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  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  Next

Comments 54151 to 54200:

  1. It's the sun
    A Granger analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality), an analysis method in economics, has been done on different climate predictors. Result starting from the 1960s, the solar radiation cannot be used as a primary predictor of global temperature: http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/sun-loses-grip-on-earths-temperature-changes/
  2. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dale@52, More open water in the fall months means of course that more heat can leave the ocean, however, there is one more factor to consider in this. Some studies are showing an increase in lower clouds in the Arctic that naturally form when more water vapor is leaving all that ocean water. These lower clouds of course have the effect of increasing DWLWR (downwelling longwave radiation), and thus, it acts as to keep temperatures higher than they might have been with clear skies. Thus, it gets a bit more complicated than just thinking that all that heat is going right out into space as some might think. Overall, what we can probably expect to happen once we get our first ice-free summer in the Arctic, is that sea ice will continue to form during the ensuing winter, but it will of course all be thin first year ice that will quickly melt the next summer and it will melt earlier and earlier in the summer as well. Eventually, the maximum winter extent of even that first year ice will slowly recede until the time might come that some very small amount of first year ice forms (maybe less than 5 million sq. km.) and it will be confined to the Arctic basin and along the north shore of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. Within most of our lifetimes, the Arctic will be quite open to navigation 12 months a year.
  3. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean, Your position is: 1) Humans inhabited northern Greenland at time X 2) Therefore temperatures were warmer at time X But #2 does not follow from #1. It is thus a non sequitur.
  4. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    RH - Faster warming in the Northern hemisphere is primarily due to the ratio of land to ocean differs. Oceans are much larger thermal masses than land and hence warm more slowly. Arctic amplification is higher than Antarctic due primarily to geography: The Arctic is a body of water surrounded by land, mostly covered with a few meters of ice, subject to warmer waters moving in from further south. It's also highly subject to albedo feedback - open water absorbs much more light during the Arctic summer, which provides a positive feedback leading to more open water. The Antarctic, on the other hand, is a land mass surrounded by water, coverd in ice averaging 1.6 km thick, with a roughly circular weather pattern around it that to some extent isolates the Antarctic from warmer northern air. While the Antarctic is warming, and contributing to sea level rise as a result (as per the GRACE data and surface observations), it's a huge thermal mass - and will take longer to warm than the Arctic. --- I'm of the opinion that the much faster than expected warming of the Arctic is (in part) due to poor modeling of sea transport of thinned ice - the thinner ice is far more prone to be simply washed out of the Arctic to warmer waters at lower latitudes. It's my understanding that few of the models accurately represent this change in behavior, and hence predictions from just a few years ago are startlingly incorrect about the current rate of mass loss.
  5. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    84, Eric, You are misrepresenting what that 97% number means -- I think willfully. And you and I both know that no one has conducted a study to see what the consensus is on climate sensitivity in particular. You are play games.
  6. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    MarkUS, The sooner than expected melting of the Arctic (say,if we get an ice free summer before 2020, rather than 2070 as previous models would have it) would have the biggest impact on the rate of slow feed backs, or what Hansen calls "earth system feed backs". Rates of change are interesting and complicated things when it comes to the nonlinear behavior of dynamical systems. Specifically, many natural systems exhibit and entirely different responses and set of feedbacks based purely on rates of change. When systems get overwhelmed by rates of change too fast for one set of feedbacks to kick in, their final new equilibrium point can be affected. No reason to think this might not be the case with the rapid sea ice melt. Thus, I think your question related to this is an excellent one, and certainly given that no one is quite certain what it might mean if the ice is gone sooner than later, we also can't be certain that some other feedback processes might not kick in based on this more rapid melting that otherwise might not have existed if the melting was slower.
  7. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean, I have two questions: 1) If there has been a cooling trend since 2001, why are the two hottest years in the record 2005 and then 2010? It has been shown that La Nina's have dominated most of the past 10 years. This completely explains the lesser heating (not cooling) for the past 10 years. See the Escalator. 2) If there has been cyclic melting in the Arctic for the past 2000 years, why did the 4000 year old ice shelfs that recently melted in Northern Canada not melt in the previous cycles? Please provide links to data that supports your claims.
  8. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Hi, just a general question regarding the melting of the Arctic ice: I'm interested in why the rate of warming in the Northern Hemisphere is faster than the rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Is it due to the following factors: a. The greater proportion of land to water surface in the North. b. The fast-spinning ring of air over the Arctic which affects the jet stream that helps drive the movement of winter storms. c. The localised effect of positive feedbacks such as Arctic amplification. Are these factors correct? Are there any other factors influencing this phenomenon?
  9. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of a "cyclical disappearance" of Arctic sea ice during the past 2,000 years. Rather than imagine it might have happened, it's probably better to deal with the reality of the present. I'm also puzzling over how and why one is supposed to argue against an imaginary scenario of the kind you mention w/regard to falling temperatures vs. rising C02. Why not stick with something real? Natural variability: La Nina versus El Nino. Not difficult to find examples.
  10. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Rather than hair-split over which logical fallacy Sean has actually committed, can we use an informal description of his arguments? Such as ... "baloney".
  11. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Yeah vroomie, it's as though nothing happened at all. Waste heat, so to speak. But perhaps it's not a waste. On a hopeful note we can probably trust that some unknown count of readers will notice how these conversations always start at the consensus position, then meander around the consensus only to return neatly and seemingly inexorably back to where they started: the consensus. The people who came up with ~3°/doubling have their reasons. Incessant rotation through those reasons as led by Eric et al. is maybe not such a bad thing, assuming people have the patience to help crank the wheel.
  12. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Dikran, my comment in #2 is no different from my first paragraph in #84. Regarding my 2nd paragraph, looking again at K&H 2008, I see there is a 2-4.5C range for "expert elicitation". That's at least part of the answer to my question to Sphaerica. But I want more detail behind that number and unfortunately do not have time right now to look for it. vrooomie, your request is valid. I don't have a lot of time, but I found a thesis http://orca.cf.ac.uk/24182/1/2012capsticksbphd.pdf which may provide some raw data. I'll look through it when I get some time.
  13. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    DB: Thanks for that. *thumbs up* I have a further question (if that's ok) in regards to the disappearing ice cap. In the Arctic daylight period, more heat will be absorbed by the additional open water. Does this work conversely in the Arctic darkness period where more heat will dissipate from the additional open water? And if so, has anyone looked at the ratio of change and what that could mean? For instance, I mean something like: in the daylight period, +X heat, in the darkness period -Y heat, net result is +/-Z? vrooomie @45: I say this as honest reader feedback and mean no digs, or slights or anything as such. My intent is constructive. SkS's aim is to help Joe Citizen see through the myths of climate science. Correct? The target audience (I can only assume) is the average non-scientific citizen. Using scientific academic tactics on non-scientific citizens may cause more harm. A good chunk of this site is dedicated to the psychology of climate denial and how to deal with it in the average citizen. A good post dealt with ensuring you don't push them further into climate denial. IMO (as I recognised it in me) the attacking prose taken against some of my comments in the past, made me resent the message more. However now that I recognise that I can take a different approach (hence, not arguing, just asking to learn). But you can't rely on most Joe Citizen's to recognise it. Please take that into consideration.
  14. jsmith.chemteach at 10:02 AM on 10 September 2012
    Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    I don't mean to be disconcerting, but I had to make a comment about those who think we should NOT rebut the Washington Times op-ed. Whilst, in our circles, I would agree with your stand, unfortunately, Joe Blow on the Street doesn't share our discussion. He gets his information from such an op-ed and he believes it to be factual. The result is he will pull his lever in November for the Romney and set climate science back 10 years because we will have to fight other ignorant people like him in order to get something done positively. We have to be careful about who we respond to, I agree, but we also have to be careful about what our silence says to the general public. They read and listen to this stuff and it influences their decisions. When crackpots get a newspaper to print their stuff, we should be ready to demand their sources, raw data, etc. and to counter with more reliable findings. I know we shouldn't have to, but the unfortunate truth is that if we don't, the public will try to ask Santa what he thinks of the loss of Arctic Ice. We can't let it come to that. Too much is at stake.
  15. Dikran Marsupial at 09:58 AM on 10 September 2012
    A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric wrote My question for you is what is the quantitative consensus of climate scientists on sensitivity? IOW, what range of S would 90% or 95% or 97% agree on? I think you will find that most climate scientists would probably tell you "the range published in the IPCC report, of course". There is a good reason for this, which is that most competent scientists avoid cherry picking and will look at the spectrum of results obtained in different ways. They may have their own views on which vlue they think is most likely, but there would be more agreement on the spread as scientists tend to be open about uncertainty. Now I suspect that your question was just trolling to spin out the discussion, given that other than the IPCC report (which was written as a summary of the mainstream position) none of us are going to be able to give an informative answer as I doubt any of us have performed a survey of climatologists. If you really want the definitive answer to this, then I suggest you perform the survey yourself.
  16. Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
    We seen to keep getting surprised by events as they unfold. The sudden melts both of Greenland and of the sea ice in 2012 are such events and arguably are the first flicker of the first long awaited tipping point. I wonder if the Greenland ice melt could be the next surprise. With the Arctic ocean likely to be more open earlier and earlier and hence collect much more heat, storms more severe than the one of Aug6,2012, which reached 964mb are likely. Such storms will be throwing more and more energy into the upper atmosphere. As soon as the upper atmosphere over Greenland is warmer than the Greenland ice, we will have strong katabatic winds as the air is cooled. Of course the air is cooled by melting the ice. The dry lapse rate which is applicable to falling air regardless of its moisture content is 9.8 degrees per thousand meters or 29.4 degrees from the peak of Greenland down to sea level. If the air didn't cool any more on its way down slope, it would reach the sea at this temperature. Of course it will be cooled by melting more ice on the way down. Descending air is going away from its dew point so we will probably have open skies above Greenland during this process, allowing more radiation to be absorbed by the cryoconite on the ice.
  17. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Meanwhile over at DeSmogBlog on a thread on this topic there has been a visitation by a full blown beiever in most conspiacy theries, moonlanding hoax, 9/11 inside job, etc., etc.. For your amusement. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/05/research-links-climate-science-denial-conspiracy-theories-skeptics-smell-conspiracy
  18. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric@84: " I believe a majority of skeptics would also answer yes. But there are lot who say no, especially when the word "significant" is used in the question." Fair enough: Could you provide a list, from some credible journal(s) supporting your opinion?
  19. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Doug@85, I clicked your link and it's.... it's.... Groundhog Day!
  20. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    This long term resident of the Arctic should be able to answer our nagging questions about the Arctic. He looks like an expert to me.
  21. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    It is interesting to see the models continue to attempt to do what they are not designed to do-- predict the status of a rapidly changing chaotic and dynamic system with multiple interrelated feedbacks. Given that everything we have learned over the past few years such as that PIOMAS is likely pretty correct and that the ice is much thinner than any model has taken into account, I must say that I side with both Wadhams and Maslowski, who are taking a wide approach in trying to incorporate both the feedbacks and accelerating decline. A summer ice free Arctic(or virtually so with sea ice less than 1 million sq. km) certainly before 2020. There may be bits of older MYI clinging to the north side of Greenland or the Canadian Archipelago, but the notion that we wouldn't see an ice free Arctic until 2030, 2040, or even 2070 is simply now quite unbelievable.
  22. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    And so the great wheel of futile discussion completes another revolution. Nicely played, Eric.
  23. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sphaerica, the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" elicits 97.5% "yes" response from climate scientists (See /global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) I believe a majority of skeptics would also answer yes. But there are lot who say no, especially when the word "significant" is used in the question. My question for you is what is the quantitative consensus of climate scientists on sensitivity? IOW, what range of S would 90% or 95% or 97% agree on?
  24. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Michael, I had to work today and appreciate your patience. Here's an JGR article for which I only have an abstract: Estimating the global radiative impact of the sea ice–albedo feedback in the Arctic which puts the albedo affect of sea ice loss at approx. 0.1W/m2. From the bottom of this page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ we can see that's the same forcing as about 3 years worth of manmade GHG. That's only ice, they don't have numbers for loss of permanent snow. The total realistic forcing from ice loss from the abstract above is 0.3W/m2. The total forcing from albedo from ice loss during the G to IG transition is 3.5 W/m2 or 10 times as much (see my link in #110 above). Put another way, as Milankovitch forcing (?? W/m2) triggered the 6C G to IG change, it was supplemented by 3W/m2 positive feedback from all CHG (same link) and 3.5W/m2 positive feedback from ice albedo. This time with MM doubling of CO2 we will get 4W/m2 of forcing with just 0.3W/m2 ice loss albedo. However there are other potential positive feedbacks like extra methane release which were a relatively minor part of the G to IG transition. Those will increase S. But S estimated from paleo data alone is quite low because the amplification by albedo (never mind dust) is a lot less now than during G to IG (leftmost red squares in KH08 fig 3b). IOW, there is no serious global amplifying affect from Arctic sea ice loss and a corresponding lower sensitivity to primary forcings unless one considers new sources of positive feedback.
  25. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Further to Sphaerica's point, the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 achieved in the last 400,000+ years (prior to today's manmade rise) was 297.8 ppmv. We are very, very far into overshoot already. Were it even achievable, the instantaneous cessation of all GHG emissions by mankind, even if held to zero for the next century, might prove insufficient to keep the system from undergoing phase changes due to tipping points already committed to being passed.
  26. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    22, Mark-US. I disagree. I don't think any particular projection, or the accuracy of any projection is relevant, because no matter what happens, we don't even know at what temperature it's going to be painful. For all we know, if we were able to stop emissions dead today and just live with all of the heating in the pipeline, it may still be too much. In fact, we may find over time that even without more warming in the pipeline, what we have now is too much. So who really cares if AR17's Senario SXb83 projection is 3.76˚C by 2057,or whatever? What matters is how bad the damage is to our environment, and this past year's events demonstrate that we have already played this game for far, far too long. I would argue that looking for better accuracy in such projections (as has been Eric's bent on this recent thread) is just another red-herring, another denial method of avoiding what needs to be done.
  27. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Igeoffchambers@147: "After at first being told that John Cook was too busy to answer my questions" Now that is a distortion of what was said. Early in the comments, someone else had asked what the best way to contact John Cook would be, and a couple of people (neither named John Cook, and neither being people that could be interpreted as speaking directly on his behalf) had the following comments: "curiousd, John Cook like most of the contributors to SkS is very busy, and not paid for his contributions to SkS, nor for hosting it. I am sure that he attempts to read the comments on a regular basis, so that commenting here or on the SkS facebook page are probably among the most reliable ways to contact him. There is, however, no guarantee. For what it is worth, I have drawn attention to the fact that you are trying to contact him on another forum I know he frequents. There is no guarantee that he'll read that, either, and even if he does he may well be too busy in any event. " [my emphasis] "If you want to know how John Cook interacted with Stephan Lewandowsky on his survey, you best send a querry to John via email. He's a very busy person and no longer has time to read all of the comments posted on SkS. " By your own admission in comment #147,before you could send him an email he did in fact email you. To try to pretend that anyone implied that you would not get a response, as you seem to have done here, would not be discussing in good faith. If you worded that poorly, and did not mean to imply this, then an apology would be a good step to restore some faith. Alternatively, if there is another comment in this thread that you think can be interpreted in such a fashion, feel free to point to it. (Note that I have already looked for all occurrences of the word "Cook", and "busy", and checked to see if any of the moderators comments suggest that something has been snipped.)
  28. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "What climate impact will a summer ice-free Arctic bring to the World?" In the UK, possibly very wet summers and higher food prices if this year is anything to go by.
  29. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "After my drubbing on ozone there's no point to arguing, just learning." Dale, as a working scientist, I have to respond two ways.. 1) Wah. Science is a *blood sport,* pal, and I *garontee* ya, it get way more brutal than ~anything~ you've had as any "drubbing" you've gotten here. Though true scientists don't often get too caught up in the ad homs, D-K, or confirmation biases traps, we most *assuredly* will rip at another's _work_ like piranhas on a cow crossing the stream...that's just how it works, and it works quite well. To be a scientist, you need a *really* thick skin, and the ability to not take it personally. You've made some--actually, a lot of--classical denier/fake skeptic arguments and if you've read along in this blog for any substantive time (or any credible, "real" science-based blog), you should expect to be called onto the data carpet for them. It's just how it's done, and that leads me to... 2) Having my interpretive head handed to me, on more occasions that I care to admit, *were* the pivotal "learning" moments for me. Keep learning, be willing to admit that maybe, just ~maybe~, the couple thousand climate scientists who live, eat, breathe, sleep, fart, sweat, and argue this for their livings, might just know a few more things about your many-times-debunked stands, and/or have already asked/been asked the same questions, posed the same deniers' arguments, and give them that they likely recognize when goal posts have been shifted. I ain't been around the world, Dale, but I've been around the block, and I'll go out on a limb and say, even the most aggressive here, who 'slice-n-dice' your, and other's, arguments against the known state of the science, most likely just want learning to occur, maybe even more so to those who really are fake skeptics, but might jsut reach a 'tipping point, if I may use the term, into being true skeptics. After all, that is what a true scientist is, and is why they can spot a fake one at a country mile. Ask questions, by all means but if, within that question you assert some D-K claptrap, or an oft-repeated, oft-debunked denier's stand, expect to be drubbed...then move on to the next step in learning. To paraphrase a funny saying: the drubbings will continue until morale improves..;)
    Moderator Response: [DB] To be fair, Dale's question was phrased innocuously and seems genuine; he should be accorded the benefit of the doubt when he does so. If that innocuousness ceases and other things emerge, we should deal with it at that point. We are here to help others learn; this includes all parties who should wish to do so.
  30. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    That's right, Geoff, you have wide latitude to create your own reputation, establish the worth readers will attach to your comments. You claim you understand social science but your ability to describe let alone support your misgivings about Lewandowsky's work belies your confidence. That's a problem you can repair but doing so will require a lot of effort, as you'll see if you follow my tip to obtain a research methods syllabus for a PhD social science program. The fellow who runs Science of Doom is exemplary in terms of showing the potential of autodidactic learning. I wonder if there's a site similar to SoD that's devoted to cognitive psychology as opposed to geophysics?
  31. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Just for the record, Eric's initial premise in his opening comment on this thread was:
    Briefly, a large majority of skeptics agree with the 97% of climate scientists on AGW.
    This comment thread has all by itself proven that premise to be 100%, categorically false.
  32. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Thanks to those who answered my question. No thanks to 33 & 34. Can't a guy just ask a question to learn? After my drubbing on ozone there's no point to arguing, just learning.
    Moderator Response: [DB] A fair point; point taken. I have issued some guidance to all parties in the response to the comment after this one. This is a place of learning for all who should wish to do so. Everyone please comport yourselves accordingly. Thanks in advance.
  33. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    This article went up on 16 July and attracted 5 comments in the first six weeks. In the week since I posted comment number 6, there have been a further 140 comments. Nine of these were requests by me for simple information about SkepticalScience’s involvement in publicising the Lewandowsky survey. After at first being told that John Cook was too busy to answer my questions, I was finally told that I should contact him via his private email. Before I could do so, he contacted me, offering to answer my questions. In an exchange of eight emails, I learned that Skepticalscience had indeed received a request from Lewandowsky on 28 August 2010, and that Cook had replied that he would put up a post the same day. But Cook was unable to tell me when the post went up or when it was deleted, and he ignored my questions about comments; were there comments to the post, and if so, were they still available? SkS keeps a file of comments deleted by moderators. It seems inconceivable that they would have deleted bona fide comments, even if the post was taken down at the end of the 2/3-month survey period. I ask again; were there comments to the post publicising the Lewandowsky survey, and if so, do they still exist? doug Moderation here is firm but fair. I see nothing in the rules that states that all comments must be of PhD standard.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The Deleted Comments bin contains the most recent 60 comments not compliant with the Comments Policy. As such, the current list goes back to 5:02 am on August 25, 2012 (Brisbane, Australia time).

    Only those comments not in compliance with the Comments Policy receive moderation (excepting the helpful response to those occasional comments seeking aid, like this one). Every effort is made to avoid deletion of comments, which is a distasteful last resort. Even then, some participants give the moderation staff no choice but to delete comments.

  34. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "But he won't put up with bullshit that runs up against his own expertise, which puts him at odds with Lindzen, Christy, Spencer ..." Well, IMO, that makes him a valuable "skeptic:" I've run into the same, in the car game over the years, and though I hesitate to give them long shrift, as it were, I cannot give them short shrift either. I've experienced folks who were like that, and eventually, if they remain a true skeptic, they ofttimes finally, if highly begrudgingly, move over away from the Dark Side.
  35. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    funglestrumpet @37 - The Washington Times is like WUWT. Anyone reading it is already a lost cause.
  36. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "Ah....a *really* focused denier," perhaps?" I think he deserves the "skeptic" label. He generally refuses to get drawn in on the bigger debate other than rant against the IPCC at times, so it's hard to fully understand his position. But he won't put up with bullshit that runs up against his own expertise, which puts him at odds with Lindzen, Christy, Spencer ...
  37. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean, " The examples chosen as cherry-picking are not really cherry picking, they just look like assertions to me..." That really is an asinine comment. There is no reason why a cherry pick cannot be presented via an assertion. For example, from our very own Bob Carter, parroted ably by a poor apology for an anthropologist on an adjacent blog: "The planet hasn't warmed since 2001" That is both a (false) assertion and simultaneously a cherry pick. Attempting to redefine what a cherry pick is won't work on this blog.
  38. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    dhogaza@38: in reading otherr stuff Leif's posted, along with the occasional brickbat aimed at the IPCC, I have begun to come to the understanding that your comment above ends up at: "Here's my hypothesis - Leif's a skeptic who thinks climate science is pretty much crap and so full of errors as to be something to ignore. However, he can't quite bring himself to deny the fruits of his own research ..." Ah....a *really* focused denier," perhaps?
  39. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @Dale #31 - I am not a climate scientist, but I read what I can. In the short term (meaning, this may have started already) there is some belief (results from models, interpretation of recent weather patterns) that it leads to slower, loopier Rossby waves. These are the waves in the jet stream that separate temperate air from arctic air. Slower Rossby waves mean that whatever weather we have, will "stick" more often; if it's hot, it will stay hot for longer, and if it's cold, it will stay cold for longer, if it's raining, it will rain for more days. Loopy waves mean that we might get unusual cold spells in the south, and warm spells in the north. I first read about this at Early Warning. Note that some of the recent weather extremes we've seen -- extended cold snaps, extended drought, extended rain and flooding -- are all consistent with this hypothesis, and they're also pretty darn expensive. A disappearing ice cap prompts quite a few medium-term worries. #1, it's strong evidence that our climate models are overconservative. #2, it's a huge climate input that is not included in models, and it's an input that is superficially in the warming direction (reduced polar albedo). #3, there's a fear that arctic methane will be released by a warming environment, and this will lead to additional warming. All these things lead to #4, that we may have completely botched our predictions about how quickly the Greenland ice cap may flow into the ocean, and that sea level may rise more quickly, and that we may see other effects from an infusion of fresh water into the North Atlantic.
  40. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "I'm embarrassed to say, but before your post I had not run into/noticed any reference to Leif; by looking at his CV, his data compilation, and reading through his measured, stridently *non* ad-hom responses on WUWT, I am *impressed.* I also notice that, unlike many other posts at WUWT, where someone with verifiably-good chops, viz. climate science/associated fields, chime into to 'conversations,' Tony usually can't resist sticking his smarmy, ad-homm-my comments in....dead *silence* from him on this one. I have a hypothesis: when Watts knows he's *w-w-w-way* out of his league (I know, I know, 'doesn't take much'...) he at least has the smarts to STFU." Here's my hypothesis - Leif's a skeptic who thinks climate science is pretty much crap and so full of errors as to be something to ignore. However, he can't quite bring himself to deny the fruits of his own research ... You'll find him often saying stuff like "even though the consensus as represented by the IPCC is totally wrong, don't make yourself foolish by claiming that changes in TSI have caused recent warming, because TSI hasn't really changed significantly as my own research shows". (that's a paraphrase based on his general position.) He's one of the few posters there who are skeptical and have any credibility and his bottom-line conclusion doesn't differ much from Watts' even though he tries to set people straight on one specific area of denialist beliefs. Watts puts up with the latter because Leif is "reliable" on the big picture, IMO.
  41. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Geoff, you've seen the gold standard for dilettante critique of Lewandowsky. Your "contribution" doesn't overlap with that space at all, has instead been concentrated on chronological trivia. You say you understand how social scientists work? Ok, by that I take it you're claiming you have a grasp of some branch of social science at the PhD level, even if you've not actually produced a dissertation. That's not impossible but we have only your word for it. Why not show how you're capable of working at the level of a social scientist? Produce a critique of Lewandowsky's work at an academic level, a comment that might be suitable for publication, something relying on formally established alternatives to the methods chosen by Lewandowsky and employing those to show what's wrong with with his work. Don't skip anything, don't imply "trust me," don't leave anything to our imaginations. Failing that, recognize that you don't understand how social scientists work, consider instead being suitably humble and circumspect.
  42. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dana @ 4 The problem is that the general public, on whom the politicians depend for votes, do not know that a body of opinion exists that "Soon and Briggs are not worth taking seriously." So when they see an article such as the one referred to, they have no reason not to believe it, and, therefore, the less reason the politicians feel the need for action. Let's face it, if politicians were going to act responsibly of their own accord, they would have done so by now and we would not even be facing ice-free Arctic summers.
  43. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Something is missing from the cryo sciences if the range of prediction is so great. Since we have never had a polar ocean that was ice free, hence never really could study it well. We may have nifty models of ocean heat retention that may help us model - but there are too many loose cannon tipping points: - Strong polar storms (slush makers), - Methane release (how fast?), - Strange new biomasses in the ocean (with seasons of constant sun, what can we predict?), - Coal dust aerosol-fed albedo changes (how dark will it go?) - Oil drill spill risk (just what would a sheen of crude do to ice formation?) - 17,000 Russian casks of high level radioactive waste suddenly uncovered (any studies done for an enclosed ocean?) - a few undersea earthquakes (means open water tsunamis). Lots of questions left.
  44. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean Lamb - " The examples chosen as cherry-picking are not really cherry picking, they just look like assertions to me..." Just for clarity, quoting from the ever-popular Wiki on the Cherry Picking fallacy:
    ...the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.
    So yes - arguments that we haven't seen warming in insignificantly short time periods, or at a single temperature station, or that a particular glacier is actually growing - these are all cherry-picking, ignoring the full body of evidence in favor of a tiny subset that matches desired conclusions. In other words, those arguments are fallacies.
  45. Philippe Chantreau at 01:35 AM on 10 September 2012
    A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    SL, John Cook knows very well what cherry-picking is, you're the one who does not seem to understand: the people arguing that "it hasn't warmed since [insert whatever date here] cherry pick a part of the temperature record too short to indicate any kind of trend. It is entirely cherry picking: isolating a period over which the natural variation is much greater than the trend, and over which the natural variation happens to go slightly down. Some on this site have picked periods as short as 6 years to try to make that argument. Strangely enough, the same people often argue that 30 years of satellite records is not enough to detect a real trend in Arctic se ice and that natural variation may very well be the cause of the observed trend there. That's one way you can identify fake skeptics. As for your personal example, the way it is worded can allow you to disguise it as something else than the usual non sequitur, which goes "it has happened for other reasons before so it is happening for other reasons now." The disguise was so transparent that John Cook saw right through it. Nonetheless, to honor the carefully crafted wording of your specific argument, let's examine it as you have it worded: it has happened for other reasons before so we can't be sure that it's not happening again for other reasons now. I'm not sure about a latin name for it, but the argument is flawed and has no place in a rational scientific discussion. Let's imagine that a patient shows up in the ED with wheezing, a cough, enlarged lower extrenmities, who confesses she hasn't taken her "water pills" lately because she ran out and they're too expensive. You could argue that she's had coughing and wheezing before because of common colds and decide not to treat for congestive heart failure because a common cold can't be ruled out this time. That would be utterly stupid but justified according to your reasoning. In fact, even after obtaining lab results showing an elevated BNP and an echo showing enlargement with reduced ejection fraction, you could still argue the same thing, since it can not be absolutely ruled out that she's not coughing because of a common cold. The reasoning is profoundly flawed.
  46. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @ mercl #29: I too am proud to be called an "alarmist." In a very real sense, all SkS authors are "alarmists." Many historical figures, including Paul Revere, were alarmists.
  47. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @ Bernard J #33: Not only is Dale prone to shifting the goal posts, he simultaneously manages to meander all over the field. As such, the "ostrich" label cannot be applied to Dale because an Ostrich cannot keep its head buried in the sand and at the same time meander all over.
  48. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric@65: "...I support much of CATO's stand on personal freedom and will not disassociate with them..." Well, there we go. I was reading along with this and one wag stated something to the effect this 'thread would be meaningless.' Au contraire. That statement, coupled with yours, is *perfect* for supporting John Cook's original thesis of this post, and you could not have done a better job of typifying, both "knee jerk" PNS, and the stand of every CATO admirer I've *ever* run into. at least you have the good graces to acknowledge that Pat Michaels doesn't know his....from an ozone hole in the air! At least that puts you ahead of the majority of CATOians I've had the pleasure to "discus" this topic with. As always, I learn as much or more from the comments in a post as I do from the post.
  49. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Also, Carrick's finding of one paper that gives a most likely value of 2C rather than 3C (even if the authors themselves had not declared that the value is probably too low) doesn't contradict Lloyd's statement that "Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C". Multiple lins of evidence do support this, even if Carrick can cherrypick a small number of papers that suggest it's lower. His effort does fit in with the observations of the original post though ...
    Moderator Response: [DB] All parties: please take further discussion of climate sensitivity to the appropriate thread. Thank you all.
  50. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Carrick: "Lloyd Flack: Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C. Not really, cloud sensitivity is all over the place and a chief source of uncertainty in equilibrium CS. Reference." Not really, really. The paper referenced by James Annan includes 3C sensitivity in its 95% confidence interval. While it's true the most likely value computed in the paper is 2C, the authors have this to say about their own work: "The estimate of S presented here is likely to be underestimated because the net forcing of the other indirect effects are likely to be negative (Forster et al., 2007)." If they're correct about their own work, we end up back in the 3C ballpark. Their estimate also has a nice tail to the right which isn't really comforting for those of us who, say, wouldn't feel comfortable playing russian roulette even if the revolver has say 30 or 40 chambers rather than 6 ...

Prev  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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