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  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  Next

Comments 50851 to 50900:

  1. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    panzerboy @30 - the link and reference is correct, see their Figure 8.
  2. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Jules, a quick note: "will surface temperatures suddenly catch-up with accelerated warming in the coming decade?" Temperature increase follows the forcing agent nature and trajectory. For global temps, we are currently on an accelerating trajectory because GHGs (mostly CO2) are. So, I guess the answer is likely 'yes', with the caveat that local temps are not global temps. "will the seas just keep absorbing the heat?" there is, to first degree, no reason to think that the distribution of increasing heat content (see Fig. 1 above) will change "Are there physical limits?" yes and no; mostly on CO2 abundance due to buffering by the ocean and its contact with carbonate rocks, but that won't stop possibly catastrophic warming. Not sure what you meant by "ENSO ... last 16 years been so quiet". We had more La Ninas instead of El Ninos, is that what you meant?
  3. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Is the cite (Link) for figure 3 of "Krivova & Solanki 2003" correct, following the link to http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/2003ESASP_535__275K.pdf came to a paper on solar irradiance but no mention of cosmic rays.
  4. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Again I must thank the denialists for pointing me to such valuable documents..I had not seen the draft reports. I quickly debunked cosmic ray-ism with glance at a chart on page 80 of: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf (it seems like many, many years ago that I learned of desmogblog, Oreskes, and Hansen - all by the loud croaking of denialists... backhanded thanks)
  5. It's cosmic rays
    For those interested, I looked back and now see that comment 12 above addresses the denier argument that the effects of TSI could be lagging, and includes a hyperlink to a more detailed explanation.
  6. It's cosmic rays
    Rawls writes on WUWT: "In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration)." Does someone have a precise explanation of what Rawls apparently misunderstands about the science when making this analogy? My impressions are as follows (I have a mechanical engineering degree with a loose focus on the thermal side of things, so I have better than a layman's understanding of heat transfer, but I am no more than a casual student of climate science): 1) When you heat a pot of water, it DOES stop getting hotter when the water reaches 100 deg C, as the temperature of liquid water cannot physically go above that. More importantly, the reason why the water can keep absorbing heat without any increase in temperature is that it is giving up thermal energy at the same rate that it is being absorbed, in the form of the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor that escapes the pot! When that vapor touches something cooler and condenses, it will pass that latent heat of vaporization back to whatever it touches. If you do happen to increase the flame level, one thing that you will notice is that the steam escapes more quickly, to account for the fact that the water temperature can't go up any more, and a thermal energy balance must nonetheless be maintained. 2) Even if Rawls had picked an simpler example without physical phase change, like heating an empty pot, that too would eventually reach an equilibrium temperature for a given flame level. This would happen because the higher the temperature of the pot, the more heat it gives off by convection. Thus, when the rate of convection of heat from the surfaces of the pot into the surrounding air became equal to the forced rate of heat transfer into the pot from the flame, the temperature of the pot would stop rising. So his basic premise, that it would be absurd to think you have to keep increasing the flame level to raise the temperature of something you are heating, is false: eventually the object stops getting hotter, and you DO have to raise the flame level! 3) Giving Rawls the benefit of the doubt that he understands the law of conservation of thermal energy within a control volume, he seems to be implying that climate scientists have failed to account for the Earth's ability to respond relatively quickly (i.e., in significantly less time than 50 years) to whatever amount of forcing resulted from the increase in TSI that occurred before it remained generally flat 50 years ago, and reaching an equilibrium vis-a-vis that forcing long before now, so that effects of that forcing delayed by 50 years cannot explain the current warming. Rawls' attack doesn't pass my smell test, and I trust that climate scientists are in fact very familiar with and have accounted for the lag between a step or ramp up in TSI and its observed effects on global temperatures. Can somebody address that succinctly, in a way that would help somebody who is not necessarily so scientifically inclined to understand why they should trust that scientists have taken any "lag" effect into account?
  7. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Funded Denialists know that their unpaid Denialist believers will not look at the actual report: and they know that will be the case. The object is to delay mitigation efforts, and for the USA the tactic is working. Lying Denialists: is anyone surprised?
  8. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Further to doug_bostom's points, @25, the IPCc reports, by *design*, have to be carefully constructed such that OPEC countries, like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait, will sign off on the various ARXs. Not only is science inherently conservative, you toss that fact on top of that, and it's AMAZING the IPCC gets these things out as *often* as they do, and as conclusive of the main points.
  9. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    catman306,
    Am I misinterpreting this?
    Yes. See this post here.
    However, there is still no direct link between human activity and temperature.
    Wrong. See this post here. But the main fallacy you are committing is to assume that a link requires a simultaneous and exact parallel between CO2 increases and temperature increases. Two use an analogy, that's like arguing that the seasons don't cause the earth to cool, because it's hotter in the day than at night, and some weeks are warmer and some weeks are cooler. There's no obvious connection -- unless you look at things over a long enough period of time, and allow for variations due to other factors like weather fronts to move in and out.
    And that's assuming that the polar ice core measurements are true, despite the aforementioned argument that the displacement of water in ice makes the measured levels skewed.
    This is BS. Study the subject in more detail to understand the truth. So far, you act as if you believe in AGW ("Help! Can someone please straighten out this (possibly) local skeptic?") and yet what you do instead is to repeat a series of lame, flawed denial memes. The two approaches don't fit together. So which is it? Beyond that, you could learn more about all of this yourself, without the need for me or anyone else to direct you. This entire site is built on a database of denial lies (politely called "arguments") and clear, explanatory rebuttals. Use the links and the search boxes, and learn about this stuff yourself, before posting embarrassing nonsense. [P.S. If I sound ticked off, I am, because the "oh, I believe in AGW, but I have this skeptic friend, and what about..." approach to placing misleading comments is getting very, very tiring.]
  10. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    "You can't "win" with them. It's a bit maddening. It's like wrestling snakes, covered in butter, in a jello pit." I like that one, Sphaerica: unlike the one about a wildcat and a hot stick of butter, I *can* use yours in polite company...;)
  11. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I think Hank is referring more to semantics than the specific case at hand; IPCC expresses itself w/what a lot of folks will see as diffident and inconclusive language. For the IPCC it's an asymmetry problem; the right way to say these things in science-speak inherently sounds a bit mushy to the lay public. In the hands of people w/bad faith the scientifically "right" way to describe research is potentially disastrous. IPCC absolutely must adopt the scientifically valid way to speak and so has an inherent weakness when it comes to idiotic "debates."
  12. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    John Russell, Yes. Now, if they correct the wording on the quoted section to make Rawl's confusion less likely, they'll scream that it's a conspiracy to hide the truth that was plainly stated in the draft. You can't "win" with them. No matter what is said, how or where, they will twist it. It's a bit maddening. It's like wrestling snakes, covered in butter, in a jello pit.
  13. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    It’s important that every time anyone in denial refers to this as ‘the leaked IPCC report’, or, ‘the leaked AR5’, they’re told very firmly that these are just drafts and that the real AR5 will not be available until September 2013. I completely agree that it’s best not to be cajoled into discussing the supposed content. Second: look out next September for those in denial looking for differences between these drafts and the published AR5, and trying to use them to show… well, anything really that diverts attention away from the fact that there’s even more evidence to indicate that the world is warming and it’s caused by humans.
  14. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Hank... Uncertainties and hedging is what science is all about. That is what happens at the cutting edge of knowledge. What is NOT uncertain is whether solar accounts for the warming of the past 50 years. It doesn't. No ifs ands or buts. Rawls just flatly misinterpreted what he read. ...Or more accurately, he selectively interpreted what he read, dismissing large passages and conclusions, in order to craft a conclusion he preferred. Confirmation bias at its finest.
  15. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    @Dana1981 #3 I'm afraid you're a bit late on this one. It's going to be almost impossible to un-spin this story into obscurity because there is just too much uncertainty and hedging in this draft report, never mind the Solar angle =\ Hank
  16. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    The plot of the 11-year rolling average Solar Activity in Figure 2 shows a lot more decline when more recent years are added. The Frohlich and J. Lean data to Jan 2012 gives a latest 11-year average of 1365.65 (which would be on a level with the loop of 'p' in "temperature" in fig 2), a value not seen since the 1930s.
  17. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    @18 vroomie, Still, it should be fun in the meantime to point out to any UN conspiracy theorists that they are now taking the IPCC at their word. May result in a few good head-exploding moments
  18. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    sout, *if* and as *long* as it serves their purpose of disinformation: on this, they've, as we scientists say, really screwed the pooch. Once it is shown to them how *badly* and utterly *incorrectly* they've misinterpreted AR5, you can stake your fortune on the fact that they will go right back to excoriating the IPCC as the evil genius behind us "warmists." Cue Daniel Bailey with a graphic of Mike Myers, pinkie to lips....
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
  19. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    bjchip # 1: That's a nice take. WUWT becomes a parody of itself? From Bob Loblaw over at Tamino's site: Fa[c]t free physics? Is that like diet physics? Zero calorie physics? [Cold fusion fits there, I think.] Physics Lite? Looks and tastes like physics, with none of the facts! Ahh, that pesky physics...
  20. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:21 AM on 15 December 2012
    IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I take it that WUWT-ers, Delingpole and other fake skeptics are now touting IPCC reports as reliable sources (even though they don't understand them)?
  21. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    The Human Factor- the trend, if there is one, tends towards publicity. A few months ago I did a little online research about bottom feeding denialists including Omnologos - who joined the big boys with his 28gate BBC research and had 1000 hits on his profile [denierlist.wordpress.com]. Rawls is a failed rightwing economist desperate for attention so it would surprise me if he set out to do the leak from the start. Setting up a denial website is easy and requires little actual work or writing skills so I think some have seen the success and kudos of WUWT and try and duplicate it. This attention seeking and desire to pick up any kind of loyal following is illustrated by James Delingpole: despite recycling the same stories [agw conpiracy-green fascist conspiracy- and wind turbines are evil- UN conspiracy] each and every week he sells his blog, books and gets fairly regular t.v. appearances and even bookings. For a struggling writer or economist [for instance] such a lifestyle is attractive.
  22. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Let's see. Monckton has misrepresented himself as a member of the house of lords, a nobel laureate, Margaret Thatcher's science advisor, an expert on climatology, and now a diplomat from Myanmar. He also promises to release his miracle cure for Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, herpes simplex VI, AIDS, and who knows what all else any day now if people will just keep sending him more money to help 'bring it to market'. So... in what way is he not a professional con man? A snake oil salesman. Flimflam artist. Scammer. Swindler. Grifter. I'm assuming there must be something which does separate him from those categories because he's never been arrested for it, but darned if I can puzzle out what it is.
  23. Bert from Eltham at 22:30 PM on 14 December 2012
    IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I could be mistaken but these deniers can trawl a vast document and then misinterpret or just lie about one tiny bit and with a great flourish claim they have proven another 'fact' that brings down a self consistent edifice based on scientific principles. I would not poo on them as it may give them some relevance. Unfortunately the MSM eats their poo and then regurgitates it without a nasty taste in their collective mouths! Bert
  24. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Went to WUWT to look at the article under the headline: "IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing" Then downloaded and read section 7 and read 7.4.5. Given what the IPCC authors have written in the report there is just no justification for that headline unless, somehow, "many empirical relationships have been reported" actually means, "many empirical relationships have been shown and proven". Which from the last paragraph 7.4.5.3 it pretty obvious that the authors didn't mean that. My take on it would be that its an article on a popular skeptic site designed mainly for their target audience of already committed denialists to keep up the outrage quotient.
  25. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Thank DSL- Ive been collecting up papers specific to Bengal- salination- etc on my tablet to read on long nights without telly. At least papers that are free. The main change seems to be sea rise- thermal expansion- and likelihood of bigger storm surges. I was more curious on the larger physics level- will surface temperatures suddenly catch-up with accelerated warming in the coming decade? Or -will the seas just keep absorbing the heat? Are there physical limits? One personal observation is more ocean warming 'seems' to correlate to reduced ENSO activity. To a layman this seems back to front- I really am speaking from ignorance here- but ENSO 'appears' to be a balancing out of heat build up- energy in energy out- so why has the last 16 years been so quiet.
  26. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Excellent summary. Question 1: What was Svensmarks 2009 prediction for global temperature? Question 2: Now, three years later, what is the current global temperature in the deniers favorite dataset, the "skeptic" run satellite based UAH AMSU (Channel 5)? Svensmark has been remarkably quiet for the last few years. For good reason. The desperation of the deniers is getting pathetic. Problem is that they are getting lots of traction over here in Europe, as we are entering the 4th winter in a row with major Arctic blasts and very cold temps. (Nobody made note of near record warm November temps). Also funny how the deniers no longer quote their "own" UAH dataset, but instead quote CRU, a dataset "they" proved "fraudulent" in the "climategate" nonstory. Could it be because CRU does not include most of the Arctic, thus neglecting the absolutely mindblowing warming up there.
  27. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Steve Sherwood and John Cook interviewed on ABC Radio
    But Professor Sherwood is scornful of the idea that the chapter he helped write confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming. STEVE SHERWOOD: Oh that's completely ridiculous. I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.
    OppositeGate? ReverseGate? CluelessGate?
  28. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Well done for the rapid response, Dana. The similarity between this incident and the selective quotation of the "Darwin's Eye" passage by evolution deniers is striking.
  29. Dikran Marsupial at 20:42 PM on 14 December 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Jack, tests of statistical significance are a useful sanity check in science; the basic idea is that you should not make a claim based on a particular set of observations unless the evidence is statistically significant. I'm sure we would all agree on that. However The claim that global warming is occurring is not based solely on the observed trend in global mean surface temperature, there are many other lines of evidence, such as ocean heat content and others, and a good deal of basic physics. If the only evidence we had of global warming or the greenhouse effect were the GMST trend over the last fifteen years, you would have a point. But it isn't, so your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the science. A lack of a statistically significant trend does not necessarily mean it isn't warming. I'd be happy to discuss this with your further.
  30. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I think it's important to make the point very clear to those in denial that, "this leaked draft is not yet AR5".
  31. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Andrew Revkin from the NYT dotEarth blog has linked back to this article with the comment "The Web site Skeptical Science has deconstructed, and largely de-fanged, the idea there's something big here." So thanks Dana. Your comment @3 is on the money.
  32. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Jack, the Realclimate article and the science article are about reconciling the various measurements including ICESat (that is the satellite altimetry referred to). King goes further and from the constraints establishes better estimate for GIA (principle uncertainty in GRACE) to get better mass measurement of this. Since Zwally is a coauthor of the science paper, I would guess that he is happy with the reconciled estimates.
  33. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    I just had to whine about it a little more, Steve. :-) Running Milky Way and SETI so that when we hear from the aliens we'll know how to go visit. Box stays plenty busy w/that.
  34. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    Doug - There has been a bit of a drought of available work units recently. I've just started getting some after a several week gap. The preparation of new work units is rather laborious and CPDN (as with all science projects) is run on a shoestring. The availability of work is also dependent on the pipeline and scheduling of new experiments. If CPDN looks quiet the best advice is to leave it running and subscribe to one or two other BOINC projects. You can easily turn them off, or throttle them back once CPDN starts shovelling work to you.
  35. Philippe Chantreau at 16:59 PM on 14 December 2012
    Antarctica is gaining ice
    Jack, I'm not sure what your concept is of what kind of website this is and what is expected from commenters. It is a site that is mainly about the published science on a variety of topics that are related. Commenters have countless opportunities to familiarize themselves with the topic of a post by using the site's search engine, looking at recent posts on the thread they consider, or better, looking up the referenced articles on Google Scholar and following the citation trail that will lead to more recent work. The "thing" that you provided was not a peer-reviewed science article. The author of that very same piece has since been involved in a published paper that is way more comprehensive, and is referenced earlier on this thread. Since the piece caught your attention in the 1st place, following the very easy internet trail leading to the paper with Zwally as a co-author should have been part of your normal process of discovery, a process indispensable to one willing to avoid taking sides. I understand that you would want to point out "things" to SkS. However, these things deserve more attention when they are actual peer-reviewed articles. Furthermore, it doesn't hurt to do some basic verification that the "thing" has not already been discussed. All SkS threads from the beginning are accessible. It is less realistic to expect every single OP to be updated with the latest information than it is to expect that a reader will read about 10-20 posts back. For the latest articles in general, refer to Ari Jokimaki's posts, he does a tremendous job.
  36. Philippe Chantreau at 16:33 PM on 14 December 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Interesting Jack, but I have some questions: What do the numbers show starting from 1997, or 1999,or 2000, or 1996? Is it significantly different from what they show starting in 1998? If it is, and the other 4 different starting dates give results that are close, shouldn't these results be considered instead of the 1998 result? Are there other 15 years periods in the record that show cooling "trends"? Why pick 1998 as a starting date?
  37. Antarctica is gaining ice
    scaddenp- Thank you for the links. I could only read the Nature abstract as it was behind a paywall. It looks like both the Nature article and the discussion at realclimate are updates to the GRACE methodology, not the ICEsat results. Did I miss that part? Philippe- Like most people reading a website for knowledge, I rely on the actual website for the knowledge, not the 150+ comments to fill holes left in the website. I will peruse the comments, but don't treat them with the same level of respect that I do to the actual webpage on the topic. I'd like to stay on top of the current research, that's why I'm reading this. If I can find things that are more recent, seem reputable, and disagree with SkS in just a few minutes of research, shouldn't I point them out so SkS can include them or rebutt them accordingly? I'm not taking sides, I'm here for enlightenment.
  38. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    67, Jack, If you want to use the best science, then why do you start with an anomalously high El Niño and finish with a period of two consecutive La Niñas? The escalator is going up.
  39. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Just read them, thank you. I fear those sorts of articles give the public serious doubts about the science of AGW. (-intimations of impropriety snipped-)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Arguing from ignorance and an incomplete understanding of the science, compounded by accusations of impropriety and academic fraud detract from your credibility. If you dispute the content of the linked posts, discuss your concerns there, not here.

    For posts discussing why the PDO is not responsible for the observed warming trend, use the Search function in the upper left portion of any page here for an appropriate place to learn...and then discuss, if need be.

    Again, read the Comments Policy (link adjacent to every Comments Box)...thoroughly. Future comments constructed such as this one will be summarily deleted in their entirety.

  40. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    The leaked text does not contain anything remotely new, yet those in denial somehow distort and exaggerate the facts in their minds into something it is not. Those who deny the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are incredibly desperate, and this latest fiasco by yet another radical and morally bankrupt fake skeptic just reeks of desperation. "Anything but greenhouse gases" is their mantra, and it matters not one iota to them that the other factors they trumpet as being the supposed "last nail in the AGW coffin" are oftentimes not even physically based, run contradictory to each other, are implausible, of little consequence or even simply fabricated. Those in denial are so incredibly scared of the facts and truth and the IPCC's upcoming fifth assessment report, that this is apparently the only way they can deal with their cognitive dissonance and ideology. On another note, so now what does the IPCC do with the conspiracy theorist Mr. Rawls? They likely have more pressing and important matters to deal with than giving the likes of Mr. Rawls the time of day. Those in the denialosphere trumpeting this should be ashamed, but I realize that they know no shame and have no scruples.
  41. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Mod- You are OK using a number that is statistically insignificant as the basis for claiming warming elsewhere. I am being honest about the numbers. On an entry that claims to debunk 15 years with a lack of warming, what would be more relevant that using the relevant data to show what the cited numbers actually indicate? I want to show the best science, not a 'version' of it. If the numbers showed a 0.25 C/decade trend, that would also be worth mentioning, but that's not what the numbers show.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The point you miss is that the trend which IS statistically significant is the overall warming trend, which continues unabated in the overall Earth system (land/ocean/cryosphere/energy imbalance at the TOA) to this day. Until a change that is statistically significant occurs that shows that the warming trend is no longer occurring.

    In the meantime, the Earth's climate has absorbed 1.5 billion Hiroshima bombs-worth of energy over the past 16 years, all due to that energy imbalance at the TOA that we have caused. Perhaps gaining a more nuanced understanding of the science would be preferable to running off at tangents to the established science?

  42. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Having just ran the HadCru3 numbers for the past 15 years (December 1997 through November 2012), it is correct to state that these numbers show a mild cooling over the last 15 years. At -0.007 C/decade, the cooling is statistically insignificant. However, it is there according to their numbers. Since I downloaded the text files and checked it myself, you are free to do so and see if I am full of it or not.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "the cooling is statistically insignificant"

    Then it is indistinguishable from zero. And thus you confirm that "It's Not Cooling".

    Please cease to create something where nothing exists. You essentially replicate the comment you made earlier, here. This type of behavior on your part constitutes sloganeering (repeating memes already disproved) and makes your comments subject to moderation. Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with this site's Comments Policy before posting further comments.

  43. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I just looked at the datafiles from GISS, HadCru 3, RSS, & UAH (yes, you can download them yourself and plug them into a spreadsheet and see for yourself). Since everywhere I turn there is a different version, I needed to check for myself. For the last 15 years (December 1997-November 2012), here are the trends: GISS: +0.1 C/decade HadCru 3: -0.008 C/decade RSS: -0.01 C/decade UAH: +0.05 C/decade So, according to the climate records as of December 2012, warming has stopped for all practical purposes since 1998 (a mean warming trend of 0.02 C/Decade is close enough to 0 that only a zealot would argue the point). I also noticed there is a considerable gap forming between the records, if normalized to January 1980. (-intimations of dishonesty snipped-). (In all fairness, RSS and UAH are very close, HadCru 3 is in between those 2 and GISS, which shows the most warming)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] You knowingly or unknowingly prosecute a meme. A meme based on a lack of understanding of statistical significance. One detailed in this recent blog post here.

    Furthermore, when applying the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, the global warming trend in each of the major data sets IS statistically significant since 2000.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

    Please read them for enlightenment.

  44. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Tom: [Rawls] gives two reasons why he was morally compelled... That's nice; endorsement from skeptics that "moral compulsion" is a rationale for lying. It's absolutely true there's a formal case to be made for lying in certain circumstances, even though it does not exculpate perpetrators of wrong-doing. Of course this means skeptics should retract their hysterical, self-righteous screeching over Peter Gleick, if they're to be consistent. Which begs the question, in what way is consistency really the hobgoblin of a small mind?
  45. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I'm expecting this will kick up a pretty good frenzy among those who will take absolutely any claim they can get the AGW is false without evidence or critical though. Those of us actively engaging in debates on the subject will likely have our hands full dealing with this nonsense (Sigh) Once more unto the breach, dear friends
  46. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    One thing to note is that Rawls signed a confidentiality agreement in order to become an IPCC reviewer. In doing so, he falsely declared that he had relevant expertise in climate science. Now, however, he finds it convenient to release the draft, thereby being in breach of his contract with the IPCC. He gives two reasons why he was morally compelled to do so: 1) The IPCC has indulged in massive "omitted variable fraud" by not discussing the effect of the Sun, and particularly of the strength of the Sun's magnetic field on the Earth's climate by modulating the cosmic ray flux; and 2) Because the IPCC discussed the effect of the cosmic ray flux on the Earth's climate. That's right! Rawl's reason for being in breach of promise is that the IPCC both did, and did not discuss cosmic rays.
  47. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    DSL @2 - true about the same Climategate model, but remember that Climategate 2.0 failed to make any impact because climate realists got out ahead of it and put the information in the correct context. That's what we're trying to do with this post, and would appreciate it if readers would spread the word. Let's get the correct information out there and debunk the myth before it gains any traction.
  48. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context. By the time AR4 WG1 is out, the meme will be so entrenched in the (alas, not so critical) minds of the target audience, it will take them years to self-correct. Indeed, when AR6 comes out and dismisses GCRs, they'll probably claim it's a fraud because AR5 said (according to their opinion-making intermediaries) it was, in fact, GCRs.
  49. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Why do the arguments being put forth on Watt's site remind me of articles in "The Onion" now?
  50. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Jules, you may have already been there, but I'd go for google scholar (here's a useful search) and skim through the lit reviews and discussion sections. You can get a general feel that way and then ask more specific questions (not that your current questions aren't useful). Those google results will also have references that will direct you toward answers to your more general questions (e.g. warming oceans).

Prev  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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