science Not only that, but as Andrew (Poptech) has pointed out, every single comment he has ever written on skeptical science has been deleted. Care to explain that away? “Right, he didn't give a timeframe, therefore Monckton's lying when he suggest he did.” Did Al Gore state that the ice sheets weren't going to disappear for a millenia? Like I said before, the fact that he showed those images clearly implied that the 6 metre sea level rise was going to be happening in the near future. “A strong Medieval Warm Period = HIGH climate sensitivity. “ Please provide one peer reviewed paper supporting that assertion? But your statement is also a bit contradictory don't you think. Your argument works both ways. This website has repeatedly claimed that the hockey stick graph is correct, and that temperatures are warmer than it was in the MWP. So surely, by your own logic, if the hockey stick was correct, then climate sensitivity would also be low. Chriskoz, 49 “You are clearly dilluting any depth of arguments here and running into Monckton gish-gallop, as emphasized text indicates.” Read the numerous examples I gave above of Abraham's misleading claims. Owl905, 51 “Adam droned at 40: "Yes, the IPCC didn't give an exact time frame, but the science is clear that the ice sheets are not going to disappear any time in the near future." You still get the target wrong; and you try the same Monctonite spin where a nearby revision is true (even when untrue)... so the original wrong is right. It's a pathetic attempt to defend your original error. AR4 gave no timeframe and no forecast of complete meltdown. Your claim of clear science is false, and your vague context is useless.” If you believe that I was wrong on the subject of the ice sheets, please provide me one peer reviewed paper providing credible evidence that the the Greenland ice sheet will completely disappear within the next 100 years. I have seen zero evidence for the idea that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in the near future. Therefore I stand by my statement that the science is clear on it. Once again, if you think I am wrong please provide a peer reviewed study supporting the claims that were made in AIT about sea level rise due to the collapse of the ice sheets. Phillipe Chantreau, 53 “That Monckton is largely wrong the majority of the time is not a matter of belief, it is a verifiable fact. “ KR, 55 “The man is amazingly consistent - I have yet to see a single argument from him that is supportable. “ Might I remind you that I gave a list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting the arguments made by skeptics.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The next time one of your posts contains a complaint regarding moderation, the whole post will be delete, rather than edited as I have just done. This is your final warning on this subject.
  4. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    scaddenp@7: "The theory is worthy of Doug Cotton." Are you sure? There may be something to the gravity dino theory...........maybe..... It prob has more credence than Mr. Cotton's theory, however......ok....a toss up?
  5. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    I'm with JP40 - this is the silliest idea I have heard for a while. It demonstrates why you have to do the math instead of just hand-waving. The theory is worthy of Doug Cotton.
  6. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    The Gravity Theory does not, nor did it intend to, explain all extinctions - it would clearly fail on most of them including the present extinction. It's focused on the KTX boundary with a possible extension to the PTX. There's two Razors against the idea. First, the continental arrangement was already dispersing - in the context of the theory, Earth's 'balance' was increasing. Second, a bollide the mass of Mt. Everest hit a shallow sea&swamp full of calcium carbonate at exactly the same time as the biosphere effectively disappears. On the lengths of a globe that rotates: 233K pdf of Earth's Rotation Evolution
  7. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    So as shown in my post 92 it is very obvious that TSI was not a factor of the temps of the MWP. Hence, I have no clue what the sensativity is/was as I have not seen a good demonstration of either high nor low. So, there is no condrum as far as being skeptical concerning the MWP. I would however, really like to understand why it was warm during that time verses the years prior and after.
  8. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Look at slide 7 of Dr. Svalgaards presentation. It shows TSI variability verses temperature reconstructions of the period includeing the MWP. Note that the correlation between TSI reconstruction and temperature in the proxy data is very very poor. Slide 7 on TSI verses temperature in proxy data
  9. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    Whoever came up with that theory must not know much about basic physics and geology. The idea that the extra gravity of the continents coming together would make it impossible for large animals to survive is frankly ridiculous. Since, compared to the rest of the earth, the mass of the continental plates is very small. The other half of the theory suggests that less gravity on the ocean would create less water pressure on the frozen methane on the ocean floor. In principle, this is slightly less silly because it is talking about a particular compound, methane-hydrate, breaking down, instead of animals, which would easily adapt to such a small change. However, it seems that the grouping of the continents on the opposite side of the world would increase the gravity, but again, an insignificant amount.
  10. Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
    Chuck Kutscher I think you can safely ignore this Pierre Gosselin, there's really nothing worth our time in his "rebuttal". The wording of the title (armageddonist, alarmism) already shows the ascientific nature of his rambling and the propaganda-based style. Let's ignore him.
  11. Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
    Frankly, I'd like to see that presentation - inverted. Rather than showing the distortion then the facts, show the facts then the dustortions. The community spends far to much time explaining the errors in what TVMOB, Watt$, McIntyre and the other stooges say - and to little time exposing their corruption.
  12. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    Is that just spam for a book?
  13. Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
    ChuckK: Not to worry. Gosselin's very first point is already false: “Well-heeled misinformation campaign.” That’s bogus. Most of the doubt arises from privately run blogs with little or no money (Climate Audit, WUWT, etc.) Apparently Mr. Gosselin cannot spell H-e-a-r-t-l-a-n-d. After that oops, why bother reading any further?
  14. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Camburn#88: "it adds the measaured at the end of the graph" That adds nothing to the 'uncertainty of the graph,' whatever that means. Have a look at it - the instrumental follows the proxy reconstruction exceedingly well. #89: Your cited TSI reconstruction (data file) appears to be Delaygue et al 2010. The values given are for top of atmosphere, showing on the order of 1365 W/m^2. Score: MWP 1365.24, most recent value (1982) 1365.13; that's a tie within the expected uncertainty. Thus it remains: if you want the MWP to be warmer than today, you must have high climate sensitivity. If you want low climate sensitivity, you must accept a cooler-than-current MWP. This could become known as 'the pseudo-skeptic's dilemma'.
  15. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    And it has to be recognised that uncertainty could be either way. The fact remains that the actual evidence to date from multiple source supports current climate theory.
  16. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    A new theory is able to explain the underlying cause for almost all mass extinctions. To view a summary of this theory go to www.dinoextinct.com and click on 'The Gravity Theory Of Mass Extinction.'
  17. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    KR, to be honest I’m not aware of anything Monckton has said which holds water, however, I’m sure he must get something right sometime, even if it’s just his name , if not his title. To be honest I am also influenced by his hard right wing politics which seem to undermine much of his philosophy, a stance I find distasteful. It’s a bit like believing all snowflakes are different, I believe it, but to be honest I have never checked.
  18. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    #17 Sphaerica : "Once again, we are simply dealing with too short a time frame to view an accurate trend" That's unclear. Taking account of (nearly) all the heat content in the climate system is supposed to avoid the bias of short term surface temperatures. The question precisely adressed here is the current energy imbalance in the system, not what it will be in the future nor what it was in the past. If Loeb et al central estimate was correct, then Giss Model central estimate would be uncorrect, but for different possible reasons (for example, underestimation of aerosols, overestimation of fast / transitory feedbacks, etc.). But IMO this kind of work is still too imprecise to draw conclusion, the 95-99% confidence interval for Loeb et al would be even more large. So we're still in the "travesty" denounced by Trenberth, we know exactly what we would like to quantify very precisely, but we've not the instruments enough precise for this task.
  19. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    KBow - Two major issues with hydrogen: - It takes a lot of energy to produce it. - It's horrible to store; very low density, requires either cryogenics ($$$, short term), high pressure tanks ($$, material embrittlement, still low density), or chemical binding (another energy cost/loss). Your 'gas' tank in the car would be absolutely huge. Much more effective to produce something that is a liquid at room temperatures, reasonably energy dense (within an order of magnitude of gasoline, for example), and storable. Something like an organic alcohol...
  20. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Ken Lambert - "There is no 'warming in the pipeline' in energy terms." That is not the case. As long as there is an energy imbalance at the TOA, as long as the oceans in particular are in thermal disequilibrium, there is "warming in the pipeline", or as I prefer to term it, unrealized warming. This is only made worse by the increasing greenhouse gas forcings we are putting out. To quote Galileo, Eppur si muove. When the energy content of the climate stops moving, attains long term averaged equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere, then we can state that there is no longer "warming in the pipeline". Not before.
  21. Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
    I found that a blogger by the name of Pierre Gosselin posted rebuttals to my presentation. See Blogger Rebuttal He indicates that he is an American with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, works in Germany and has an interest in meteorology. I honestly did not find his rebuttals helpful in improving my presentation. For example, there were the typical attack on Mann's work and a reference to urban heat island effects. Both have been thoroughly addressed in the peer-reviewed literature and yet continue to crop up on skeptic sites. Similarly, the fact that the sun is not the culprit has been proven in many peer-reviewed journal articles. There were also the personal attacks and name-calling: questioning how I ever got my Ph.D. (for the record, a portion of my dissertation work was published in the respected, peer-reviewed ASME Journal of Heat Transfer) and calling me an "armageddonist." I guess that's stronger than "alarmist." (He also called me "slippery." ) I will continue to point out to people that if you call attention to something that is genuinely alarming, then you're not an "alarmist." Further, my research work and most of my presentations focus on solutions, so while "doom and gloom" makes for a nice label, it's not representative of my position. I believe that a combination of renewable energy, nuclear power, and land use changes can help us avoid the worst effects of global warming, and I was a co-author of a peer-reviewed journal article (in Environmental Science and Technology) along with Jim Hansen and two others describing the various solutions. I only put together the rebuttal to skeptic arguments in response to a special request by our local state legislature representative. Mr. Gosselin also refers to my presentation as "populist." I think that's fair. I was presenting to a general audience, and I believe it's important that we present the science in a way that is both accurate and understandable. I welcome any suggestions on how to better and more accurately present my points from unbiased viewers who understand climate science. I continue to find John's Skeptical Science web site extremely valuable in that regard. Regards, Chuck Kutscher
  22. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Actually, on second thought, I may have that backwards. A preponderance of La Niña events should result in a greater imbalance (less OLR)... unless the cumulative, global, radiative effects of ENSO events are counter-intuitive (i.e. colder surface/atmosphere does not mean less radiated energy).
  23. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    garethman - That was an interesting post on your part. Skipping over the implied moderation complaints, can you point out any Monckton arguments that actually hold water? The man is amazingly consistent - I have yet to see a single argument from him that is supportable.
  24. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Sphaerica@17 Corrected link for 'glance at the MEI shows this' glance at the MEI shows this
  25. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    muoncounter: Steinhilber et al 2009 does not agree with this reconstruction. TSI done in 2010 verses Steinhilber et al 2009. It has to be recognized that the uncertainties of Be10 based reconstructions are quite large, 10%, as written in the 2010 reconstruction.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Fixed link
  26. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Muoncounter: The uncertainty of the Mann etal graph being it adds the measaured at the end of the graph requires one to understand that the graph really doesn't prove anything one way or the other. As far as sensativity, I will check the credibility of Steinhilber et al 2009, as there have been several reconstructions of TSI published after 2009.
  27. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    18, Camburn,
    I am not convinced that ENSO is not a climate driver.
    Please provide any reference whatsoever to any even remotely viable mechanism whereby ENSO can be a "climate driver."
  28. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    The continental context is sketched here: Late Permian Worldmap The research highlights the Great Extinction Puzzle - a jigsaw of repeated extinction waves - local, regional, and global, over a very long geological period. About a decade ago, research in the Roo, South Africa, identified three great extinctions over a period of a million years. New species webs established themselves after each of the first two waves. Another note from the research is the sponge die-off 100ky earlier - side-by-side with the end of the trilobites. The 10million-year interval to the Triassic - The Gap - featured lots of fungi, produced almost no coal beds from plant life, and the land fossil-record is littered with a single pig-like creature - Lystrosaurus. The event should called The Great Warning.
  29. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Camburn#86: "If you think that the MWP proves a high climate sensativty, that is fine. I have not read proof of that... " The contention, so popular among the so-called skeptics, that the 'MWP' was warmer than today requires high sensitivity. But so-called skeptics insist on low sensitivity; they simply want to have it both ways. To understand the high sensitivity requirement, first note that this post demonstrates that forcing for medieval warming was dominantly solar. Steinhilber et al 2009 reconstruct that forcing (data here). Their max for ~1000 years BP is a short-lived differential of 0.39 W/m^2. On the graph shown here, the 'MWP' represents global warming of ~0.3C. It would take at least another 0.3C to inflate the MWP peak above today's warming. That's more than 0.6C from solar forcing alone, suggesting a sensitivity on the order of 1.5 degree/Wm^2. Looking here, sensitivity is calculated from glacial/interglacial stages as 0.7 degree/Wm^2. You can't have it both ways. A warmer-than-present MWP means higher sensitivity - and that is bad news, both for pseudo-skeptic arguments and for the rest of us.
  30. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    While I recognise that a doom scenario over hundreds of thousands of years is ultimately as bad as one that happens in a hundred years, does not the vast time space of hundreds of thousands of years give us more chance to do something constructive? After all we as widespread species have not been around for that length of time.
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 03:22 AM on 20 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    see below
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Can I suggest that we ignore Adam until he has given an adequate response to the Huang issue? Adam asked for specific examples where Abraham was right and Monckton wrong in his reply; this was only one of them, but it is clear and unambiguous and there are references that allow the truth to be determined. If Adam is a genuine skeptic he will investigate the issue and report back, if not, then it is an indication that the science is not the issue, in which case we should not allow the discussion to be hijacked.
  32. Dikran Marsupial at 03:01 AM on 20 February 2012
    The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    Ken Lambert There is no need to invoke some unknown ocean circulation as ENSO already does a good job, as shown by the multitude of posts here onthe subject that show the result of excluding the effects of volcanic activity and ENSO etc. via regression techniques. This leaves you with a steady rising trend. See Figure 2! Occam's razor suggests that you shouldn't needlessly introduce new entities unless the observations really can't be explained by what is already contained in the current explanation..
  33. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    skywatcher@85: I have not studied the MWP in detail as to climate sensativity, so I can neither agree nor disagree with you. I have studied it in detail as to North America and there are more issues dealing with solar effects that drive droughts than temperature. If you think that the MWP proves a high climate sensativty, that is fine. I have not read proof of that and would entertain you providing published documents that confirm your thoughts. dana1981: I am not sure the resolution of the proxy data used to show MWP temperatures has the resolution to either confirm or cast aside the statement that current temperatures were not similiar to the MWP. The latest paper with at least decadal resolution using Greenland Ice Cores shows that the temp over the Greenland Ice Mass was as warm or warmer approx 1,000 years ago. That is only one area tho, and would not represent world wide climate.
  34. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Aw shucks, I posted Clement eta 2011 and now on reading my post it looks like I was discussing this paper, when in fact I am discussing the paper presented in the above article.
  35. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Sphaerica@17: "In two sets of experiments, Clement, recent UM alumnus Pedro DiNezio, and co-author Clara Deser from the National Center for Atmospheric Research modeled two climate scenarios – one with a static, current-free ocean and another with a fully dynamic ocean. The team showed that atmospheric pressure, surface temperature, and precipitation were the same in both ocean scenarios, which reveals that the Southern Oscillations global signature is still present even when the ocean and atmosphere are disconnected." I am not convinced that ENSO is not a climate driver. Clements research raises some thoughts. Clement etal 2011 The imbalance of radiation found as lower in this paper is using measured states of radiation. The measurements show that Trenbeth and Hansen were close in their models, which is a very fine outcome. As far as another 10 years of 1.5(+-.43)W/m2, that is speculation, your opinion. All factors must be taken into consideration. A SSW can expel tremendous amounts of heat and is a random event. Some years there is one, some years there isn't. Just one item amongst others that has an influence on the total budget
  36. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    I'd like to point out that the last ten years have demonstrated an unusual number of strong La Niña events. Even a casual glance at the MEI shows this. So the imbalance measured for the last decade will be low (compared to a longer average) simply because of the way the winds have tended to blow in the Pacific for the past ten years. That is not going to continue forever. It is going to even out over time. This implies that for every ten years of 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2 that we see, there will probably also be another ten years of, say, 1.5 (±0.43) W/m2 (or whatever). Once again, we are simply dealing with too short a time frame to view an accurate trend. [And before the skeptics among us start on it, it is far too early to jump up and down saying "see, see, we're in a La Niña period, the earth is going to cool for three decades!" ENSO does not affect climate, it only affects short term surface temperature observations, and it will not change the physics of CO2 warming in any event. If there really is some mystical natural cycle that causes 30 years of predominantly La Niña events, that is not going to change the net final temperature of the planet, it's only going to mask the effects of CO2 for that period -- to be followed by 30 years of painfully rapid warming that will "make up for lost time."]
  37. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Does GRACE shed light on total OHC? If we know how much more water there is in the 'ponds' courtesy of GRACE's gravity profiles, subtracting sea level rise due to the added water should leave sea level rise due to pure thermal expansion. Even if the coefft of thermal expansion changes with pressure & temperature, the rough amount of heat ending up below 2000m should be calculable to some extent, wouldn't it?
  38. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    Ken wrote: "Aerosol cooling is not a small Item. From memory, Hansen was claiming about -1.5W/sq.m as the Aerosol cooling forcing." Actually, -1.6 +/- 0.3... net for all impacts of human made aerosols. Which the same paper pegs as about half the recent GHG forcing. It shows a much smaller aerosol forcing, in line with other estimates, prior to ~1990. That is a fairly large short term impact. However, it remains quite minor as a long term factor because the only way that the aerosol forcing can increase is for the rate of aerosol release into the atmosphere to increase... whereas GHG forcing increases with the accumulation of GHGs. To put that in practical terms; Let's say renewable energy adoption resulted in a 10% decrease in coal plants worldwide. That would result in a decrease in aerosol forcing from coal plants of 10% within just a few years... but the GHG forcing from coal plants would not decrease. In fact, it would continue increasing... just at a 10% slower rate. If Hansen is correct then the recent massive build-up of coal plants in Asia has caused significant short term aerosol cooling. However, this is a minor factor compared to the GHG warming observed over the 20th century and/or projected over the 21st. It is also not able to continue growing indefinitely because aerosols do not remain in the atmosphere for long. As to semantic questions about 'deep'... there is uncertainty even around the 0-700m ocean heat readings, considerably more for values down to 2000m, and very little information for values below 2000m. However, as with aerosol impacts, the uncertainty range here is small compared to long term GHG forcing, long term solar forcing, and short term volcanic forcing... which can be measured closely enough to 'separate out'. The answer to your original question thus continues to be that these aerosol effects are not "taken out" because they cannot be quantified precisely enough to do so. The fact that you keep running off on further and further disconnected tangents rather than acknowledging this (frankly obvious) conclusion and moving on makes this 'discussion' seem rather pointless. You just keep finding new semantic irrelevancies to argue with no actual 'point' that I can identify.
  39. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    "Your last paragraph is also in error, and is a point that has been made repeatedly. Surface temperatures are a small component of where the energy budget imbalance shows up. It is perfectly consistent to have an increasing warming imbalance and a stasis in surface temperatures if ocean circulation has been redistributing sufficient heat. Read the paper by Easterling and Wehner (2009) on this subject." Since AGW started around 1975 we have been seeing a steady rise in surface temperatures and a claimed increasing warming imbalance due to the almost linear effect of CO2GHG from human releases. We now have a stasis in surface temperatures, despite the same claims of ongoing increasing warming imbalance due to the same almost linear effect of CO2GHG from human releases. To explain the stasis in surface temperatures - the warming imbalance has directed itself almost completely into absorption by the oceans. Which begs the question - why was surface temperature rising for the first 25-30 years of AGW - and this heat not being fully sequestered in the oceans by the same mechanism which has been operating in the past 7-10 years? The likely answer could be an unknown ocean cycle, or it could be that the warming imbalance has in fact decreased, but it seems unlikely that the warming balance has steadily increased by CO2GHG forcing and all of it has gone into the oceans.
  40. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Camburn@3: An energy imbalance of only 0.2W/m2 is a very alarming conclusion. That would mean that even more GHG warming is being masked by other effects (given that the forcing due to GHG is confirmed by OLR satelite observations, and the CO2 forcing is accepted even by Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton and company). If the masking is due to aersols (which we would then have to keep generating at current rates to maintain the cooling) or anything cyclic (which can thus swing back again), then we're totally screwed. Hopefully you are wrong and the imbalance is rather higher.
  41. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    CBD #47 "Umm... both deep ocean heating and aerosol cooling are "minor factors" because they are small compared to other components of the ongoing temperature rise." How deep is 'deep ocean'? There is nothing much happening over the last 7 years or so in the 0-700m layers. The 0-2000m layer is where most of the claimed warming imbalance is supposed to be; and 2000m - bottom is also being suggested as another possibly significant sink. Aerosol cooling is not a small Item. From memory, Hansen was claiming about -1.5W/sq.m as the Aerosol cooling forcing.
  42. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    PN #53 "The variation in solar forcing from minimum to maximum of a 11 year cycle is typically about 1 W/m^2." "This is more than enough to cancel out the enhanced greenhouse effect gained from 2005 to 2011" I don't think so. Your 1W/sq.m is the variation on a TSI of about 1366W/sq.m. You have to divide that by 4 for the sphere/circle geometry to get the average over the Earth's surface. This reduces (also by a factor of 4) the Solar ripple to 0.25W/sq.m peak to trough or +/-0.13W/sq.m. for an Incoming Solar radiation of about 342W/sq.m. I am considering the warming imbalance at TOA - from all effects - GHG, Solar, Aerosols climate responses and feedbacks. There is no 'warming in the pipeline' in energy terms. All the heat energy absorbed in the past to date is reflected somewhere in the Earth system as a temperature rise or phase change (evaporation, ice melt etc). There might be temperature rise in some part of the system and due to thermal lag - but without future energy gain - there would be temperature decline in some other part of the system. So future warming requires future imbalance.
  43. Philippe Chantreau at 23:48 PM on 19 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    That Monckton is largely wrong the majority of the time is not a matter of belief, it is a verifiable fact. When that fact becomes a little too difficult to manage, Monckton starts contradicting his earlier statements/versions whatever. Peter Hadfield showed that in great detail, see the links I posted earlier. I disagree that it is a mistake to debate on SkS when the author of a post is also moderator and poster. They manage these roles quite well. More often than not, multiple warnings are necessary for those who ignore the comment policy. All who respect it see their posts showing up. It does not necessarily prevent anyone from enduring dismissing statements if they are not contributing usefully or disgorgeing plain nonsense. If rethorical tactics or intellectual dishonesty is being used that will also be adressed, by mods if nobody else does so before. Most of the time someone does. Nothing wrong with that
  44. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Glenn #54 5E22 over 5 years is 1E22 or 100E20 Joules average per year. 0.9W/sq.m is 145E20 Joules per year globally; so your 100E20 equates to 0.62W/sq.m. Where did you get the 0.7? Are you relating calculating your 0.88W/sq.m for the 70% of the Earth's surface which is ocean? If so this equates to 0.88 x 0.7 = 0.62W/sq.m globally as I have calculated above.
  45. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    What are the drawbacks from hydrogen? I know it is energy intensive, but other than that what are the reasons we wouldn’t switch over to hydrogen? What they are trying to produce has the potential to be superior, but a decent hydrogen infrastructure could be up and going in a few years.
  46. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Michael of Brisbane @28, there are several crucial differences between the money received by climate scientists and that received from the Heartland Institute. The first, and most crucial is that money paid to scientists is paid based on the quality of their research, not on the basis of the conclusion reached. So called climate skeptics will dispute that, but there is no question that it is formally correct; and no question also that some well known so called skeptics continue in the university sector in publicly paid positions with no financial penalty despite rejecting the consensus on climate change for over a decade. (Spencer and Christy come to mind, but there are others). In contrast, payment from the Heartland Institute is definitely conditional on the recipients hold particular opinions. I do not know if that is a formal requirement, but how long do you think Craig Idso would continue receiving his $139,000 a year if he started publicly arguing that the evidence supported the IPCC consensus, and that the IPCC AR4 was a sound document, with few and inconsequential errors? Because payment form the Heartland Institute is conditional on opinions held, it represents a conflict of interest for any scientist investigating climate change, and any person speaking out on the topic. This does not mean that those receiving payments are wrong (although we know they are wrong on other grounds), but because it is a conflict of interest it should have been publicly declared by those people long before now. Not declaring a known conflict of interest is an ethical breach. Second, contrary to your supposition, many of the activities of scientists are unpaid, including any participation in the IPCC, and of course in internet forums. While Anthony Watt can build his site with 44-88 k donations from the Heartland Institute, John Cook (for example) must do so with his own money, and that from a few small donations from friends. I understand that RealClimate does receive free web hosting, but that is the limit of funding. As they say:
    "The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions. RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked."
    (My emphasis) I am sure there are climate scientists who would love to be paid $119,000 a year to work full time in science communication as Craig Idso is paid to work full time on pseudo-science communication, but the money is not forthcoming for that purpose. Further, unlike payments from the Heartland Institute, payments to scientists are largely used up in research costs and administrative costs for universities (which always take a large chunk). Not having been employed as a scientist, I cannot speak from experience, but my understanding is that scientists typically get paid significantly less than Craig Idso is being paid, and for positions which are very demanding in terms of time and stress. This is not a significant factor for most of the anti-scientists paid by the Heartland Institute. Most of their "research" consists of cherry picking librarianship, with their research costs being restricted to the costs of journal subscriptions (where they do not already have such subscriptions through university affiliation. Finally, assuming that the Heartland Institute payments are the limits of payments to the various scientists received for their opinions held. There are many conservative "think tanks" which attack AGW, and most of the scientists involved are affiliated with more than one of them. The assumption that they only receive money form one of the poorest and smallest of those organizations is unwarranted.
  47. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    It really bugs me when these organisations are thought of as ‘Libertarian’ They are any but.
  48. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, you may be a brave man, but you are missing the point here. No-one can be wrong 100% of the time, any more than anyone can be 100% right. This thread is about undermining Moncktons credibility in climate science by pointing out his dodgy statements. It’s not meant to be even handed any more than Monckton himself is even handed, it’s about showing how dodgy a lot of his statements are. You are making the mistake of trying to debate that on a basis of the idea that he is not always wrong This is not the thread or site to do that any more than trying to debate on WUWT what a plonker Monckton really is. A golden rule with SkS in my books is to read the articles and appreciate the site, but if it says something you don’t agree with don’t worry about it, above all don’t challenge! The site will never be in agreement with everyone, but it is a mistake to try and debate a point when the presenter of an article may also be a moderator and a poster of responses at the same time. There are many people who are firm in their beliefs that Monckton is largely wrong (including myself) and most of those who post on this site are not likely to be to be sympathetic to any argument that he is occasionally correct. So chill out and don’t worry about it.
  49. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Doug H Generally when an estimate is expressed as x(+/-y) the distribution is considered approximately normal. For normal distributions, numbers closer to the mean(x) are more likely and mean + y (in this case 0.93W/m2) is ~as likely as mean - y (0.07W/m2). However, because the physical models (Hansen, Trenberth) indicate that the energy imbalance is most likely to be around 0.9W/m2, the body of science suggests that the actual imbalance is more likely to be in the upper region of Loeb's estimate.
  50. Michael of Brisbane at 20:44 PM on 19 February 2012
    DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Hey umm, this post is about "denial money", but what about the massive amounts of money spent by governments on AGW? I mean, it's a full order of magnitude over the few million outlined in the graphic above isn't it? I have just added up all those figures and the total comes to around about $10 Million, including the faceless, anonymous donor. In all honesty, what do you guys think of the many billions of dollars spent so far, and continuing to be spent, on pro AGW think tanks, studies and conferences? Bill, your example of Corey Bernardi's travel to a conference for Heartland pales into embarrassing insignificance when compared to the money spent by governments on meetings such as Copenhagen and Durban. Wouldn't Australia's contingent for those meetings have had accommodation provided for them too? (if accommodation being provided is your bug-bear) I mean am I wrong about this?? The Australian government (to name but one) expends/invests money in the hundreds of millions on AGW.

Prev  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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