Glossary of Global Warming and Climate Terms

A light-hearted but satirical translation of terms and phrases in scientific papers, internet articles and news reports. Don't take it too seriously but remember that satire is best when a thread of truth (however thin) runs through it. The list is not in alphabetical order because it follows a tenuous narrative. It's not complete - I just jotted things down as they occurred to me. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free, you know what to do. I had a lot of fun compiling the list; I hope you have some reading it.

Term or phrase	Translation
See Bloggs et al. 2003	One day we might read it too
Bloggs et al. 2009	We hoped you wouldn't mention that
Global	Bits of the Northern Hemisphere studied
Regional	The area covered by our map
Ocean acidity	Ocean alkalinity
Increasing acidity	Reducing alkalinity
Low pH sea-water	Sea-water with hydrochloric acid added
High pH sea-water	Sea-water with no hydrochloric acid added
High morbidity	Little buggers don't like hydrochloric acid
W/m²	Watts per square metre
Watt	One joule per second
Watts	That damn blogger
Proxy	Tree rings, ice cores or sediments
Tree rings	The "lonesome pine"
Yamal	A few "lonesome pines"
The Hockey Stick	Two graphs for the price of one
"Nature trick"	A surreptitious grafting operation
Statistical technique	Smooth the hell out of it
Mediaeval Warm Period	We got rid of that (see Statistical technique)
Little Ice Age	An urban myth (see Statistical technique)

Clutching at Straws, or "Scraping the Barrel"

I used to like the Hockey Schtick, often first with news of new scientific papers or articles on global warming, until the blog became a mouthpiece for the Dragon Slayers with their distortions and pseudo-science. A recent post there claims that a climate scientist  "inadvertently explains why greenhouse theory is wrong". The post links to a video of Professor David Archer of the University of Chicago giving a lecture to non-science majors on modelling the "greenhouse effect":

In lecture 5, The Greenhouse Effect, Archer uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate the supposed temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars with and without a greenhouse effect. Archer's calculations show the greenhouse effect on Venus is wildly underestimated by 415C and wildly overestimated on both Earth (by 23C) and on Mars (by 19C) in comparison to actual observed temperatures. This is despite the fact that CO2 levels are very high and virtually the same on Venus and Mars (around 96%) and only trace (0.039%) on Earth. Archer says in the lecture that one would have to assume the Venus atmosphere behaves like multiple panes of glass in order to obtain an answer near the observed temperature, yet on both Earth and Mars one would have to assume the atmospheres behave like much less than one pane of glass. 

What is not said is that in the lecture, Archer develops a very simple atmospheric model, using a "pane of glass" to represent a totally absorbing atmosphere, and at the end shows that its results are wrong for all three planets. So this post is claiming that a very simple "one-layer" atmospheric model, which as Archer explains is being used as a step towards a more accurate "multi-layer" model, and which produces the wrong results somehow disproves the "greenhouse effect"! Give me a break! Incidentally, what's "much less than one pane of glass", which it's implied Archer has said (he does not)? The post continues:

H/T Professor Claes Johnson, who explains why Archer also uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation incorrectly (and here)

The first link which purportedly "explains why Archer also uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation incorrectly" doesn't mention Stefan-Boltzmann at all. Misrepresent what was being taught in the lecture, leave out relevant parts, come to an unsupported conclusion. and supply a link which doesn't address what you claim it does.The entire post is really scraping the barrel.

A Simpe Solution

In Zen and the Second Law of Thermodynamics I discussed claims of the non-existence of the so-called "greenhouse effect". Some of those claims use analogies or examples to "prove" the point. Most of these are misconceived at best and erroneous at worst. Most scientists and informed non-scientists accept the basic physics. I won't say "99%" or similar because I'm aware that 87.37% of statistics are made up on the spot, and in any case I don't know what the figure might be. This is not an "appeal to consensus" - the basic physics involved is well understood and founded on fundamental physical laws.

Here's such an analogy designed to "prove" that the infrared radiation ("back radiation") from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface either doesn't exist or cannot have the claimed effect. Not surprisingly, it's from one of the many authors of "Slaying the Sky Dragon" who thinks he's illustrated "perpetual feedback":

Say you have a blackbody plate (think of an electric heater) radiating 1000 W/m² toward another plate which, because of distance, absorbs half of that intensity, i.e., 500 W/m². At equilibrium, the receiving plate thus radiates 250 W/m² toward the 1000 W/m² plate. Question: Does the 1000 W/m² plate thereby rise to 1250 W/m²? If so, then, by raising the radiator's temperature without adding more energy, you've disproved the first law of thermodynamics. Effectively, you've made the radiator heat itself. Moreover, now at 1250 W/m², the radiator will heat the other plate still more, absorb another dose of back-radiated energy, and will reach 1562 W/m². And so on, ad infinitum.

This seems to prove a feedback causing a runaway heating in the system. However, the author (Alan Siddons) is confusing an infinite geometric series (with a finite sum) to a never-ending sequence of feedback. Let's look closer at the diagram. Something is missing (par for the course in these analogies). In this case it's the radiation lost from the system, and examining that will directly give us the equilibrium conditions.

At equilibrium, the two-plate system is receiving the equivalent of 1000 W/m² via the heated plate, so the system must lose that energy to the surroundings. If the heated plate is now radiating x W/m², then x/2 W/m² is being lost to the surroundings. The receiver is absorbing x/2 W/m², so must be radiating the same amount, with half of that radiation, x/4 W/m² lost to the surroundings. We have a simple expression to solve:

x/2 + x/4 = 1000   so 3x/4=1000  and x = 1,333.3

The heater radiates 1,333.3/2 = 666.7 (actualy 666.66 recurring) to the receiver, which radiates half, or 333.3 back:

Balance is restored and no runaway heating. But where does the "extra" radiation come from, which as claimed above "violates the First Law"? It comes from the heat energy stored in the system during the equilibrium process, and the amount depends on the specific heat of heater and receiver. There is no violation of the First Law, and no violation of the Second Law either. Net flow between the two plates is from hotter to cooler, with both plates heating up until overall equilibrium is restored. Al the heat energy in the system came from the heated plate, which has some of that returned to it from the receiver. The returned heat reduces the net heat lost from the heater, so because the input remains the same, it heats up until the heat lost from the system equals the heat input.

Does the cooler receiver "heat" the hotter heated plate? No, it simply replaces some of the energy radiated (and therefore lost) from the heater, so it's the continual 1000 W/m² energy input which does the heating. Mr. Siddons has himself said "a cooler body cannot heat a hotter body, it just slows the rate of cooing". This is a perfect example - initially the heater radiates 500 W/m² to the receiver, reducing to a net 666.7 - 333.3 or 333.3 W/m² at equilibrium, and the result is a hotter radiator, radiating a total of 1333.3 W/m².

The misconception arises from only considering the instantaneous input to the system and ignoring the heat stored during the equilibrium process, a common thread in such discussions. If you intend waving a big stick, make sure you've got hold of the right end of it first.

Skating on Thin Ice in Winnetka

I'd never heard of Winnetka, Illinois until yesterday. It seems the worthy residents are reluctant to spend as much as $750,000 for a system to guarantee winter ice at their outdoor skating rinks. Triblocal reports:

a 2008 Winnetka Caucus survey polled members on the subject. It asked if residents would support a $700,000 to $750,000 “removable ice system” at Indian Hill Park. Of the 1,170 people who responded, 73 percent voted against it. 

Sensible folks, but where does the drive for such a project originate?

Global warming presents a potentially dire future for Winnetka, warns a Park District report.

“This would obviously mean the end of outdoor (ice) skating in Winnetka,” the report says.

Citing the threat posed by global warming, the Winnetka Park District is investigating ways to continue providing outdoor ice skating should winters become shorter. And it would only cost the district $450,000 – less if it just rents a global warming-resistant rink, instead of buying its own.

Now we have it - "the threat posed by global warming". Where did notice of this threat originate? The state government? The federal government? The local weather bureau? The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) 2007 report? "A regional climate model? No - a report on "global warming" in the Wall Street Journal (I can't find a link).

The report cites a June 16 Wall Street Journal article about global warming that said “Chicago’s weather could someday resemble Hunstville, Ala.”

Indeed it could, but it could also resemble Vostok station, Antarctica, as it once did when Chicago was under about one thousand metres of ice, during the last ice age. An investor who wishes to buy or sell shares will examine the price record for the shares. Let's examine (as the Park Board should have) the winter temperature record for Chicago (14 miles to the south) and similarly situated on the shore of Lake Michigan:

Winter (Dec-Feb) 1991 - 2011 Trend = -2.02 degF / Decade

The average winter temperature (with two exceptions) has been below freezing over the last 20 years, and that looks like a distinct downward trend to me, but then I'm not a WSJ reporter. However, if I was a Winnetka taxpayer, I'd hang on to my money.

"Mark One Eyeball" - an Effective Weapon Against AGW

About a year ago, I read with some amusement, a blog posting by someone who accused sceptics (of AGW) of "cherry picking" temperature data to prove their claims that climate warming had stopped in the current century. "They are looking at the wrong data" he opined "look at this". "This" was a temperature chart showing global temperature from 1900 to 2010. "It's the long-term trend that's important" he continued. I'll use his tip if my bank account goes into the red in the future. When I get the letter from the bank, I can tell them "You're cherry-picking data - It's the long-term trend that's important".

So what's the "Mark One Eyeball" I refer to in the title?

This term is actual British military slang for eyes or eye sight, derived from British Royal Navy nomenclature for distinguishing sequential variations of a piece of equipment (i.e., "Mark 13 Depth Charge"). Since the human eye has not changed, it is called the Mark I Eyeball. The term is typically used when someone relies too much on their equipment: "Use your Mark One Eyeball!". It is used likewise in the United States military and other predominantly English-speaking countries. 

The point I'm making is that the "Mark One Eyeball" used with our "Mark One Brains" (no better versions available currently) is a valuable tool for spotting trends in graphical data, and to a lesser extent in tabular data. The eye/brain combination seeks to identify shapes and lines in collections of dots, blobs or points on a graph. The MOE is also good at spotting conflicting scientific or statistical claims, sometimes made by the same person. In December 2009 Dr. Vicky Pope, who is head of the climate predictions programme at the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office, was (apparently) quoted in a BBC report "figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale". MOE was telling anyone who cared to look at ANY temperature dataset that this couldn't possibly be true. This is the Hadley Centre's own data for 1991-2009: