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  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  Next

Comments 54501 to 54550:

  1. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Gack
  2. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    What an enjoyable post and threads....
  3. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @ 15 Adrian Smits We have records going back more than 50 years: Temperatures North of 80 degree North Unfortunately for your claim they show warming, not cooling. As pointed out above, that warming is limited as long as the polar ice cap remains. However, since other data shows the icecap is melting (getting thinner), you'll really have to provide something more than your opinion to show that it won't ever completely melt.
  4. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    "Micah, sorry, my fault. I brought up the politics. It's better for me to stay on the sensitivity thread instead." It's good that you did, because it fits with the claim that right-wing politics is a good predictor of denialism. We know your arguments regarding sensitivity are bollocks, it's good to know why you hold on to your views despite an overwhelming amount of science. If you're right, you're not just Galileo ... you're Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, Darwin and others rolled into one.
  5. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I was a little amused to see this under examples of "Magnifying dissenters and non-experts" (emphasis mine) "Nils-Axel Mörner,"... "and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing." ... not even trying?
  6. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric, you seem to forget that when we estimate the temperature sensitivity we are not looking at a process and projecting it forward in time. Rather we are looking at equilibrium points. If we make this disturbance in the heat balance, how much does the temperature have to change to reestablish equality of heat input and output. We can split the temperature sensitivity into four components. The first is the direct effect of the non precipitating greenhouse gases being introduced. The next is the effect of the feedback from changes in precipitating greenhouse gases, water vapor on Earth). The next is other atmospheric feedbacks, primarily clouds. The final one is non atmospheric feedbacks, primarily albedo changes and release from or absorption by natural reservoirs of greenhouse gases. The Charney sensitivity is the product of the first three and the Earth System sensitivity is the product of all four. Let's do a ballpark estimate of the sensitivity. The estimates from complex models will not be greatly different from these.. Now the direct effect of adding CO2 is a straightforward matter of spectral chemistry and radiative physics. It is agreed to be 1.2° C for a doubling of CO2. Given how much water vapor in the atmosphere changes as a result of temperature changes it is again straightforward to calculate its effect. The difficulty is that water vapour is not well mixed in the atmosphere. Still on average we will have the specific humidity increasing to keep the relative humidity roughly constant. Measurements can be and are taken of the changes in concentration that temperature changes bring. This effect is roughly a doubling. This already brings the sensitivity up to 2.4° C for a doubling of CO2, within the usually accepted range of estimates for the Charney sensitivity. Other atmospheric feedbacks is the difficult one. It is composed of circulation changes and cloud changes. The latter look like the big ones and they are composed both of positive feedbacks from trapping head and negative feedbacks from reflecting it back into space. Most estimates from models come up with a small positive net feedbacks but there is a large range including small negative or larger positive net feedbacks. Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C. For this to be wrong you either need the effect of water vapour to be greatly in error of you need a large negative feedback from clouds. Do you have any evidence of either of these? For evidence of the water vapour feedback being wrong you need to point to different estimates of that effect with sound justifications for those effects. These need to be calculations from empirical evidence of the water vapour changes. For a large negative feedback from clouds, again evidence is needed. It is hard to estimate the vale of the non atmospheric feedbacks but there is no doubt about their sign. Paleoclimatic evidence support a doubling but since we are starting from a smaller ice cover than the transition out of glacials this is probably a bit high. But there is no way that the albedo changes will be anything but a positive feedback. And as for the release of greenhouse gases from permafrost etc. it's impossible for them to be negative. So evidence please that some of the estimates of these components are greatly in error.
  7. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dagold, try this one: [Source]
  8. It's cooling
    I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for these questions. 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. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @Sphaerica (14), the end-run is interesting from a science perspective certainly.... but we need political action, and that's going to be driven not so much by longterm climate sensitivity but by projections the average person can understand. For A1Fi, IPCC projected in AR4 a likely temperature range at the end of the century. My common sense says that temp range at that date assumed lots more cryosphere albedo in mid-century than it appears we are really going to have. With it removed, (and together with all the other feedbacks we've learned about too) IPCC's upper boundary for A1Fi at the end of the century should go up, yes?
  10. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Micah, sorry, my fault. I brought up the politics. It's better for me to stay on the sensitivity thread instead. In the big picture threads like this don't matter. There are thousands of links into skepsci and there won't be any to this thread (they would link to John's original article). It's almost completely inconsequential.
  11. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    @mikeh1: On the other hand, Eric is entertaining us with a never-ending version of the Dance of the Climate Ostrich.
  12. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    Love this article! I noted Dr. Moore's tendency toward Gish Gallop in a lengthy serial review of his book I wrote last year. I don't have the science chops the author, but found the Moore diatribe around global warming to be easy for even a semi-literate bloke like myself to take apart. he unfortunately has cultivated a following up here in Western Canada as a "sensible environmentalist", which means he has some Envrionmental credibility due to his PhD in Ecology and his Greenpeace roots, but he is sensible enough to say whatever his funding industry likes to hear. Moore's autobiography is an interesting read, part because of the tales of adventure on the sea from the early days of Greenpeace, and partly as a long game of "find the logical fallacy" as he tries to argue that the Envrionment is doing OK, and we should worry more about jobs.
  13. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    timothyh @ 51 says "it is important to rebut the denialists" That is true up to a point. The problem is that in the blog format that is favoured by climate science sites, the deniers get to frame the debate. Look at this thread. Eric (skeptic) has diverted it into a off-topic discussion of his right-wing views - his "climate science" which he believes is so "sophisticated" compared to poptech is really the same old tripe that you can read over at the models thread but stated more politely. The debate is asymmetric - WUWT simply dump posts or ban posters they find challenging - yet climate science sites provide a platform for the denier trolls. My point is that there needs to be more focus on outreach. The Conversation has an objective of doing that but it is effectively nullified by complete lack of moderation. It is like explaining evolution by debating creationism - seriously - is that the best way to do it? That seems to me to fly in the face of John Cook's warnings in The Debunking Handbook.
    Response: [JC] Note that the Debunking Handbook doesn't say "don't engage misinformation", on the contrary. What it does say is when you engage misinformation, put the emphasis on the core facts you wish to communicate, rather than the myth. Practical applications of this are simple practices like avoiding using the myth as the headline of your debunking. In fact, in an educational setting, it's been shown that directly refuting myths is more effective in reducing the influence of misinformation than simply teaching the facts. The lesson from the Debunking Handbook is that we should debunk myths, but do it right.
  14. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    re" 65 Do you support CATO's longtime paid support of the rights of tobacco companies to kill children slowly?
  15. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    excuse this somewhat off topic- but it does have to do with global temp and ice melt!: I simply have been unable to find a graph of temp. records going back to 400,000 BC (a la Vostock) which include the last century of warming to present date (the 'hockey stick)- can only find graphs that have us still below 'Holocene Climactic Optimum'. I need this for a presentation to demonstrate how close we are (a la Hansen's 2C warning) to the Eemian maximum. Anyone?
  16. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Adrian's remark is in keeping with "Because the freezing point of sea water at MSLP is -2°C, global warming is falsified."
  17. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Michael, my claim is fairly narrow: that the use of paleo evidence should point to a lower sensitivity considering the uncertainties (underestimated dust, ignoring the positive feedback of benign interglacial weather with lower latent heat flux). I do not claim that there are not new positive feedbacks that will raise S that were not part (or not a major part) of the G to IG transition. As for your question which is how does albedo change now compare to albedo change from G to IG in order for S to be similar. The answer is it is not comparable. First of all, earth-averaged albedo can vary week to week to cause 0.1C or more of warming or cooling in GAT, so random fluctuations in cloud albedo overwhelms surface changes like snow and ice loss in the short term. Over the long term the albedo evidence is mixed. One problem is the influence of decadal cycles. Here's an older paper showing a long term decline followed by a short term rise: Changes in Earth’s Reflectance over the Past Two Decades I'm sure there are more recent articles but I don't have one handy. But it does not appear that the melting snow and ice has much of an effect on albedo.
  18. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, So if you discount all the feedbacks the climate sensitivity would only be 1C. You have hit the nail right on the head! Everyone knows this, why didn't you suggest it sooner? Unfortunately, there are copius positive feedbacks and much less negative ones. The final climate sensitivity including feedbacks is estimated to be 3C for the short term and 6C for the long term. Too bad for all those people in 200 years! You must include the feedbacks. As for a lack of ice feedbacks, please provide me a calculation of the feedback due to the current loss of snow cover in the northern hemisphere (see the global snow lab at Rutgers for data) and the albeido response for the loss of Arctic sea ice. The sea ice alone has been estimated as equal to 20 years of CO2 emissions. The snow loss is comparable. Deniers make such absurd arguments. Are you really completely uninformed about the snow and ice loss you so easily dismiss? Please read up on the background information so your claims become more realistic.
  19. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Sph@10:So, because of your suggestion: -My learning curve got a bit more steep, and; -I've set myself to studying Leif's work. 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. Lastly, to adrian smits: *Really?* Have you ~read~ any receent temperature graphs? Now, off to do some heavy reading about solar stuff.....
  20. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sphaerica, regarding my "knee-jerk science rejection", I pointed out in comment two that the 3% properly applies to rejections of GHE. After essentially being asked what I reject, I said high sensitivity was one example. I accept some and reject some of this attribution. I accept Arctic amplification, chuck101, but it is over-represented in the sensitivity analysis which assumes similar albedo changes from glacial to present as from present to double CO2. I accept the fact that the atmosphere is a commons, but I have issues with some cost estimates (some time I will look for a suitable thread). I accept this challenge for the right with the important caveat that I support much of CATO's stand on personal freedom and will not disassociate with them except to confirm that CATO employee Pat Michaels is an editorialist, not a scientist In short I am as "knee jerk" as one would expect coming from a libertarian mindset, but not as knee jerk as some (e.g. poptech), so that is a good thing.
  21. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Adrian, In ninth grade science we teach the students that a phase change occurs at a constant temperature. The temperature north of 80 will be approximately 1C until all the ice melts. When the energy increases the ice melts faster but the temperature stays the same. Then it will increase in temperature. Until all the ice is gone the sign of a phase change is the ice is getting thinner. Hey presto! The ice is getting thinner as expected.
  22. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    15, Adrian Smits, Keep telling yourself that.
  23. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    That's a good idea. I found ref 59: Schneider_etal_climate_sensitivity.pdf
  24. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "Indeed, it was featured prominently at WUWT.
    Just pathetic that WUWT uncritically reposts this utter garbage, their readers eat it up with a spoon, and they expect us to consider them skeptics. I'd really love to know what TSI data Soon and Briggs used. ACRIM generally finds the biggest TSI increase in recent decades (still essentially zero). I downloaded the data (from here), and it shows essentially zero trend from 1979 to 2000. The Soon and Briggs plot on the other hand shows about a 1 W/m2 TSI increase over that period. It's nonsense.
  25. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    The area north of 80 degress will never be ice free. It has actually cooled a bit in the last 50 years!
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "It has actually cooled a bit in the last 50 years"

    Simply making things up does not assign you any credibility. Unless you have a source for this unsupported assertion?

  26. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    @GeoffChambers #142: Dang, you broke the code. You should seriously consider applying for a job with MI5. Then again, you may already work for MI5.
  27. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, You are very confused. If you insist on pursuing this course, I strongly suggest that you read a copy of K&H (link in the post above), and also find and read copies of each of the studies included in K&H, so that you will then know which studies did or did not use what sorts of models or observations, what their range of estimate was, what the certainties/error bars were, etc. [You are on the right track by noticing that there is no probability function in some of the estimates, because yes, they did not use models or have a broad sampling of statistical data, and so their estimate was as simple as a low and a high value with a best guess. But again, your propensity to then immediately gravitate to the low values and ignore the rest is indefensible. Denial, plain and simple.]
  28. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    MarkUS, Just my opinion, but I wouldn't think so. What is surprising about the cryosphere right now is the unexpected rate of change, but in the end what we care about is climate sensitivity. What we're seeing in the Arctic will almost certainly result in positive feedbacks happening sooner and boosting temperatures sooner, but those feedbacks are basically "already included" in the estimated 2 to 4.5C climate sensitivity. If you want to talk about an actual temperature projected for any specific year based on a model ensemble, then yes, they may need to be adjusted upwards because the models did not predict an Arctic collapse happening this fast. But the expected end result -- the warming from X CO2 -- should be about the same.
  29. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dirt Girl, Like I said, just look for Lief's comments. They're vary short, simple and to the point, a lone voice of reason in a rather wild jungle. And he almost always provides links to supporting data. Right from the start you can see that the Soon/Briggs TSI graph bears absolutely no resemblance to reality, and in fact its hard to figure out how they got it to be shaped so close to the temperatures in question (especially when those temps are only the special 2% of the Earth that is the USA). Then of course there's always the question of why, even on their graph, as TSI goes down in the last 20 years, temps keep going up. Lastly, for fun you can read all of the nutter comments from the WUWT regulars (particularly those aimed at Lief for having the temerity to try to point out the obvious problems with the article).
  30. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    I just found an old reference ice age climate forcings and I am a little low in GHE forcing from G to IG, but probably not enough to matter much.
  31. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Sphaerica, yes, there is no other way I know of to obtain the curves that look like PDF's in the figure above. In some cases there is no curve (volcanic, LGM data, LGM models) which means there was one model run or no model runs (just an energy balance type of calculation for before and after the climate change and apportionment to CO2 and other forcings and feedbacks). Michael, you are correct in general that my estimate made dfrmo the low end of paleo data is lower than most experts in the field and I repeat from above that there are possible positive feedbacks that I am not considering when making that estimate since those are untested and unrepresented in the paleo data. But I would not combine the "PDF" evidence the way they did because I do not believe they are independent or PDF. The relevant numbers for estimating the range of sensitivity (S) are the CO2 rise from 190 to 280 with a corresponding temperature rise of 6C. The rise is a little under 1/2 of a doubling so that gives an upper bound of 12C for S. Looking raw forcing changes, albedo is 3.5 W/m2, dust is as much as 1 W/m2 and CO2 is 2 W/m2. Weather changes create energy balance changes too (although people here have argued otherwise), but for this argument we will assume that all weather changes that affect S for G to IG also apply to S from present to doubled CO2. From that evidence there is roughly 1C change per 1W/m2 of forcing. That would then imply 4C for S. But unlike glacial to interglacial, there is not a lot ice albedo change left in the current climate. Assuming there is none and no contribution from reduced dust, that cuts S to 2C. But uncertainty in glacial forcing will make that estimate lower. For example if stronger winds during the glacial period caused more net cooling (see the diagram in my post 94) then then S going forward will be lower unless average winds increase. Likewise S will be lower if factors like glacial dust were underestimated.
  32. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Once again we find that a broken clock can occasionally tell us the truth without actually being a working clock. Geoff: Social scientists are making enormous hidden assumptions about the psychology of their respondents when they put their trust in this sort of exercise. Spot-on, Geoff, you're exactly correct. Social scientists employ methods invisible to and distrusted by you because you've not spent the time necessary to understand how social scientists work. Beg, borrow or steal a research methods syllabus from a PhD social sciences program, follow the readings therein, let the shades fall from your eyes. Who knows? Your intuitions might be correct but without getting your game on you'll never be able to do more than guess, let alone usefully articulate your thoughts.
  33. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    #138 John Hartz
    Tom Curtis: Recommend that you post a survey on this thread asking our readers if their eyes glaze over when they see yet another GeoffChambers post.
    Call me a conspiracist, but that sounds like a coded warning to Tom not to fraternise with the enemy. Yes, I’ve read the deSmogasbord blog. Fair made my mouth water.
  34. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    I'd like to repeat a question I asked last week in another thread..... does the unexpected early loss of albedo in the cryosphere mean the overall temperature projections for the various SRES scenarios in AR4 (2007) have to be adjusted upwards? The only response comment was the sweeping observation that AR4 is out of date. Well, that's obvious just from the much faster than expected ice loss, and its easy to just make an assumption that the projected temperature ranges have to go up since we are reflecting less solar energy. But let's not assume. Did the AR4 models have sufficient flexibility to accommodate the sudden loss of albedo? Or if we revise the models to match observations, do the models pump out different projected temperature ranges?
  35. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric, Try opening your eyes. Arctic ice area extent is falling off a cliff. It has lost 45% of it's area in the past 30 years and more of it's volume. Why do you suppose that is happening? Or do you not accept that it is happening until your arbitrary conditions are met? If you have to wait a couple of decades for before you will acknowledge AGW where will the world be then? The loss of the arctic ice cap, which could occur in the next ten years, will have incalculable consequences, and you are still worried about low CS-inducing Arctic dust? As I said, you have it ass-backwards
  36. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Sphaerica: I figured if I posted a link to Readfern's article, GeoffChambers might not have time to post comments here. It's an obvious dilution tactic. On the other hand, Graham Readfearn may not be pleased.
  37. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    John! You showed them the secret sign! With the secret logo! Doing the secret hand wave! You're going to blow the whole conspiracy wide open! Quick, quick, delete that comment!
  38. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, you seem to be playing with words. First you say the probabilities presented by K&H are dismissed because they "are not actually PDFs but model run density functions". When presented with this inaccuracy, that much of the data is not model based, you say "the data is depicted in distributions.... I do not see any way to arrive at a PDF... without a model". So the probabilities presented by K&H are dismissed because they are either model based or else because it must be model based, because you personally don't know how they could determine a range of probabilities in any other way. Is this correct? Is this your stance? So with one sweep of the hand you dismiss thirty years of climate sensitivity studies because, in your mind, it must have come from models and you don't trust the models. How can you not recognize that your own thought patterns are based 100% in total, irrational denial?
  39. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Thanks for the responses. I try to avoid WUWT since it tends to be filled with more rhetoric than science. I didn't want to accuse them of the highly unethical practice of fabricating data without a little background checking. I find it interesting that the crew at WUWT constantly accuse the scientist of constantly making data up. In the one incidence where this has happened in my experience, the person was fired immediately. I doubt many of the people commenting there have ever actually worked in the scientific field. Fake data does not fly.
  40. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    "Unless the models can accurately predict all this evidence (to his own arbitrary standards), we can't be sure that it is happening. Or did I miss something?" As others have said - no. He provided a link to a thread at real climate posted six years ago, arguments he's repeated in every thread he's participated in here. Nothing will convince him that perhaps experts in climate modeling must might know more about the subject than he does. The attributes listed in the OP should include something regarding "a stubborn refusal to abandon a position in the face of all contrary evidence".
  41. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, I note that the line in the graphic that says "combining different lines of evidence" shows the range 1.5-5.0 C. That means 1C is 1% or less. Your argument puts you strongly in the denier campp. Please show me again how you arrived with 1C as the most plausible result. 7C is at least as likely.
  42. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    "That is where I do not believe the models have the fidelity to make an accurate projection." On the other hand, you're certain that *you* have the "fidelity" to claim a climate sensitivity on the order of 1C per CO2 doubling. This is an interesting asymmetry I see all the time in the denialsphere - everything claimed by climate science is far more uncertain than climate science claims. Yet the denialist is 100% certain that feedbacks are overwhelmingly negative (look at your latest, Eric - "Along with such severe weather I am interested in how much negative feedback is caused by that severe weather if in fact it increases on average" - the rest of us might first be interested in undertanding the *sign* of the feedback, and later the magnitude, rather than assume it's negative). And the denialist is therefore certain sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 lies far below the lower end of the accepted range (about 2C).
  43. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Let's get this discussion back on topic. If Eric wants to participate, he can try to explain how his reactions here differ from the "knee-jerk science rejection" that headlines John's original post. Eric, your position is at odds with all of the science. The details of what you disagree with and why are not relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is how your behavior closely fits the pattern of what John Cook describes.
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 04:55 AM on 9 September 2012
    A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Your reply to my point about perturbed physics experiments is pure evasion. Of course one could perform a perturbed physics experiment on just one variable, and indeed climatologists often do, but that is entirely missing the point, as I think you know perfectly well. Peturbed physics experiments can be performed to investigate the range of plausible parameter values, which is an answer to your previous question. Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself. Well all here have better things to do than respond to this sort of sophistry. You have made it clear that you are not interested in answers to your questions, so I for one will stop supplying them.
  45. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Here’s another take on the Lewandowsky survey and the consternation it has generated within Ostrichville. “Research Links Climate Science Denial To Conspiracy Theories, But Skeptics Smell A Conspiracy”.By Graham Readfearn, DeSmog Blog, Sep 5, 2012 This graphic is embedded in it. Image and video hosting by TinyPic:
  46. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric@59 "the average conditions and dynamics are linked to each other ...yet you do not need to be able to predict every single drop of the ball on a roulette wheel in order to be able to predict how to set the odds so that your casino makes money. You are completely failing to recognize that long-term statistics of the system (either the real world, or a model of that world) are sensitive to different things within the system, compared to what the short-term patterns depend on. You desperately need to learn something more about systems. From what you have written, I do not think you understand what "initial value problem" and "boundary value problem" mean (from John's comment), and why the distinction is important. This seems to be a very common error that I see in people that come to climatology from a meteorology background (not that I'm saying this means anything about your background).
  47. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Tom Curtis: Recommend that you post a survey on this thread asking our readers if their eyes glaze over when they see yet another GeoffChambers post. I know that my eyes do.
  48. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Dikran, the perturbed physics experiments are interesting. One could do entire studies on just a single parameter, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment_(meteorology) Michael, apart from paleo and volcanoes (similar to paleo), the data is depicted in distributions. When I read the methodology to turn observations into climate sensitivity estimates, for example, Wikipedia's description I do not see any way to arrive at a PDF (or something like it). If someone knows how to arrive at the PDF (or whatever) without a model, please let me know.
  49. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    3, Dirt Girl, You can get the core of your answers by reading the comments and following the links posted by Lief Svalgaard at WUWT. Short answer: Soon and Briggs manipulated/cherry-picked the data in a variety of ways to completely misrepresent things (using indefensible TSI data, using only US daytime high temperatures, etc.), and as partial evidence of this, note that their "submission" is merely an article published in the Washington Times, not a paper submitted to a journal, because it would get laughed out of just about every journal on Earth (except maybe E&E). Long answer: Look for the post.
  50. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Tom Curtis #136 I agree absolutely that the probability is that the two outliers were attempts to game the survey, and that Lewandowsky should at least have indicated their existence in the paper. He should also have looked at the distribution of sceptics and conspiracy theorists by source blog - the most basic test of any organised attempt to cheat. I’ve been thinking further about the point I made at #130 about survey design and the legitimacy or not of various responses. Imagine the researcher (let’s call her Alice) doing a follow-up interview with a respondent whose questionnaire responses arouse suspicion (call him Humpty Dumpty) Alice: “I see you’ve ticked ‘Agree strongly’ to all the questions”. Humpty Dumpty: “That’s right. I always tick the left hand box when filling in an online survey.” Alice: “So these answers don’t represent your true beliefs?” Humpty Dumpty: “Yes they do. It’s my firm belief that I should always tick the left hand box.” Alice: “But you don’t really strongly agree...?” Humpty Dumpty:”Yes I do. I strongly agree with ticking the left hand box. If I didn’t , I’d tick the right hand box wouldn’t I? That’s logic.” ... and so on. The serious point is that an interview is an artificial construct which derives its legitimacy from its similarity to other experiences in our lives. If someone stops you in the street and asks you the way to the post office, you don’t think of lying, but answer to the best of your ability. If they added: “Do you think it’s to the left or to the right? You’re not allowed to say you don’t know” you’d probably feel seriously p*ssed off, and refuse to cooperate. Telephone interviews, and even more so online questionnaires, are more removed from the face-to-face situation where human beings normally interact, and feel the natural tendency to cooperate. Social scientists are making enormous hidden assumptions about the psychology of their respondents when they put their trust in this sort of exercise.

Prev  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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