archive-org.com » ORG » R » REALCLIMATE.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment III « RealClimate
    polar vortex appear to be quite model dependent and so predictions of this aspect of polar change are highly uncertain Changes to date in the Antarctic though do appear to require some amount of change in the polar vortex to explain in particular the large amount of springtime cooling in the polar vortex there Shindell 2003 Thus while the dynamic feedback finds some support in the data and in models it is not well quantified However none of the above mentioned studies show any signficant improvements in the next few decades and thus all actually support the measured ACIA statement This can t therefore be claimed as evidence for unjustified hype References Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ACIA Overview Report 2004 Impacts of a Warming Arctic Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Cambridge University Press Austin J D Shindell S R Beagley C Br hl M Dameris E Manzini T Nagashima P Newman S Pawson G Pitari E Rozanov C Schnadt and T G Shepherd 2003 Uncertainties and assessments of chemistry climate models of the stratosphere Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 3 1 27 Nagashima et al 2002 Future development of the ozone layer calculated by a general circulation model with fully interactive chemistry Geophysical Research Letters 29 10 1029 2001GL014026 Shindell D D Rind and P Lonergan 1998 Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual recovery owing to increasing greenhouse gas concentration Nature 392 589 592 Shindell D 2003 Perspective Whither Arctic climate Science 299 215 216 Comments Off on The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment III Comments are closed Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=59 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Attic « RealClimate
    The ice core data also agree quite well with the tree ring data where these data sets overlap I will put a couple of plots up when I get a chance For those who are interested some relevant references are Stuiver M Burk R L and Quay P D 1984 13C 12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere J Geophys Res 89 1731 1748 for tree rings and Francey R J Allison C E Etheridge D M Trudinger C M Enting I G Leuenberger M Langenfelds R L Michel E Steele L P 1999 A 1000 year high precision record of d 13Cin atmospheric CO Tellus 51B 170 193 Comments pop up 31 Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms Filed under Attic gavin 7 December 2004 This post is obsolete and wrong in many respects Please see this more recent post for links to the answer 14 Jan 05 This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics 25 Feb 05 Groan and again Recent discussions of climate change MSU Temperature Record ACIA have highlighted the fact that the stratosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere troposphere and surface appear to be warming The stratosphere lies roughly 12 to 50 km above the surface and is marked by a temperature profile that increases with height This is due to the absorbtion by ozone of the sun s UV radiation and is in sharp contrast to the lower atmosphere There it generally gets colder as you go higher due to the expansion of gases as the pressure decreases Technically the stratosphere has a negative lapse rate temperature increases with height while the lower atmosphere s lapse rate is positive More Comments pop up 19 Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/attic/%5C (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Unforced variations: Jan 2011 « RealClimate
    either for global or local changes The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values Presumably a journal that prints that is credible b IJG might be better than Energy Environment but it is too new to know It is not Science or Nature 2 The paper a Went from Received July 23 2010 to accepted August 3 2010 That is the sort of interval where an associate editor takes a quick look Real peer review rarely goes so quickly b Cites a paper in E E c talks about a 5 year period picked from a longer period This is not an encouraging start given any idea of statistics 3 I have some familiarity with Knox and Douglass from 2009 study on petition to APS See p 7 for the petition they signed See p 27 and p 87 88 for notes on Douglass who has spoken at several Heartland conferences He and Knox invited the Viscount Monckton to speak to the physics department at U of R And there is plenty more including Douglass attacks on Ben Santer I ve studied some of their earlier papers 4 So none of this is the slightest encouragement to look at this paper but you believe it is worth citing Can you explain this paper and why you think it is worth spending time on I do not dismiss it out fo hand but life is short 20 S Molnar says 7 Jan 2011 at 8 55 PM Any chance of a link to The Bore Hole on the right panel It will get a little hard to find when this post is off the front page 21 One Anonymous Bloke says 7 Jan 2011 at 9 19 PM S Molnar 20 seconded Perhaps instead of a link to the Bore Hole it could be a little gif of a trashcan 22 JCH says 7 Jan 2011 at 11 13 PM John M Maya and Dapplewater I sensed some excitement about the paper so I was just trying to get comments before it bloomed into this is the end of global warming It just showed up Dr Curry s latest technical article on her blog As for where I think it went I believe Gavin said and this was a couple of years ago that it s either in the oceans or it went into outer space P Reading the tea leaves and this is just a hunch the authors seem to think they ve found something wrong with von Schuckmann s Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003 2008 23 Isotopolopolus says 8 Jan 2011 at 12 36 AM Looks like the SOI December value 27 highest on record So much for a weakening of the walker circulation or a strengthening of the walker circulation for that matter As they say on mythbusters Busted Like a candle in wind lol Response How many times does it have to be repeated that long term trends are not determined by single months gavin 24 Lawrence Coleman says 8 Jan 2011 at 1 19 AM Just to demonstrate how CC can effect the world s economy look at us in Queensland Australia We are enjuring the worst natural disaster in our history namely the never ending rain and unprecedented widespread flooding Notwithstanding the 50billion cost to queensland but our 40odd coal mines produce 2 3 of the world s supply of coking coal used in the manufacture or iron and steel and other metals 3 4 of those mines are underwater the diggers and trucks are also underwater and will be for months the rail and road routes from those mines are also impassable Anotherwords we are exporting currently only about one quarter of what we should This will impact the major steel producers globally basically a short fall in steel equals a shortfall in world economic growth and this this has occurred just after the GFC In the global village like we have now a natural disaster in one or several countries can really impact the entire planet As for us in queensland the wet season hasn t really oficially begun as we still have another 3 months to go the state premier considering renaming Queensland to Waterworld 25 Tom Mazanec says 8 Jan 2011 at 4 10 AM It is about time to introduce a new Blytt Sernander chronozone after the SubAtlantic How about calling it the Anthropic 26 Jack Savage says 8 Jan 2011 at 4 22 AM I think George Orwell called it the Memory Hole Response Different hole gavin 27 JiminMpls says 8 Jan 2011 at 8 00 AM 24 coal mines produce 2 3 of the world s supply of coking coal used in the manufacture or iron and steel Not quite Global Hard Coking Coal Production in 2009 was 5990Mt China USA and India are the top producers Australia was the 4th largest producer at 335Mt Australia IS the largest EXPORTER of coking coal accounting for about 2 3 of global coking coal trade 28 Snapple says 8 Jan 2011 at 10 26 AM The Russian government doesn t like for their people to get alarmed about apocalyptic reports that the government may not be able to cope with war disease nuclear accidents or global warming The global cooling alarmists like Pravda and Marc Morano have been posting nonsense about a coming ice age This propaganda has backfired in Russia and the media is reassuring people that actually there is global warming Even Bedritsky is debunking the notion that a new ice age is on the horizon Plus TV is showing Ice Age 2 The Meltdown Bedritsky claims that scientists don t agree on the causes of global warming but he says the fight against global warming is a good thing I have started some details here http legendofpineridge blogspot com 2011 01 russian media moves to calm junk html Just look what those alarmist denialists have done 29 Snapple says 8 Jan 2011 at 10 36 AM The Russian government doesn t like for their people to get alarmed about apocalyptic reports that the government may not be able to cope with war disease nuclear accidents or global warming The global cooling alarmists like Pravda and Marc Morano have been posting nonsense about a coming ice age This propaganda has backfired in Russia and the media is reassuring people that actually there is global warming Even Bedritsky is debunking the notion that a new ice age is on the horizon Plus TV is showing Ice Age 2 The Meltdown Bedritsky claims that scientists don t agree on the causes of global warming but he says the fight against global warming is a good thing I have started some details here http legendofpineridge blogspot com 2011 01 russian media moves to calm junk html Just look what those alarmist denialists have done 30 Robert Guercio says 8 Jan 2011 at 10 38 AM I have written a blog explaining the mechanisms responsible for Stratospheric Cooling resulting from greenhouse gases Please see http www skepticalscience com Stratospheric Cooling html Bob 31 John W says 8 Jan 2011 at 11 34 AM HELP I run a lab in a large manufacturing facility in a small town basically I m the closest thing to a scientist a lot of these people know and trust I m continually being asked by people about Global Warming On the one side I get those that have heard stuff like the world is coming to an end or Earth is turning into Venus on the other side I get the Fox news watchers who have heard its a hoax So I find myself explaining the science as I understand it and debunking myths and hyperbole from both sides of the debate This can be very tiring as one goes from the nearly sucidal to the nearly Al Gore linch mob forming The thing is there s tons of information easily obtainable to debunk the Fox news side but the hyperbole from the hyper alarmists doesn t seem to be challenged directly by actual climatologists in one convienient location Anyway have I missed the What GW is NOT page 32 sidd says 8 Jan 2011 at 12 53 PM Hi Could someone comment on this http www bloomberg com news 2011 01 07 greenland s melt will be unstoppable by 2040 berlingske says html sidd 33 Hank Roberts says 8 Jan 2011 at 1 00 PM Are all the variations on iso usernames from the same IP or are they from a bunch of different people 34 sidd says 8 Jan 2011 at 1 02 PM The article on Greenland is referenced in this http politiken dk newsinenglish ECE1161570 greenland close to unavoidable meltdown Here is the abstract http journals ametsoc org doi abs 10 1175 2009JHM1140 1 And I include the final sentences The rate of SMB loss largely tied to changes in ablation processes leads to an enhanced average loss of 331 km3 from 1950 to 2080 and an average SMB level of 99 km3 for the period 2070 80 GrIS surface freshwater runoff yielded a eustatic rise in sea level from 0 8 0 1 1950 59 to 1 9 0 1 mm 2070 80 sea level equivalent SLE yr 1 The accumulated GrIS freshwater runoff contribution from surface melting equaled 160 mm SLE from 1950 through 2080 This is the first article I have seen that definitely predicts the GRIS is certainly gone in a kiloyear sidd 35 Russ Doty says 8 Jan 2011 at 1 16 PM Since the 1960s I ve watched as natural gas and refinery bi products are flared from production wells and refineries Recently there has been a dust up about this waste and what some of it is doing to deprive the government of revenue from leases on public land Is anyone researching what contribution this flaring is making to climate change More importantly is anyone researching what can be done about it to divert the gas to productive uses According to the fossil fuel industry it has to be flared for safety or other reasons which may be legitimate but which have existed for so long that it is hard to understand why the great engineering skills of this world have not gone to work on the problem 36 Robert says 8 Jan 2011 at 1 55 PM David B Benson 17 have you gotten any feedback on this simplified model from any climate scientists If so what did they say pertaining to your inclusion of the AMO 37 Jim Bullis Miastrada Company says 8 Jan 2011 at 2 13 PM re 1 Kees van der Leun Note of course that the methane was turned into CO2 in the process Methane directly released into the atmosphere gets turned into CO2 in about 14 years anyway if I remember right Thus it has a strong but brief role as a greenhouse gas The CO2 from the methane would of course be composed of carbon isotopes dating from the time of ancient methane creation whenever that happened Our hosts here seem satisfied with radio carbon dating of deep ocean water but we seem to have new knowledge of bacteria eating methane and oil which would seem to be a new thing to consider On another matter the search for methane seems to have shown that it is all gone but there is a missing statement in the news reports regarding how much oil is still hanging around 38 Rod B says 8 Jan 2011 at 2 29 PM Clippo sorry if I got the wrong inference on what you meant I don t disagree much with what you say in 190 But I m concerned with your limited and one sided scope The media as a whole is currently overwhelming in support of AGW your crocodile tears over Fox News not withstanding Secondly all governments regardless of their party affiliation have twisted facts and science from time to time to suit their beliefs or desires Do you think the left never makes stuff up or stifles debate Response Moved Everyone you now know where off topic conversations belong Please continue it there if you must and only if it relates to climate science and not politics or other extranea Jim 39 Rod B says 8 Jan 2011 at 2 43 PM I trust the Bore Hole is not RC s answer to ethnic cleansing I wouldn t for a moment believe that the moderators here would do such a thing But thought I d just make a quick check Response Let me rephrase it for you Rod You thought that you d slip in an analogy between ethnic cleansing and us putting comments in the Bore Hole and then beg off having done so If you make any such outrageous accusation again you are permanently banned from this site Period Jim 40 joe says 8 Jan 2011 at 3 18 PM Can you comment on this Has the warming been cancelled http www pas rochester edu douglass papers KD InPress final pdf Response Yep it was called off in November when that came out Jim 41 caerbannog says 8 Jan 2011 at 3 47 PM I spent a bit of time crunching some GHCN data raw and adjusted wrote a program that computes crude global temperature anomaly estimates by via unweighted averaging A plot of my results is here http img218 imageshack us img218 7766 caerbannogandnasa jpg Legend Green my results from GHCN monthly mean raw data Red my results from GHCN monthly mean adjusted data Blue official NASA Northern Latitudes temperature anomalies I think that the results pretty much speak for themselves will be keeping the plot handy for anyone who hits me with any Wattsian talking points This is just the sort of quick and dirty sanity checking that any true skeptic should do before shooting off his or her mouth about supposed manipulation of temperature data by climate scientists 42 dhogaza says 8 Jan 2011 at 4 51 PM I trust the Bore Hole is not RC s answer to ethnic cleansing I think of it being more like an entrance exam 43 dhogaza says 8 Jan 2011 at 4 52 PM Specifically the receptacle for those who fail 44 Chris Colose says 8 Jan 2011 at 4 59 PM Joe 40 Closure of the energy budget over the past 5 years is still pretty elusive The long term warming of the ocean is robust to all kinds of assumptions about how the data are processed see Lyman et al 2010 though the exact amount of the warming and the changes in rate over time are still uncertain and the slowing since 2003 is at odds with TOA radiation measurements But note the possibility of a yet undiscovered bias in the observing system the flatline occurs around the transition from a predominant XBT data to ARGO floats it could just be coincident but maybe not as well as significant warming below the 700 m level Lyman argues that the uncertainty associated with sampling mapping and the use of different climatologies are large enough so that that interannual variations such as the 2003 2008 flattening are not statistically meaningful 45 Ray Ladbury says 8 Jan 2011 at 6 05 PM Rod B I for one am glad to have the borehole to insulate me from the white hot weapons grade stupidity in some of those posts My respect for Gavin s patience indeed the mental stability that keeps him from running screaming into the night when reading some of thos posts has been increased by a quick perusal And now I need some tea to calm my nerves 46 David B Benson says 8 Jan 2011 at 6 13 PM Robert 36 I only have received responses from some of the amateurs here I ll add that amateur standing does not mean that some of them are quite good climatologists The general response was that it is quite a surprise that a merely zero dimensiional zero resevoir model does so well and that adding the AMO was quite a nice touch The only downside comment was that using decadal averages improved the degree to which the variance is explained On that point I m trying to finish up a zero dimensional two resevoir model which uses the annualized data it demonstrates once again that using the AMO as an index of nternal variability explains more of the variance than leaving it out does There is a NOAA geophysical lab in Florida On their website that are some presentations stating that the AMO is thought to be related to MOC rate A related paper I think is DelSole T M K Tippett and J Shukla 2010 A Significant Component of Unforced Multidecadal Variability in the Recent Acceleration of Global Warming J Climate submitted ftp www iges org pub delsole dir ipcc dts science 2010 main pdf so I feel I am on good ground in using the AMO as that index of internal variability P S The model using the annualized data also uses SOI as another more important index of internal variability ENSO 47 Robert Guercio says 9 Jan 2011 at 7 21 AM I hope that this comment doesn t wind up in the borehole but I really don t like the idea of the borehole This is a professional science website and contrarian pseudoscience comments do not belong here The idea of the borehole cheapens this site and in my opinion gives the contrarians a sense of legitimacy Bob 48 Snapple says 9 Jan 2011 at 9 48 AM Maybe you should gently critique what the Russians are saying instead of Forbes In the Russian media there is a new line on global warming they are writing facts about about global warming and also debunking Western

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/unforced-variations-jan-2011/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Bore Hole « RealClimate
    this website now wait no never mind 18 Vendicar Decarian says 9 Jan 2011 at 5 01 PM I completely agree that the situation is out of control 157 Quite the contrary The enemy is well organized very much under control of the message It is the side representing the science that has no command structure or control of it s message or even any organized means of disseminating that message Historically science has not had to use publicity agents And in this forum we see all manner of opposition including the censorship of those advocating organized opposition to the denialist enemy 19 bob says 9 Jan 2011 at 6 11 PM Gavin none of the FY 2011 mention was for hardware Check your facts before you attempt to purduce a smoke screen 20 jacob mack says 9 Jan 2011 at 7 58 PM Ray you are making a deliberately false series of claims 21 jacob mack says 9 Jan 2011 at 8 08 PM Bpl Arrhenius was mistaken Tyndal s work had many errors There are methodical issues with Platz s work too I read weart too bud and the original papers discussing possible warming from green house gases 22 bob says 9 Jan 2011 at 9 21 PM bob says 9 Jan 2011 at 6 11 PM Gavin none of the FY 2011 mention was for hardware Check your facts before you attempt to purduce a smoke screen Nice try bore Hole 26 increase is a fact for alarmist predictions From HANSON and his puppets Publish were it is placed or delete becuse you do not like facts 23 Dave Walker says 10 Jan 2011 at 7 02 AM 612 Furrycathereder With respect to my stance stated previously in this thread I think you have nailed it I hope that I am a normal reasonably intelligent thinking individual I have no desire to see my grandchildren suffer because of what mine and previous generations have done to the planet So why does my brain doubt the consensus I wouldn t want to try and preach and convert the main contributors on this site to my way of thinking any more than I would argue the toss with a Bishop or the Pope on the existance of a God In the end one would have to argue that the other person is dillusional wrong thinking or corrupt and that is an extremely rude and unwarranted position to take The natural cynacism that I have towards the establishment is a result of my experience in other cases where I now judge I was being sold to rather than being presented with all of the facts including valid arguments for the opposing view which may at the very least have suggested less certainty When I only get told the arguments that prove a case rather than a more pragmatic one that shows the areas of doubt or uncertainty as well then cynacism is the result As an example of this have a look at the stories going on in the UK about the UK Met Office As far as I can make out I am being asked to believe that the Met Office secretly warned HM Government of an impending cold winter but didn t tell the public This is happening in a background where the Met Office produce the CET graph which in my humble opion shows nothing All of the commentary on the site however talks as if the case is made and proven beyond doubt it even has a section on how to deal with doubters This qango taking 150m a year from the UK tax payer is run by a chap that is or was a director of various green businesses or organisations that receive income or profit as a result of the consensus AGW case Their short term weather forecasting is excellent Their seasonal forecasting has been hopeless to the point where they have stopped issuing them because of the ridicule they subsequently received Given the information above why would I trust their view on the long term affects of AGW 24 Dr H says 10 Jan 2011 at 10 09 AM You said I am not being partisan or oppositional here I examined every point with an open mind and came up with ten points that boil down to complete nonsense and the last one a bit heavy on the spin What is nonsense to you makes perfect sense to others It is with little wonder why you call yourself group It fits perfectly with groupthink mentality I go to this site for comic relief seriously I love your stuff but no for reasons that you like Keep up the good work with comic relief 25 Septic Matthew says 10 Jan 2011 at 12 58 PM 63 eric in response I think the problem is that you re conflating what is said in the scientific literature with popular interpretations of it that come across as too broad brushed But no scientist actually makes claims like global warming is going to ruin the planet or threatans humanity These are hopelessly vague kinds of statements Barton Paul Levenson has forecast the end of human civilization by 2050 due to AGW Paul Ehrlich has forecast the deaths of extra billions of humans due to starvation caused by AGW We could if you wished find lots of predictions of extreme disasters due to AGW made by scientists Most of these are removed from the peer reviewed literature but scientists have issued dire warnings in news conferences and Congressional testimony 26 Mike Razar says 10 Jan 2011 at 5 10 PM Blah blah blah If the believers in global warming want to be taken as true scientists they should publish all the raw data including its primary sources and measurements Then they should explain how that data is used to build predictive models and the controlled experiments to validate these models There is no such thing as settled science particularly not when controlled experiments are nearly impossible and conclusions are based on questionable statistical analysis The world is being asked to spend trillions of dollars of expense and lost economic activity Projections of say seawater levels or mean temperatures a century hence without so much as a standard deviation analysis are junk science The famous hockey stick is embarrassing to even mention in a scientific argument I don t give a rat s ass what a vote among self selected climatologists shows Remember that in science as in politics the standard is trust but verify with most of the weight on verify 27 jacob mack says 10 Jan 2011 at 10 08 PM Hank roberts on youtube check out exploring energy hurricanes where a NASA scientist and hurricane expert doscusses how the top of hurricanes radiate heat to space form in oceans cause upwelling and thus cool oceans After 1995 hurricane frequeny has gone down while their average force has gone up Ray that statement about ifr and heat is not accurate but I can understand your confusion 28 Alfred Holzheu says 10 Jan 2011 at 11 01 PM Is this a joke Everyone is trading bards but no one is sure of the facts If from this rebuttal we are expected to get it if it is not obvious I am on the skeptic side we humans are o so arrogant in our analysis of historical fantasy then scientific skepticism and method and even basic logical argument are moot 29 Kevin says 10 Jan 2011 at 11 24 PM The concensus amongst those who argue that the current system is working seems to be that if its bad science it will be dismissed in review and not get funded but once funded and especially once published then it must be justifiable as science that needed to be done This is fraught with difficulties as it leaves the relative allocation of funds for the various sub disiplines firmly in the hands of politicians With resources always scarce you need to be more critical of where those resources go By creatively inventing new subject areas politicans and scientist who lobby them can significanly dilute the effort in real science 30 Jacob Mack says 11 Jan 2011 at 8 56 AM Anne oceans are huge heat reservoirs Water has a high heat capacity Water covers the majority of the planet s surface Hurricanes form on bodies of water Hurricanes cool oceans through upwelling and expel heat IFR to space Excess heat is dissipated by hurricanes Cloud formation not only acts as a positive feedback but as negative feedbacks as well Heat and temperature are not the same thing Heat IFR leads to cooling processes too and not just warming thus as heat goes to the cooler body not only are bodies emitting heat and cooling but colder weather is also created Hurricanes are but one natural system that cools the planet 31 Jacob Mack says 11 Jan 2011 at 10 19 AM Ray Ladbury all you have to do is look in the mirror 32 Leonard Weinstein says 11 Jan 2011 at 5 21 PM Maya 201 You clearly do not understand science as you showed with your statement Well part of your premise is faulty as I stated above And you make this statement as if 1 the warming in the next century is expected to be the same as the warming of the past century it isn t and 2 that the damage is only additive it does not appear so to me but if you think so please provide evidence If AGW is not yet proven and it is not and it is proposed as a hypothesis then it is up to the proposers of the hypothesis to support the claim not for the people that disagree to prove it is not valid Also I agree that the warming of the last century will not be the same as the last It will more likely be a period of mainly cooling However this is only my guess based on the present downward trend and the fact that we are likely on the down slope of the Holocene not a hypothesis and has as much or more validity as AGW 33 John Dodds says 12 Jan 2011 at 1 07 AM edit Now this is a serious global warming comment or question One Mr Svante Arrhenius said in 1896 that quote from Wikipedia his paper if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression This simplified expression is still used today ΔF α ln C C0 end of quote So when I do an experiment on a nightly basis I find that every night the temperature goes dDOWN inspite of all the CO2 that man has added that day the IPCC Arrhenius mantra that that more GHGz means more warming Since the sun or number of photons is common to both the temperature and the grenhouse effect how can they be dirrent signs or go in different directions Does this experiment not say that Arrhenius as adopted by RealClimate IPCC that More GHGs means more warming is totally absolutely WRONG half the time Shouldn t Arrhenius have said obviously that more added energy photons means more warming Which is obvious since it is the suns photons Earths rotation that increases and decreases the number of photons which changes the temperature GHE daily Doesn t this mean thst the IPCC Mantra that more GHGs means more warming AR4 WG1 Ch 1 P116 is wrong and that we should be trying to track the number of available absorbable IR photons instead of the number of GHGs Doesn t this then mean that any computer program model that adds warming just because an GHG is added is wrong Why not Doesn t this means that the whole NASA GISS climate model is proven wrong every night that should get me banned There is also the fact that when the humidity doubles or triples when it rains then the temperature locally does not increase indicating that there is already excess GHGs in the air and the number of photons is limited and all in use by the existing excess of GHGs put there when the GHE decreases every night and results in more GHGs being freed to not be in use in the GHe Doesn t this means that it is the number of energy photons that is limited and limits the amount of GHE warming to the number of photons available in which case we will observe why the GHE only goes up by 33C and is limited by the number of absorbable photns Seriously why is this incorrect because it only invalidate the whole CO2 causes warming science Gavin I know you consider me a nut because I am an abcolute denier BUt you should know that everytimg I know about global warming I learned from you your website AND simple logical physics that I learned in college I would appreciate knowing where I am wrong if I am I dare you to not print this and ban me for no reason other than upu don t like the question or teh answer 34 Girma says 12 Jan 2011 at 10 14 AM SIMPLE PREDICTIONS OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE From the historical global mean temperature data shown below http bit ly bUZsBe the following patterns can be established a 30 years of global cooling by 0 2 deg C b Followed by 30 years of global warming by 0 5 deg C VERIFICATION Let us start from the global mean temperature anomaly GMTA for the 1880s of 0 3 deg C which was at the beginning of a cooling phase As a result we have 1 For 1880s GMTA 0 3 deg C 2 For 1910s a GMTA of 0 3 0 2 0 5 deg C 3 For 1940s a GMTA of 0 5 0 5 0 deg C 4 For 1970s a GMTA of 0 0 2 0 2 deg C 5 For 2000s a GMTA of 0 2 0 5 0 3 deg C These results approximately agree with the data given in the link above PREDICTION 6 For 2030s an approximate GMTA of 0 3 0 2 0 1 deg C CONCLUSION Global cooling until 2030 35 jacob mack says 12 Jan 2011 at 10 26 AM 30 year trends are not trends at all Too short a time period in climate and geological terms 36 jacob mack says 12 Jan 2011 at 12 30 PM Milankovitch cycles are part of a natural process that affects both weather and climate The concept of external forcings is mostly incorrect 37 Dr Shooshmon phd says 12 Jan 2011 at 3 35 PM Global warming began as a political movement Al Gore fired William Happer because he didn t believe global warming is a problem 38 Isotopolopolus says 12 Jan 2011 at 5 13 PM 133 The climate only changes when forced to do so And yet every time a keen scientist tries to establish correlation with causation what does the climate data do It flips it twirls too twisty too curly Positive correlations switch to negative correlations several decades later leaving the scientist heartbroken But I guess this time its different with co2 Average out all the nasty flips twirls and bingo an underlying trend This time we gonna show these data who s boss Plenty of room down here in the bore hole I ll save a spot for ya 39 Mike Razar says 12 Jan 2011 at 7 36 PM What a bunch of intellectual cowards the adminstrators here must be Bottom line if the science was sound it would be easy to say why As it is there is no piece of evidence that the climate junkies would accept as inconsistent with their hypotheses So go ahead and keep censoring my comments But don t expect ypour site to remain respectable 40 Ulick Stafford says 13 Jan 2011 at 8 44 AM There seems to be a consensus that the biggest problem facing climate change is communication This is apparent from this discussion and sessions at the recent AGS meeting and upcoming AMS meetings The first thing required when communicating is a clear message A clear message from sceptics is that the effect of CO2 and other global warming gases has been greatly exaggerated and it does not make economic sense to solve the problem by reducing emissions How do you credibly counter that message 41 DERR UFO says 13 Jan 2011 at 6 33 PM the re capture ya plug the ReCaptcha plug in fell on my house it is the size of 3 normal sized homes DERR UFO 42 James Staples says 14 Jan 2011 at 2 31 AM Say did you hear about the Discovery that Lucy the Austrolopithicene could use Stone Tools to Butcher Game Yep It s true Just like Sarah Palin Palin Lucy 2012 43 jacob mack says 14 Jan 2011 at 9 28 AM Jim I love how you make empty statements Keep it up Gavin as ice melts in one location it forms roughly in equilibrium elsewhere Back to Jim when I first arrived here I believed in AGW based on the papers and books you guys in climate science cite and publish yourselves more IFR trapping changing albedo positive feedbacks increased W2 forcing etc Please get that fact straight first unless you are admitting your collective work is flawed which is no problem we all make our fair share of mistakes FYI many engineering problems were solved in 1930 s britannica in case you meant old statements like EV s and blue lasers Wikipedia and assumptive models are garbage Oh and Jim I await a reply to my email If I am so wrong show me Stop basing models on caloric theory and regional assumptions I

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Comment Policy « RealClimate
    spelling corrections correct text format problems etc We use moderation to improve the signal to noise in the discussion For this reason we may choose to screen out comments that simply repeat points made in previous comments make claims that have already been dealt with or that muddy the water by introducing erroneous specious or otherwise misleading assertions These comments may be sent to The Bore Hole We reserve the right to either reject comments that do not meet the above criteria or in certain cases to edit them in a manner that brings them into accordance with our comments policy e g by simply deleting inflammatory or ad hominem language from an otherwise worthy comment In cases where we do this it will be noted by an edit Given that RealClimate represents a volunteer effort by about 10 different contributors each of whom are free to participate in queue moderation the items indicated above only constitute the basic ground rules We cannot insure uniform application of the various considerations listed above from one individual comment to the next Quick responses to questions that don t merit a full post will be placed in line with credits All comments are assumed to be released into the public domain Comments generally close after a month Repeat violators of our comments policy in particular individuals demonstrating a pattern of trolling may be barred from future access to the blog revised 01 06 11 Comments Off on Comment policy Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/comment-policy/%5C (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Gavin A. Schmidt « RealClimate
    the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing Welcome

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • gavin « RealClimate
    response to individual forcings Nature Climate Change 2015 http dx doi org 10 1038 nclimate2888 Comments pop up 28 Marvel et al 2015 Part 1 Reconciling estimates of climate sensitivity Classé dans Aerosols Climate modelling Climate Science Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record IPCC gavin 4 janvier 2016 This post is related to the substantive results of the new Marvel et al 2015 study There is a separate post on the media blog response The recent paper by Kate Marvel and others including me in Nature Climate Change looks at the different forcings and their climate responses over the historical period in more detail than any previous modeling study The point of the paper was to apply those results to improve calculations of climate sensitivity from the historical record and see if they can be reconciled with other estimates But there are some broader issues as well how scientific anomalies are dealt with and how simulation can be used to improve inferences about the real world It also shines a spotlight on a particular feature of the IPCC process More References K Marvel G A Schmidt R L Miller and L S Nazarenko Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings Nature Climate Change 2015 http dx doi org 10 1038 nclimate2888 Comments pop up 30 AGU15 Classé dans Climate Science Communicating Climate Scientific practice gavin 13 décembre 2015 So this week it s the biggest Earth Science meeting on the planet There is a lot of great science that will be freely streamed via AGU On Demand registration required and there ll be a lot of commentary using the hashtag AGU15 Many posters will be available online too A few highlights have already been discussed by Victor Venema related to the surface temperature station datasets but there ll be much more on offer if you dig deeper As the week goes on we ll link to anything good we see and we ll be happy to host any commentaries that anyone has on specific climate sessions or talks Happy conferencing Comments pop up 73 Older Entries Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?author_name=gavin (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • mike « RealClimate
    criticisms that are fair that is evidence based explain to the journal editor why other criticisms are unfair and submit a revised and inevitably improved paper Eventually our views have always gotten published although sometimes only after considerable effort The decade long argument over large early anthropogenic effects continues although recent syntheses of archeological and paleoecological data have been increasingly supportive In any case I continue to trust the scientific process to sort this debate out I suggest that my experience is a good index of the way the system actually operates when new and controversial ideas emerge I see no evidence that the system is muffling good new ideas Comments pop up 54 Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause Classé dans Climate Science mike 26 février 2015 No climate change is not experiencing a hiatus No there is not currently a pause in global warming Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles human caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated Indeed the most recent year 2014 was likely the warmest year on record It is true that Earth s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade and a half or so This doesn t mean that the models are flawed Instead it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors see the discussion my piece last year in Scientific American These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred due to gaps in the observational data Secondly scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors low level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output that had a slight cooling influence on Earth s climate Finally there is the possibility that internal natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap One could call it a global warming speed bump In fact I have Some have argued that these oscillations contributed substantially to the warming of the globe in recent decades In an article my colleagues Byron Steinman Sonya Miller and I have in the latest issue of Science magazine we show that internal climate variability instead partially offset global warming We focused on the Northern Hemisphere and the role played by two climate oscillations known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO a term I coined back in 2000 as recounted in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars and the so called Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO we a use a slightly different term Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation or PMO to refer to the longer term features of this apparent oscillation The oscillation in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures which we term the Northern Hemisphere Multidecadal Oscillation or NMO is found to result from a combination of the AMO and PMO In numerous previous studies these oscillations have been linked to everything from global warming to drought in the Sahel region of Africa to increased Atlantic hurricane activity In our article we show that the methods used in most if not all of these previous studies have been flawed They fail to give the correct answer when applied to a situation a climate model simulation where the true answer is known We propose and test an alternative method for identifying these oscillations which makes use of the climate simulations used in the most recent IPCC report the so called CMIP5 simulations These simulations are used to estimate the component of temperature changes due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and other human impacts plus the effects of volcanic eruptions and observed changes in solar output When all those influences are removed the only thing remaining should be internal oscillations We show that our method gives the correct answer when tested with climate model simulations Estimated history of the AMO blue the PMO green and the NMO black Uncertainties are indicated by shading Note how the AMO blue has reached a shallow peak recently while the PMO is plummeting quite dramatically The latter accounts for the precipitous recent drop in the NMO Applying our method to the actual climate observations see figure above we find that the NMO is currently trending downward In other words the internal oscillatory component is currently offsetting some of the Northern Hemisphere warming that we would otherwise be experiencing This finding expands upon our previous work coming to a similar conclusion but in the current study we better pinpoint the source of the downturn The much vaunted AMO appears to have made relatively little contribution to large scale temperature changes over the past couple decades Its amplitude has been small and it is currently relatively flat approaching the crest of a very shallow upward peak That contrasts with the PMO which is trending sharply downward It is that decline in the PMO which is tied to the predominance of cold La Niña like conditions in the tropical Pacific over the past decade that appears responsible for the declining NMO i e the slowdown in warming or faux pause as some have termed it Our conclusion that natural cooling in the Pacific is a principal contributor to the recent slowdown in large scale warming is consistent with some other recent studies including a study I commented on previously showing that stronger than normal winds in the tropical Pacific during the past decade have lead to increased upwelling of cold deep water in the eastern equatorial Pacific Other work by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR shows that the there has been increased sub surface heat burial in the Pacific ocean over this time frame while yet another study by James Risbey and colleagues demonstrates that model simulations that most closely follow the observed sequence of El Niño and La Niña events over the past decade tend to reproduce the

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?author_name=mike (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •