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  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  Next

Comments 52551 to 52600:

  1. Climate sensitivity is low
    Hi! It is still very hard to grasp that incoming direct TSI can be modified by "earth climate" to such a high level that it in fact marginalizes the source's direct influence. A problem many sceptics seem to have, too. Coming from the discussion of the alternative TSI reconstruction from Shapiro e.a. http://www.skepticalscience.com/shapiro-solar-2011.html#comments , which is counter-argued in that linked article because his observations would imply a very low climate sensitivity when compared to the reconstructed temperature curves from Ljungqvist. I read here with special interest about Hansen 2008 and his long term comparisions from earth history. Hansen 2008 does not bring forth any TSI data, but from his footnotes you get the impression there is almost no significant shift in TSI levels throughout earth history. However, he also states "The possibility remains of solar variability on longer time scales.", which he debunks by pointing out the TSI development of the last decades (last page); which I find not entirly coherent. Is there any data on TSI levels throughout earth history? (For example, for the last 450k years from Figure 2 of this article? I never really understood what part of the 6 Degrees difference from the ice cores is attributable to GHG and what part to TSI. Sure is only that TSI was the driver of the shifts from warm to cold and vice versa. So, what level of TSI difference started and ended the shifts we observe from the ice cores?)
  2. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    From my perspective it is more effective to stop in on WNR than a broad troll of the literature. Hurrah for cogency. Yours FPjohn
  3. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    #48 JoeRG : Apologies if I repeat what you already know, but Table 1 is radiative forcing, related to the gradient of the OHC-time series. The error on a gradient is the measurement error plus non-linear components (e.g. ENSO/solar/volcanoes) which also add to the noise. By taking a longer trend you are including more data, and their average contribution reduces towards zero if the noise distribution has a mean-square of zero, so the error estimate falls. Try it in a spreadsheet with a trend plus white noise and then calculating the trend and standard error for different time spans. Even if the noise characteristics don't change, the error in the trend estimate is reduced as more data are included. Larger standard errors earlier on would serve to increase the error, but from Nuccitelli et al's numbers it seems that lengthening the trend calc from 6 years to 28 years more than compensates. Finally, you can see the same effect using Kevin C's excellent trend calculator. 2005-2010 has a trend error of close to 0.65 K/yr. Taking it from 1970 to 2010 reduces the error to 0.036 K/yr.
  4. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    gws, yes, thanks! So I will now look into the bigger picture from that quoted article "how sensitive is the climate" in order to fully understand the argument of this article here.
  5. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Falkenherz @32 In general, the answer is yes. As you are not a scientist, let me explain what this means in the science world: 1. If the Shapiro result is defensible in methodology and argumentation, it contrasting past results (metaphor: does not fit existing puzzle) is provisionally accepted 2. This leads to more questioning in this field (actual skepticism!) to explain why different results were obtained, which usually improves the science down the road 3. When said improvement comes along, the result that does not fit into the improved picture becomes marginalized (even if we cannot clearly explain why it was wrong) So far, any arguments made in the past not fitting global warming theory (call them "rogue puzzle pieces") by forwarding alternative explanations (e.g. the Lindzen Iris hypothesis) have not stood the test of time outlined in 1.-3. So if past is any indication of future, Shapiro et al. will not cease to exist, but it may get marginalized quickly unless more evidence fitting it is appearing in the peer-reviewed literature. Does that help?
  6. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz, It is, unfortunately, common that people do not talk "eye-to-eye", and online, without benefit of direct feedback or physiognomy, even more so. That said, people here immediately responded asking you to be clearer on message. It took a while before it was understood here that you meant to say that "serious" skeptics argue that "TSI drives all other changes" (your initial "top-up"), aka also the observed CO2 increases. Needless to repeat ?: No, no evidence for that being the current mechanism of climate change. Instead, plenty of evidence for the universally acceptance mechanism. And no, no hard feelings, you are welcome to be back with more as long as it's not too far our ;-)
  7. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Lloyd Flack "I think climate change denial is more common in physics than in most sciences. " Yeah. Another one is Geology, particularly what is called 'economic geology' - the geology of digging stuff up. That is perhaps easy to see why. They spend their working lives 'building our world' by finding stuff to dig up. So they have an emotional vested interested in preserving the merit of what they have done. Then the focus of their working life is about the questions of 'what rocks, where?'. They don'tactually need to focus to much on the story of why those rocks are what they are - you left that behind in your undergraduate days. And they don't spend much timeon the academic geology - history of the Earth, what processes occurred over that history, a deep understanding of the chemistry of the past. Yet they are surrounded all the time by the immensity of geology. So it is easy to lose sight of the causes of geology andthe part living systems play in that - Photosynthesis gets invented 3.5 billion years ago, photosynthetic organisms flourish in a CO2 rich world. They start elevating the O2 level in the atmosphere till, at around 10% O2 the so-called 'Great Oxygenation Event' occurs. Rising O2 levels start to react with the masses of iron dissolved in the oceans to produce Iron Oxides- Rust. This precipitates out and sinks to the sea floor where it builds up in thick layers. Which we are mining today, 2.5-3 billion years later. If their career hasn't led them to think deeply about why the geology is what it is, not just what it is, they can easily be overwhelmed emotionally by their sense of themeaning of their working lives and lose sight of this.
  8. It's not us
    Carbon500 wrote: "Sometimes it's useful to stand back and just look at the contours of a graph rather than playing games with trend lines and placing all your faith in statistical results." So... avoid any hint of actual math and just let your preconceived notions guide your 'understanding' of the data? "The section of graph I'm talking about is quite different in character from what precedes it." True, in that it does not show as rapid an increase in atmospheric temperatures... but you implied ("Finally, the globe is warming? Is it?") that it doesn't show an increase at all, which is simply false. Even if it weren't false it would be the wrong graph for what you purport to be disputing. That's a graph of lower atmospheric temperatures, not "the globe". The oceans of the world are a vastly greater reservoir of energy than the lower atmosphere... and measurements of ocean water continue to show a high rate of warming. Finally, even if we could use just the lower atmosphere to determine whether the globe was warming, while ignoring the vastly more significant oceans, and we pretended that the lower atmospheric graph you posted did not show the warming trend it actually does... your 'conclusions' would still be wrong because there has been extensive research on the various factors at play in atmospheric temperatures over the past hundred years and the 'difference in character' you note has been explained by measured changes in factors other than the greenhouse gas forcing. Basically, greenhouse gas warming continues to increase and is the primary driver of the continuing warming trend. The short term variability you cling to is the result of other smaller factors (e.g. solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, soot, et cetera) varying up and down enough to change the slope of the trend over short time frames... but not enough to stop the inexorable upwards march.
  9. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    Further to the Met Office's rebuttal (see #4 above) I'd just like to point out that Judith Curry has a problem with David Rose's piece too.
  10. It's not us
    KR: Sometimes it's useful to stand back and just look at the contours of a graph rather than playing games with trend lines and placing all your faith in statistical results. I have a good reason for saying this. In an industrial research project on which I was engaged many years ago the statistics of a crucial experiment showed significance (and yes the correct test was used, in case you're wondering), but because I was suspicious further experiments ensued and a great deal of time and money was subsequently saved on the project on which I was engaged. The section of graph I'm talking about is quite different in character from what precedes it. Never mind, you look at it your way, I'll look at it mine. Where have I made the claim that the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas hasn't been experimentally proven? Have I even suggested that I have issues with satellite data? Had you read what I said properly, you would have noted that I was enquiring as to whether a laboratory experiment using an artificial atmosphere had ever been carried out to assess the effects of CO2.
  11. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    There is an interesting Scientific American article that seems to help explain why people believe misinformation even in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary. The article is called Diss Information: Is There a Way to Stop Popular Falsehoods from Morphing into "Facts"? . It turns out that correcting misinformation can inadvertently strengthen it. I'm facing an uphill battle in getting a single AGW denier to accept anything but AGW denier misinformation. It's just frustrating...and not worth the effort I put into it.
  12. Climate time lag
    Sphaerica... "Your statement is also an insult to all of the people who have posted responses ..." Look, it is rather easy to blame me. All I did in the beginning here, at #295, was ask a simple question, which could have answered with a simple "no" and some explanations, and those could be included into the article. Instead, most of the comments I received back were like "what nonsense are you talking about?", pressing me to justify my questioning and my intellect. I was at no point getting personal to anybody, but I do not feel treated in kind. ( -snip-) Let's leave it at that, this is getting out of hand and not helping anybody to understand things better. Thanks for all the answers I actually was able to pick out of the sum of all comments, they nevertheless helped me understand some things.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
  13. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    I am trying to understand the point of the article better: - pointing out that doubled CO2 will yield 3,7W/m2 radiative forcing - comparing that with effects of TSI forcing according to Shapiro on the Ljungqvist-data: "low climate sensitivity" - consequence would be, which is not expressively mentioned in the article: doubled CO2 would be less severe than assumed (if you assumed the same cliamte sensitiviy) - counter argument of the article: "A climate sensitivity this low contradicts the many lines of evidence supporting the IPCC range, and would make large past climate changes (i.e. transitions between glacial and interglacial periods) extremely hard to explain." (includes link to another article here) Did I get the argumentation logic correctly?
  14. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    With "to quote the infamous wording of IPCC, 'very likely'", I seem to strike a nerve, again. By saying "infamous", I was referring how much deniers get worked up with that wording, by demanding "100%-proof" and thus debunking IPCC assessments on totally wrong premises. I am aware what the article is trying to do; it discusses the findings of the Shapiro essay. So, I repeat: The TSI graph from Shapiro seems to be much more suited to explain the antique and medival warm periods, by linking them to a much clearer high TSI level. On top of it, TSI and temperature from that time seem to roughly match today's. Marcus earlier up seemed to draw exactly the opposite conclusion. That's why I put a questionmark and wanted to discuss this more. Your answers so far were not helpful. Spaerica, as a side remark, I find it strange that Marcus' statement was not contested, mine is, but the basis of our observations are the same "eyeballing method". (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Tone-trolling snipped.
  15. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
    Fantastic tool. That is all I have to say.
  16. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Jim Eager (#28) "With just two posts SA Dean managed to achieve the purpose he intended, namely to reinforce myths and derail the thread". Can I suggest that it might be worth revisiting the article, and John's elaboration, of the subject, which is good communication? I made mention earlier of arguments that speak to motive. Here, you assign blame and motive to a poster whose motives you cannot know, and whose actions do not appear to me to merit condemnation. If we are to hope that reason will prevail, we surely have to adopt a simple maxim: that people like SA Dean are innocent until proven otherwise. I tried to adopt some of the methods discussed in John's book - respect for Mr. Dean's concerns in particular - while arguing that some of the premises he employed may be mistaken. Reason, where employed and respected by both parties in any discourse, should prevail. I would hope - reasonably - that Mr. Dean might think through his position. It's all I could ask. I don't expect anyone to change their mind just because I put a counter-position. The best I can hope for is reflection, introspection, and perhaps some modest revision if my arguments were presented well enough. And none of that would be possible if, instead, I just dumped SA Dean into a convenient bucket called 'denial', assigned him motives consistent with my own generalisation, and dismissed his concerns as disingenuous without having the slightest evidence to support my dismissal. We can judge, or we can debate from a position more humble, and I think more appropriate. As angry as denialists make me, if I continuously frame the debate in their terms, I am conceding my rationality to their lack of it. Deniers will dismiss me, what I say, and the science I find credible, simply because they believe I'm a 'warmist', 'alarmist', or have an agenda - their arguments nearly always speak to motive, and not science (since they don't have any). Surely we should not seek to emulate them?
  17. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    I've seen denialists rabbiting on about this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29H885LXz Can anyone tell me the actual context?
    Moderator Response: [DB] The Met Office response is here.
  18. It's cooling
    It's the Daily double, and we're in jeopardy.
  19. It's cooling
    And now we have not warming line repeated at the Daily Mail..again. Mail
  20. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Looking at upcoming articles I notice that there is a mix of research and communications issues for our pleasure. I still think it would do us all a great service if we could have separate threads/forums for science, policy, communication. Thought they intersect, policy does not dictate science and the two need to be kept separate. Same is true with communication, how you say it does not alter the objective metrics. Both policy issues and communication styles are important intersections for denialist to attempt to muddy the waters of science, hence the need for separation, IMHO. Regardless, this is the best site I've found for objective discourse and factual analysis.
  21. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Ouijit, responding to the twistings of TDM is both a full-time job and pointless, since such an endeavor would have absolutely no effect on either TDM or its regular readers. I simply point people to the Met Office to get what was actually said -- with bonus context!
  22. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    John Cook: I think it would be a service to all if you collated a rendering of a few of the post in this thread for ease of copy/paste. This thread is not about the science, this thread is about the card game of communication and how certain words are dealt to further the gambit of obfuscations which in turn are played to win the hand of "reasonable skepticism". In particular, the articulate comments from gpwayne go a long way in addressing this style of discourse and how it is manipulated, either purposefully or through an inability to be clear and concise, in an effort to dissuade objective analysis in favor of accepting rhetorical flair. Addressing the style, syntax and vocabulary (the memed list of adjectival pejoratives) of denial would be a solid addition to your wonderful handbook.
  23. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Maybe it's in the works but I'm keen to see SS respond to "Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago" published in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
  24. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Nick, I think most denialists want an excuse to do nothing whether from distaste for environmentalists, Gore, taxes, international treaties etc. Anything half plausible will do to convince themselves.
  25. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    News Roundup is really useful. (And I agree about the comments adding insight)
  26. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    #32 From Peru, I think climate change denial is more common in physics than in most sciences. As the most basic and fundamental of all the sciences it usually deals with the simplest systems. Too many want a simple mathematical description of what is going on and do not develop a feel for the behaviour of complex systems. Some don't know how to handle observational rather than experimental data. This makes them too likely to accept the simple arguments that denialists make, especially if this fits in with their ideological preferences. This is only a tendency and as far as I know only a minority of physicists fall for it.
  27. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean mentions one of the standard denialist obfuscations - that the Earth's systems are too complex to understand which lets them jump to the false conclusion that we cannot know what will happen if we alter the balance of atmospheric gases by injecting extra greenhouse gases. Very simply, we don't need to understand every element of the complexity at all to figure out what will happen - that is a complete red herring. What we need to know is this. Does CO2 have a greenhouse gas effect? (this is certain). Have we/are we still increasing it? (this is certain). Is our increasing the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases causing the planet to heat up to a new equilibrium temperature? (this is certain). How much will Earth heat up? (this is less certain). Only on the very last point is there any legitimate scientific debate at all and most of it concludes that we have a sensitivity of 3 deg C per doubling of CO2. A very small minority of credible scientists (Lindzen, Christy Spencer etc) claim the sensitivity is 1 deg or less per doubling but outside of the science arena this is not relevant to what politicians should be doing. With the certainties known (as above) and the probabilities about which there is some small debate, what politicians need to think about urgently is risk assessment. If sensitivity is 3 deg, then certainly the greenhouse gases we have put up/are still putting up there will cause serious trouble that we won't be able to escape from for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. If sensitivity is a lot less, then nothing much will happen. It all comes down to taking a chance on what you believe if you are not completely up to date with the science which suggests that some feedbacks are much faster than were expected (ice/tundra melt). Faced with Dirty Harry's climate gun should any sane politician gamble that the sensitivity bullet left in his Magnum is a dud or not? Remembering that making the wrong choice can lead to a bad outcome for not only the individuals making the choice but also the rest of the 7 billion here, the political forces have to be asked - do you feel lucky, punks?
  28. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    > "From your perspective, does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose?" Yes, absolutely. For guys and girls outside the insider scene, there are four challenges: - what is consolidated science saying? (myths debunked) - how to debunk obvious nonsense, in a fact oriented way? (gish gallops debunked) - what are the science news (New research: not yet consolidated, but worth knowing) - what is the perception/politics/direction/trends worldwide (News Roundup). It's the fourth pillar. The fifth is: "Comments". Which often give really interesting additional insights.
  29. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Doug H @2, news roundup, not weekly digest.
  30. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Agreed with citizenschallenge. The News Roundup along with the weekly listing of new research are likely to be two of the most useful features of SkS.
  31. Doug Hutcheson at 11:08 AM on 15 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    ... does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose? Certainly: where else would you put the Toon of the Week? The summary is a good way of catching up when time is limited, or after I have spent some time away from my computer.
  32. citizenschallenge at 09:52 AM on 15 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Question: "From your perspective, does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose?" To be blunt... damned straight the Weekly Round-Up series serves a very useful purpose ! And it should definitively be continued.
  33. empirical_bayes at 09:46 AM on 15 October 2012
    A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Sorry, "Kevin C".
  34. empirical_bayes at 09:42 AM on 15 October 2012
    A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    @ Keven C, #19, 13 October. Very very nice.
  35. empirical_bayes at 09:39 AM on 15 October 2012
    A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    @S A Dean, #8, from 13th October, with apologies if this ground has already been covered ... Regarding: "The take home message from this book is that complex systems cannot be studied using the traditional analytical method (breaking the system up into component parts to study) because it neglects the nearly infinite, dynamical, non-linear interactions with other components of the system. Cilliers mentions many other characteristics for a complex system such as uncertainty, feedback loops, open systems that cause boundary problems etc." Complexity of any system does not permit it to violate basic physical law. For a simple example, if a boundary is drawn around such a system, and all energy and mass flows are accounted for crossing that boundary, then Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy still applies, irrespective of its complexity. Similarly, any of the conservation principles from Classical Mechanics. More complicated rules naturally apply in thermodynamics, but they are nonetheless very sound. What these principles do is allow the calculation of basic physical quantities without having to, e.g., do an ab initio simulation of the system having the physical quantities. That is what gives them such power. "By its very nature, it is impossible to definitively understand the entire workings of the system with certainty. However, science provides humanity with the best possible obtainable knowledge about the system. But it is not perfect. We have seen time and time again how theories that were once considered fact were shown to be erroneous as new scientific information came to light. Look at the history of the atom." There's an equivocation here. That it is not possible to, for example, predict the future state of a complicated, tightly coupled system like Earth with great certainty in 100 years says nothing about the amount of understanding available for any part of it. Indeed, if we take almost any small part of Earth, a part small enough to be subjected to experiment, we already know a great deal about it, and could do excellent prediction for that part. In fact, we know far more about that small part than we need to know to say with 100% certainty that, in the limit, with continued introduction of carbon dioxide at the rate people are producing, human civilization is facing an existential threat. It is in fact the carbon dioxide that is causing that, with 100% certainty. And if that is not the case, then a great deal of the physical science which works so well in other engineering areas, whether solid state or physical biological, is magically wrong here. That's just not possible, because our experiments would fail. So I do claim "AGW is fact" and S A Dean hasn't a tarsus to stand on. What cannot be predicted with certainty is how fast these changes will come, what exactly they will be, or how they will affect any given region on Earth. That is partly a modeling problem, partly a computational problem, and partly a prediction problem. It is partly a modeling problem because the resources needed to build good models of, say, the interactions between large ice masses and atmospheres, or to understand the detailed dynamics of large ice masses have not been invested. But wheter or not we understand how the interior of ice masses will evolve, in detail, or how long it will take we know what will happen to them if we keep increasing atmospheric energy density. It is partly a computational problem because the resources have not been invested in building and learning how to build the enormous numerical simulations such a good prediction will need. We are making progress. We have good concurrent systems for doing these calculations. But there's a lot more to learn about how to do these calculations well at this scale. Finally, this is a prediction problem because making predictions and calculating credible intervals demands good constraints on initial and boundary conditions of the system being simulated, and these require good, comprehensive, synchronized measurements. These are much better than they were, but when a simulation is run, it is begun with an initialization which is approximately like the actual system, not exactly like the actual system, even if the model were perfect. The investments have not been made in the observational system needed to make such synchronized measurements. I argue that the problem has nothing to do with the science of the question. The problem has to do with out miserable economic systems, these being miserable because they are unpredictable, unsteerable, and no one appears to agree what they are, or where they should be. So, it seems to me and always has seemed, that anyone who really wants an improvement to the certainty of the prediction offered by scientific models and the detailed timeline really has an obligation to pony-up the resources needed to do so. If they don't, they really do not care about the answer, and so are being disingenuous, or they are ignorant, or they are taking the position "We're falling. Don't look down." Which is it, S A Dean?
  36. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Jim Eager@28, I respectfully disagree: "Derailing the thread' would look like us "alarmists," or 'adherents to the AGW theory' (take your pick) being at each other's cyberthroats, and we all would be *not* consilient with all we all had postulated before, on the many 1000s of links on SkS. Quite the contrary, IMHO: We have taken SA Dean's postulates, dissected them, exposed them to rational and measured discussion, compared and contrasted them to science, and found SA's conclusions.... to be wanting. THAT is the essence of a successful discussion, n'est pas? From this discussion I've taken away a deeper, finer-grained set of ideas, of ways to counter the same old tripe, just posted in a way that kinda *looks* like agreement with AGW, but is really just another 'lukewarmer' meme. To me, as a working scientist, that yet *another* shining example of precisely what and why SkS is here for....bravo to all! I should be remiss if did not offer a small thanks to SA Dean, for coming in and doing a drive-by... ...crickets. >;-D
  37. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    As for making claims using short time periods, we can only follow the sage advice of Roger Pielke himself (I think it's from Junior, not Senior), who thinks that even thirty years is not enough:
    "Thirty years is not an appropriate length of time for a climate analysis, much less finding causal factors like climate change," says Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
    (as quoted in USA Today)
  38. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    It's also of course important to remember that surface temperatures are a very small fraction of overall global warming, which Nuccitelli et al. (2012) shows has not slowed.
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    @KR#2 The HadCrut4 data in the SkS Trend Calculator as well as in the WoodForTrees link does not go any further than December 2010. Using the HadCrut4 4.1.1.0 monthly data from September 1997 to August 2012 I get (using the SkS Trend Calculator uncertainty calculation): +0.033 ± 0.145 °C/decade The range is clearly cherry-picked, it starts with the extraordinary 1998 El Nino. The range ends with the La Nina years 2008 and 2011. In this short period the influence of ENSO and the sun on the global temperature is clearly negative and one would expect the trend to be lower than the long term average. The trend for the last 30 years for the new HadCrut4 is +0.165 ± 0.051 °C/decade, so I would say your conclusion still stands when the data are extended to august 2012. It is absolute nonsense to state that 'Global Warming has stopped' based on such a short time-frame. When you just start 1 year later with the HadCrut4 data, from September 1998 to August 2012, the trend more than doubles: +0.078 ± 0.147 °C/decade Using the same 15 years interval from May 1992 to April 2007 HadCrut4 gives a trend of +0.287 ± 0.151 °C/decade. About 5 years ago the Mail On Sunday would probably have concluded that global warming was getting totally out of control. They should have a look at the SkS Escalator.
  40. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    JoeRG @48 - as you note, the source link from which we obtained our data is no longer available, and the link you provide seems to have somewhat different numbers. Perhaps NOAA updated the dataset over the past 6 months. Regardless, the main conclusions remain unchanged.
  41. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    KR @2; Your calculated trend of 0.071+/-0.166 C/decade is higher than the historical one stated (or at least implied) by Rose himself in the article; 0.75/13 = 0.057 C/decade. So Rose not only presents evidence for continued warming but also that the warming is accelerating - shame about his headline !
  42. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    I'd like to point out that the UK Met office has almost immediately issued a thorough rebuttal of Rose's article, which clearly reveals how cynical has been his deception of the Daily Mail's readers.
  43. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    Lionel A - I should also note another deceptive bit of graphing in that piece from the Mail; the labeling of single timepoints at the start and end of the graph with equal values. That is ridiculous given the variations in the data. I could choose points (from that graph) in mid-2000 and mid-2006 and show a difference of 0.7C, or late 1997 to mid-2007 and show a difference of -0.6C. None of these choices is statistically justifiable. On the other hand, looking at the trend of the entire set of data, even over this statistically insignificant period, you see a trend of 0.071 °C/decade. The very data the Mail graphed disproves their assertion - it is warming.
  44. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    Lionel A - Well, to start with, the graph in that article is mislabeled. Using either the SkS Trend Calculator (1997.7) or WoodForTrees (1997.6, zero based decimal year) it's clear that the graph data from the Mail starts in September 1997, excluding cooler temperatures earlier in that year - while the Mail axis is (mis)labeled as if it were the start of 1997. And that displayed data has a rising trend, albeit small and rather noisy - the autocorrelation corrected (i.e., conservative in uncertainty) data shows: Trend: 0.071 ±0.166 °C/decade (2σ), a 2σ range of -0.095 to 0.237. While an upward trend, that's not enough data to exclude either the null hypothesis or the ~0.17 °C/decade long term trend given the variations. And whoever compiled that graph failed to show the statistics. Hmmm... So - this is an argument from insufficient, statistically insignificant data at the 2σ level. If you include enough data to exclude either 0.0 or 0.17 °C/decade (which using the Trend Calculator on HadCRUT4 is two more years of data to ~1995.6) that data indicates that the zero warming null hypothesis is false with a trend of: 0.142 ±0.139 °C/decade (2σ). So when looking at sufficient data to statistically call either warming or no warming? Warming. This is yet another 'skeptic' claim from insufficient data, with cherry-picked intervals, and absolutely no statistics - to put it bluntly, bullpucky.
  45. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    With just two posts SA Dean managed to achieve the purpose he intended, namely to reinforce myths and derail the thread.
  46. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    I see that David Rose has another dreadful piece of creative writing in the Mail this weekend. I am trying to track down the Ben Weller of that 'temperature graph' to discover what it is based upon as I smell a Monckton Manoeuvre here.
  47. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Here's an alternative analogy: Suppose there is an asteroid on collision course with Earth. When it is first spotted, the uncertainty in the observations is such that the scientists only give a 1% chance of it hitting Earth. Next year it is up to 10%. Next year 50%, then 90%, then 99%, then 99.99%. At what point do you mobilize the global economy to act? How is the decision influenced by the fact that the cost of action increases massively the longer you wait.
  48. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    I guess the most obvious question to ask is; in the light of JC's 'debunking recommendations', how would we change the responses to 'the most common climate myths', which are the core of this website, to make them more effective? Clearly -- as so often becomes clear -- providing the scientific facts is not enough to convince many people, as there are so many other psychological processes going on in their minds which distort the facts by overlaying them with other beliefs and agenda. * * * With regard to SA Dean's need for absolute proof of both the science and outcome of AGW, I offer an analogy which I have used with some success in discussions. Anyone who proposed to walk across a 6-lane highway in the rush hour for a bet, might want to first work out the chances of their being killed. If a scientist was asked to compute the odds, he'd need to know what traffic-avoiding tactics the walker might employ; the walk speed, the width of carriage way, the number and type of vehicles passing, the type of road surface and the weather conditions. Then he'd build a model and run it many times before being able to provide an estimate of the chance of survival. Could he ever say for certain? No, he couldn't. He could never say for a 'FACT' (SA Dean) that the walker would or wouldn't be killed. Could he say with enough accuracy to offer advice? Damn right. So is it worth taking the chance? Well depending on the size of the bet and how much the walker values their life, it might be. But that's the walker's decision, for him alone and not on behalf of other people. So that's why when it comes to making policy decisions, the scientific process -- however rigorous -- might not be able to give us the unequivocal answers some people would like. We shouldn't expect them to. But when scientists working in specific area of climate change say, "we're deeply concerned by what our work shows...", it would be wise to take them very seriously.
  49. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Dear Mr. Nuccitelli As I understand it, the Table 1 of the paper only consists of the OHC and LAI anomalies converted into the necessary forcings. First, the link to the NOAA OHC data [11] in your paper is a dead link. It ends with the error 550: No such file or directory. Second, using the data available under http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html (I cannot imagine that NOAA hosts different data series for just one subject) and recalculating your OHC forcing brings the following results: Time    0-700 m [W/m²]   700-2000 m [W/m²] 1970-2008     0.335     0.137 1980-2008     0.276     0.187 1990-2008     0.401     0.228 2000-2008     0.450     0.217 2002-2008     0.383     0.197 Third, how can the standard errors of the greater time ranges be smaller although the standard error of the origin data for e.g. 1970 (+/-0.94*10^22 J) is larger by a factor of 5 compared to 2008 (+/-0.161*10^22 J)? So, what have I missed?
  50. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean: I have a few points I would like to make to you regarding your two posts, some of which have already been touched on by others: "Scientific studies surrounding climate change, in a globally publicized topic of interest, are initialized trying to provide evidence for a preconceived condition". All scientific investigations are advanced by positing a 'preconceived condition', which is normally referred to as a hypothesis. What you infer in your posts, however, is confirmation bias, where data are ignored, massaged or otherwise distorted, or methods are inadequate to the task of testing the hypothesis comprehensively. This issue is, of course, known to scientists who, in response, employ the scientific method to ensure that such bias is rooted out by independant testing. A recent demonstration of the efficacy of this method is cold fusion, in which eminent and respected scientists none the less found themselves on the wrong side of their own confusion (however it was caused). The important point to note is that cold fusion was debunked by better (i.e. more rigorous) science - and not by opinion. "In doing so, conclusions and messages are teased out of the results, which align with the desired goal". This accusation, unsupported by a single example, is similar in my view to discussions of motive, which I find specious and weak. If you wish to make such an accusation, and it be credible, it is necessary to provide evidence. Accusations based on vague generalisations are too reminiscent of the very misinformation you claim to abhor. "These conclusions are then used in an attempt to disprove the opposing side’s conclusions and are treated as fact" There is a broader context to this remark, which is your mistaken conviction there are 'opposing sides' - for there are not. While science is certainly competetive, it is not adversarial. Adversarial systems depend on both sides having arguments of equal merit. In politics, for example, one's opinions about the best social systems remain just that: opinions. There is no 'proof' that one way of living is better than another, so either side can claim validity without disproving the opposing viewpoint. (This is also, regrettably, the foundation of demagoguery, since claim and counter-claim require nothing more than the air expended in the expression). Again, referring to your concern to limit misinformation, it seems unfortunate that you choose to repeat and propagate one of the principle myths of climate denial - that science is somehow divided, that there is a debate raging within the scientific community. There is not: as many studies have demonstrated, 97% of climate scientists agree with the broad position documented by the IPCC. Only a small, and increasingly discredited, number of qualified scientists take issue with the science, and do so without being able to publish adequate scientific examinations of their own dissent using the scientific method I referred to above. For your claim to be valid - that there are two sides - both sides have to have credible, but mutually exclusive scientific theories, backed up by empirical evidence. This is clearly not the case: the most damning evidence against 'the other side' of the climate debate is the shocking absence of any rigorous science, a point that this site set out to prove by debunking every bit of bad science employed by those who would take issue with the anthropogenic component of climate change, or the danger it poses to us all. "I believe the results from studies on both sides of the debate provide important information..." Again, an assertion unsupported by evidence. What studies have 'the other side' originated that contain valid science, and why does this science (if it exists) place it on the 'other side' of the debate? "...if science continues to be portrayed in the current manner within the debate, society’s confidence in the discipline of science will be severely weakened". I agree, but your concern seems ironic given the way you have portrayed climate science as being selective, biased and adversarial. I don't think you're helping, frankly. "...What I am criticizing is how AGW is considered FACT. The science does show overwhelming evidence that AGW is occurring and that it is the most probable cause of accelerated climate change. However, this does not mean that this is actually the case." I regret that, once more, you employ a common myth as the premise of your argument. Who, exactly, consider AGW to be 'fact'? No scientist worth his weight in litmus paper would make such a foolish statement, since there are no facts at all in science (except in those branches where mathematical proofs can be employed). What science deals with are probabilities, and the reason most of us think 'the science is settled' is not because it has passed into some realm of factuality, but because the probabilities are now so overwhelming, the consilience between disciplines so consistent, the body of empirical evidence so strong and growing continually, and because there are no other theories whatever that can withstand even the most basic scrutiny - again, I refer you to the work of this site as demonstration of the hundreds of flawed attempts to concoct a hypothesis that points the responsibility for climate change in some direction other than human agency. In the decades leading up to the shocking loss of Arctic ice this year, virtually no science - none at all - has lowered the probability of human agency, nor reduced the potential for egregious damage. It is easy to make accusations, to offer opinions that are dressed as facts, and to speak to motive. If your concerns are genuine, I would ask you to consider that perhaps your own arguments speak to confirmation bias that you have not yet identified, and the premises of them are vague, without merit or supporting evidence. In isolation, I'm sure that the problems you describe have occurred, and will do so again. But the sweep of research is so vast, and the results so keenly examined, I believe that your concerns do not reflect the actuality of climate science, but something more personal.

Prev  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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