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  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  Next

Comments 55651 to 55700:

  1. IPCC is alarmist
    @Rob 105 'Anthropogenic atmospheric aerosols are believed to be a significant climate forcing agent, probably second only to greenhouse gases in their effect on global temperature in the past century [Houghton et al., 2001]. However, the history of atmospheric aerosols is not nearly as well known as that of most gases because of the short atmospheric lifetime of aerosols and thus their very heterogeneous spatial distribution. Moreover, the climate effect of aerosols is complex, as some aerosols cause cooling while others are believed to cause warming.' page 3.
  2. Rob Honeycutt at 10:33 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum @ 104... And so you think that the large spacial distribution of CO presented in DB's gif is... bush fires? Maybe I've not been watching the news closely enough. Are there massive bush fires occurring in Beijing and Tianjin?
  3. IPCC is alarmist
    Tom@103 I was talking bout anthropogenic aerosols not emissions. Why post a diagram of CO, CH4 etc when they are NOT aerosols?
  4. Rob Honeycutt at 10:29 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum @ 104... Ummm... No. Just read page three and there is nothing there that talks about the atmospheric lifetime or spacial distribution of black carbon. They discuss accumulation over time. There is certainly nothing there to support your 10 km statement.
  5. IPCC is alarmist
    Rob @101 - page 3 of the report Rob @102 - Bushfires for example generate huge amounts of carbon monoxide.
    Moderator Response: [DB] You have yet to fulfill the challenges you have assigned yourself in comments 81 and 94 earlier in this thread. You will be held accountable to fulfill those commitments.
  6. IPCC is alarmist
    To clarify, as can be seen in this image of various emissions with short dwell times in the atmosphere, they have, as Krisbaum puts it "a very heterogeneous spatial distribution": However, just because concentrations are strongest near there source, and fall of rapidly with distance does not mean emissions do not result in significant concentrations hundreds of miles away, or that relatively remote locations will not have sufficient concentration to track changes in emissions. Indeed, if you look at the record for aerosol emissions (center top), you will see that individual cities are not clearly delineated by the concentrations, as would be the case if their typical transit distance was limited to 10 kilometers. In that way, aerosols are different from NO2 (left top), where individual industrial centers are easily delineated. What is more, significant concentrations of aerosols are still found a couple of hundred miles of the coast, again showing the absurdity of the 10 km claim made by Krisbaum. So, once again, while Krisbaum purports to have a problem with the IPCC citing Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" on falsification, and Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" on paradigm shifts (just two of the very dubious claims of inadequate literature from Krisbaum's favourite source), he has no problem with citing non-academic websites and simply making "facts" up in support of his argument. Why then do we continue to tolerate his sloganeering? His own words have thoroughly discredited him; as has his refusal to look at the particular use made of particular citations for which he condemns the IPCC.
  7. Rob Honeycutt at 10:16 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum... I believe if you're talking carbon monoxide aerosols that would be generally accepted as anthropogenic, pretty much without saying. Unless you can think of other large sources of carbon monoxide.
  8. Rob Honeycutt at 10:11 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum @ 95... Upon a quick read of the paper you cited I can't find any reference even to the atmospheric lifetime or spacial distribution of black carbon. I don't think you've read the paper.
  9. IPCC is alarmist
    DB: i'm pretty sure you just violated your own posting rules by putting up an animated giff without any references or source whatso-ever.. How do i know you didnt just draw that animation? Where's it from? whats it really mean?
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The source website for that image is http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/. The image itself can be found here.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts, accuse others of deception and make personal attacks on other participants here, make things up and continually complain about moderation. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  10. Rob Honeycutt at 10:07 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum @ 94... Now wait a minute. When I read back on your quotes from Pachauri none of them includes a statement saying that the IPCC uses "only" peer-reviewed literature. Pachauri states that the IPCC reports are "based" on peer reviewed literature. As I tried to point out before those statements do not preclude the use of non-peer reviewed literature. And as I've pointed out there are specific IPCC rules for the use of non-peer reviewed literature that Pachauri is certainly aware of. I would suggest that you're getting worked up over a narrow semantical interpretation of Pachauri's words.
  11. IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum @89, it is common knowledge that aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime. It is not common knowledge, because it it not true, that that life time is so short that SO2 emissions in North America and Europe will not impact on SO2 concentrations in Greenland ice. Yet you quoted the made up figure of 10 km in order to rebut the evidence that relative SO2 levels neighbouring the North Atlantic are recorded by Greenland Ice Cores. Without your quotation of that extremely short figure (absurdly short, in fact), you would have had no argument. There is a name for people who make up facts in order to bolster their case. I am not permitted to use it here due to the comments policy.
  12. Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum @ 95... That's a paper on black carbon. Try again.
  13. Rob Honeycutt at 09:57 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum... I would suggest you read the rules established by the IPCC on the uses of non-peer reviewed literature. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf Do you think for some reason Pachauri would be unaware of these policies?
  14. IPCC is alarmist
    What kind of a claim do you want Rob? Go pick up a copy of 'Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols' T. Novakov,1* V. Ramanathan,2 J.E. Hansen,3 T.W. Kirchstetter,1 M. Sato,3 J. E. Sinton,1 J.A. Sathaye1 1Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
  15. IPCC is alarmist
    ' Look, Pachauri is a smart guy. He's not going to make completely unfounded statements, especially in such a high profile position. ' Rob, I just showed you how he made unfounded statements, far reaching across the media. Telling the world the reports are only based on peer reviewed literature was misleading.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Telling the world the reports are only based on peer reviewed literature"

    Only? No more making things up. Support this statement with a link to an actual, verifiable quote; this is not an optional exercise.

  16. Rob Honeycutt at 09:53 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum... "...aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime and therefore a very heterogeneous spatial distribution." Please back up this claim with some evidence.
  17. IPCC is alarmist
    Rob - maybe have a dig around the internet yourself, there's plenty of information about grey literature usage in quite important areas of the IPCC's AR4. Maybe start here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
  18. Rob Honeycutt at 09:49 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum... What? Are you looking for test scores to show that he's smart?
  19. IPCC is alarmist
    Rob; 'Look, Pachauri is a smarty guy. He's not going to make completely unfounded statements, especially in such a high profile position. ' Please back up this claim with some evidence.
  20. IPCC is alarmist
    Philipe; to expand; it is common knowledge anthropogenic aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime and therefore a very heterogeneous spatial distribution. 10km is arbitrary, I used it to simplify my statement(s).
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] This image of carbon monoxide aerosols from Asia proves you, and common knowledge, very wrong:

    The source website for that image is http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/. The image itself can be found here.

  21. michael sweet at 07:10 AM on 7 August 2012
    An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
    Dvaytw, To further Tom's comment, on Mass's blog he criticizes the model Rupp/Mote used for the comparison. Hansen used only measured data (no model data) so Mass's complaint does not apply. Since Hansen and Rupp/Mote reach similar conclusions it seems like Mass is the outlier. Mass presents no peer reviewed analysis of his own. You have to decide who you trust.
  22. An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
    dvaytw @38, you should read more carefully. Cliff Mass does not discuss Hansen's study at all. Rather, he critiques a paper by David E. Rupp and Philip W. Mote which deals exclusively with the 2011 Texas heat wave. That study claimed that global warming had made Texas 2011 heatwaves 20 times more likely in La Nina years. As it happens, the Texas 2011 was very improbable on the assumption of no global warming as can be seen by this histogram of August temperatures in Texas by the Texas State Climatologist, John Nielson-Gammon: There is no doubt that such events have become more probable because of the warming of Texas' climate, as shown in the discussion above. Whether they have become 20 times more probable, however, is open to dispute.
  23. An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
    I'm not in the least an AGW skeptic, but would like some input. This atmospheric sciences prof. Cliff Mass claims there are serious problems with Hansen's study: "Texas Tall Tales and Global Warming" http://cliffmass.blogspot.tw/2012/07/texas-tall-tales-and-global-warming.html So far I haven't been able to find a response from Hansen or his co-authors. Any thoughts?
  24. Rob Honeycutt at 02:47 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    Krisbaum... Think clearly for a moment. Is Pachauri saying that every single piece of science in the IPCC reports is peer reviewed literature. I don't think so. He's saying that the IPCC reports are "based" on the peer reviewed science. That statement does not exclude other sources. Look, Pachauri is a smart guy. He's not going to make completely unfounded statements, especially in such a high profile position.
  25. Philippe Chantreau at 01:55 AM on 7 August 2012
    New research from last week 31/2012
    As always Ari, your contribution is greatly appreciated.
  26. Philippe Chantreau at 01:24 AM on 7 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    One can always hope.Since the ball is in Krisbaum's camp, I'll add 2 questions to the challenges posed by others above. Krisbaum, How did you get the impression that aerosols travel only about 10 km from their source? How did you form the opinion that this falsehood was common knowledge?
  27. ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    John, good points there. It's a whole portfolio of weather that can at bare minimum be characterised as 'snotty'. Where one ends up under the relevant bit of each Rossby Wave tends to dictate what kind of snot one has to deal with. Here, talk is of what summer vegetables one can grow that have resilience to cool, dull and often wet weather - though I suspect this is easier to work with than severe drought.
  28. ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    I know the heat and drought that parts of the USA is going through at the moment is very severe and many people are suffering, but I wish that when scientists and others -- rightly -- highlight the role that climate change is playing in this extreme weather, they'd also mention that it's part of a wider picture that has opposing repercussions for people in other parts of the northern hemisphere. In the UK for instance so far this summer we've had two months or more of rainfall which is more than 200% over the typical monthly average creating several extreme flooding incidents (and as if to emphasis the point, the rain just started beating hard on my roof as I write this). This is echoed by even more extreme weather experienced elsewhere. It seems these events are all linked. The problem of concentrating on the heat and drought and not referencing the other repercussions, is when next winter is long and perhaps unusually cold it doesn't compute with lay people and they think you don't know what you're talking about. Now's the time to prepare them with what 'extreme' weather actually means and why it's now called 'climate change' in preference to 'global warming'.
  29. New research from last week 27-30
    Thanks for faithfully reporting so much of the ongoing research relating to climate change. This is such a great resource. Paul Vincelli University of Kentucky
  30. ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    From the Jeff Masters link: "The U.S. is the world's largest exporter of corn and wheat, and 3rd largest exporter of soybeans. According to the Christian Science Monitor, food price increases due to the U.S. drought is already causing unrest in other parts of the world: "Take Indonesia, where soybeans are used to make tofu, the staple protein for the country's poor. There, soybean prices have risen 33 percent in the past month, and are already causing tensions. On July 26, there were clashes in Jakarta and other major cities in markets as a coalition of tofu producers sought to enforce a national production strike protesting against a 5 percent soybean import duty." Comparing the 1930s drought to the 2012 drought is unsafe because in 1930 there were ca. 2 billion mouths to feed; now there are ca. 7 billion. Therefore, a severe and prolonged drought is likely to have more serious implications today.
  31. Daniel Livingston at 19:13 PM on 6 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    Fair enough reasoning, Tom Curtis @ 85. I see Krisbaum has dug more of a hole for himself than I at first realised. I hope he'll have the openness and honesty to see it.
  32. ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    I have to disagree with Shoyemore at #1. Specifically with respect to the "laughing denier", it needs to be driven home (= "clubbed" into people's heads) just how completely bonkers the denier community is. Yes, a dry, subtle presentation works for those of us reading this blog...but Sinclair's larger audience will include some people who are on the fence, or simply don't get enough exposure to the hard facts. No doubt some of them have heard the points made by the deniers, and think "Gee, I've heard somewhere that Global Warming isn't all that well-accepted." A rapier will not work on them.
  33. IPCC is alarmist
    Daniel Livingston @84, you may think it is not hypocritical of Krisbaum to use grey literature. It cannot have escaped your notice, however, that his entire argument depends on his pointing to the existence of grey literature without any discussion of the extent, quality or use of that literature. If the mere fact of literature being grey, is in his opinion, sufficient to rule it out as an acceptable source, then he is hypocritical to cite grey literature to establish his case. However, if he publicly and without equivocation states that grey literature can be of the the highest quality, and that the citation of grey literature by the IPCC in no way, by itself detracts from the quality of the IPCC reports, I will certainly withdraw the claim of hypocrisy and consider grey literature he adduces in support of his case. Without such a clear statement, however, I feel the conclusion that he is being hypocritical must stand.
  34. Daniel Livingston at 15:30 PM on 6 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    I agree with Tom here. To allow Krisbaum to register any point by claiming that Pachauri overstates his claim does not seem fair to me. I haven't seen any evidence presented that Pachauri's claims, quoted by Krisbaum or anyone else in this thread, are overstated. I.e., I agree with Tom that it can be entirely consistent to draw conclusions based only on peer reviewed literature while still citing other literature. In the absence of anyone being able to give concrete contrary examples, this is the case for Pachauri and the IPCC. It certainly is fair to state that Krisbaum's claims are overstated, and embarrassingly so. There is nothing to his claims. But it is not clear to me that Krisbaum is being demonstrably hypocritical. I don't think he is claiming that any statement should only be based on peer reviewed literature. To hold someone else to a higher standard than held for oneself is certainly likely to be unreasonable, but it need not be hypocritical. It may be that in his mind, Krisbaum merely thinks he is holding Pachauri to a self-imposed standard that Krisbaum believes Pachauri/IPCC has failed to live up to. I hope that Krisbaum has the fairness of mind to either demonstrate his claims and/or honestly admit his reasoning is at best misguided. The rest of Tom's above post makes an entirely salient point with pertinent examples, and is what Krisbaum needs to respond to in order to attempt any substantiation of his claims.
  35. ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    Well, that was depressing.
  36. IPCC is alarmist
    Krisbaum @81, I have challenged you to show an example of inappropriate use of non-peer reviewed literature in the IPCC, and you have declined to take up that challenge. The challenge included a specific element of showing were major conclusions of the IPCC were derived from grey literature of any sort (not just the non-peer reviewed grey literature). Yes, it is true that the IPCC uses grey literature. Some of that literature may even be considered inappropriate. For example, the IPCC AR4 WG1, Chapter 1 cites Gwynne, P., 1975: The cooling world. Newsweek, April 28, 64. On its face, citing an article in Newsweek is a classic example of use of inappropriate sources. However, consider the context in which it was used:
    "Not all theories or early results are verified by later analysis. In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling appeared in the popular press, primarily motivated by analyses indicating that Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperatures had decreased during the previous three decades (e.g., Gwynne, 1975)."
    So, an article from a popular news magazine was cited to demonstrate that articles about possible global cooling have appeared in the popular press. In history, that is called consulting primary sources, and is considered far preferable to consulting secondary sources, eg, a peer reviewed article about popular publications on climate change in the mid 1970s. Despite this being excellent academic practice, you want to cite this as an example of poor academic practice by the IPCC. What is more, you want to do so purely on the basis of the presence of the citation with absolutely no examination of the actual use made of the citation. Another example of grey literature in Chap 1 of WG1 is Hawking, S., 1988: A Brief History of Time. Bantam Press, New York, 224 pp. Technically, A Brief History of Time is not grey literature because it was published by a commercial publishing house. That your primary source classifies it as grey literature simply shows them to be incompetent at their self appointed task. But I will grant that it is a popular book, and probably not peer reviewed. So how was it used?
    ". It is not the belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather the results of this testing. Indeed, when Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, ‘If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!’ (Hawking, 1988); however, that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form of testable results."
    Well I'm just devastated. Clearly this hugely inappropriate use of an Einstein quotation completely overthrows any basis of confidence in IPCC reports! /sarc I say end sarc, but my sarcastic comments in fact represent your actual case. Chapter 1 of WG1 was given a grade of B for the use of non-peer reviewed sources from your favourite source. Now, first it should be noted that the majority of "grey literature" cited in the IPCC is extensively reviewed by peers of the authors before publication - as for example with white papers, or reports from scientific organizations, or indeed IPCC reports themselves. They are not grey literature because they are or are not peer-reviewed, but because of their method of publication. Second, it should be noted that your favourite sources have listed as grey literature many items which, while not peer reviewed, are in fact not grey literature. An example, the article by Agassiz, was given in my prior post. But the fact that it was not peer reviewed before publication no more makes Agassiz ground breaking work inferior science than the same lack of peer review makes Einstein's seminal papers on relativity inferior science. So, bearing in mind those two fatal flaws in their classification system, the appropriate question is how many poor quality sources have been used by the IPCC. In chapter 1 of WG1, so far as I have been able to determine - just two. The two quoted above. And as demonstrated, their use was entirely appropriate. It becomes blatantly clear that your entire argument depends on your not examining details. As an argument based on not examining details is always a con job, I would recommend that in future you only present detailed examples which are shown to be sources of poor quality (not just grey literature, and not just non-peer reviewed, but of a genuinely questionable quality) and which you show significant conclusions to depend upon, ie, the significant conclusion cannot be drawn from other sources of high quality also cited by the IPCC. If you are unwilling to take up that challenge, you show thereby that when examined in detail, there is no basis to question the IPCC's use of sources. You will also show by your failure that your entire case consists in sloganeering. Finally, you keep on coming back to quotes by Pachauri as if they somehow prove the IPCC has said it does not use grey literature despite the direct statement by the IPCC documents that they do. However, I'm game. If you want to prove Pachauri wrong, all you need to do is prove that a questionable source is relied upon by the IPCC for a main conclusion. After all, Pachauri does not say that the IPCC never cites grey literature. He says that they do not rely on non-peer reviewed literature for their findings. And that is only the case if the IPCC has a major finding which they would not have reached without the citation of dubious quality. Put simply, showing that the IPCC cited Newsweek did not prove Pachauri wrong, for no substantive conclusion about climate science was reached from that citation. PS: Given your thesis, in future I will not accept any citation by you of grey literature as evidence. You may find that embarrassing as the only evidence you have cited has all been from grey literature; but better to be embarrassed than hypocritical as you are currently being.
  37. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Caerbannog: I presume the comparison you are making is against the GISS dTs (land station) 1200km dataset? Yes, that's correct. The results were so similar to the NASA land station results that it was quite striking. In which case that seems reasonable (except the comment on memory - that should go down with a coarser grid, and should be pretty minimal anyway. Something is fishy. I'm gonna take back the comment about memory usage. The first time I ran the script with the 20x20 deg grid size, my laptop went into a 10-minute "swap-fest", where it was completely unusable. Assumed that was due to memory consumption (was reluctant to run the script again to verify that). After seeing your reply here, I decided to reboot my system, and run the script again. This time, it ran w/o any problems.
  38. IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum, where did Michael say "leader of their field"? He said "lead writer" or "lead author." You also say that the IPCC reports are not based on peer-reviewed literature. That is not true. They are based on both peer-reviewed literature and grey literature. The quantities of both categories have been amply given. If a building rests on a foundation of 4000 blocks of granite and five blocks of sandstone, is it fair to say that the building does not rest on granite? The people on this website find the IPCC to be an excellent resource, because the IPCC has gathered and summarized published climate research. Why wouldn't the IPCC be a good resource? It's a huge, multifaceted project. You use the nitpick of Pachauri to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. It's like me saying, "Well Anthony Watts' new study did not take time-of-day into account. Therefore, all 'skeptics' should be ignored (because they're frauds, man!)."
  39. michael sweet at 11:46 AM on 6 August 2012
    ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    Camburn had a post that was deleted claiming the current drought is not as bad as the 50's and 30's. Jeff Masters here summarizes the current state as the drought and gives figures to compare to the historical record. You can decide how the current drought compares to 1934 and 1954. Scroll down past the hurricane data to see the drought.
  40. IPCC is alarmist
    Tom@77; ' Your attack on the IPCC's integrity is based on the fact that the IPCC uses grey literature, and indeed it says it does.' Tom, I have repeated the point a few times now. Pachauri and the IPCC boast that their reports are only based on Peer Reviewed literature. If the reports are not baed on Peer Reviewed literature, it should be made completely clear. eg. “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 “The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007 “This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008
    Moderator Response: [DB] You even quote Tom Curtis who points out the IPCC says it uses grey literature. Without further equivocation, please show via link to credible source where the IPCC states it only uses peer-reviewed literature. It is patently, completely clear your issue is with Pachauri, not the IPCC.
  41. Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
    NASA’s Joel Plummer does a nice job of putting the brouhaha over the Greenland ice melt story into proper perspective in When It Comes to Greenland's Glaciers, Precedence Doesn't Matter, The Huffington Post, Aug 3, 2012 Plummer ends his article with: “Currently, Greenland and Antarctica contribute approximately 1.3 millimeters to sea level rise each year, but this rate is increasing. Under the current rates of acceleration for ice sheet loss, we could expect 56 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100, from the ice sheets alone. Whether this month's extreme melt event was truly unprecedented, or part of a larger cycle, is not really the point. There exists many years of data, from multiple sources of sea level rise, to justify concern. We need not glob onto (nor dismiss) one extraordinary number to come to that conclusion.”
  42. ‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
    Good video from Peter, as usual. I must add that I do not like the technique of repeating clips of an opponent that he has used a few times now - like the "laughing denier" at about 1:38. Sinclair did the same with his interview of Marc Morano - showing Tony Soprano repeatedly seemed to me to be a ham-fisted way to make a point. My view, Peter, is that you are much better when you use a rapier instead of a club. Any semi-smart viewer knows what you mean so keep the message plain. If deniers destroy themselves out of their own mouths, viewers can get it.
  43. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Caerbannog: I presume the comparison you are making is against the GISS dTs (land station) 1200km dataset? In which case that seems reasonable (except the comment on memory - that should go down with a coarser grid, and should be pretty minimal anyway. Something is fishy.) For my latest GISTEMP-like land/ocean calc, I have a more advanced version which (optionally) uses a constant area grid (a few lines of code) and a 1200km area of influence with conical weight function (rather more, especially if you want it to run in a reasonable time. Python is slow, unless you can do everything in SciPy classes). I do the calculation twice, once using land stations, and once using pseudo-stations generated from the gridded HadSST2 data (Nick Stokes' trick). Then dump the maps and use land/ocean masked average of the grids (a separate program at the moment). The main aim of this code was to be able to turn on and off different options to go stepwise from CRU to GISTEMP and find out where the differences came from (which turned out to be less interesting than you would expect. It's just coverage). It would have been nice to do the calc at #1 using Clear Climate Code, but I've never got it working on GHCN3 data, and I'm not sure they are maintaining it. Your original SkS post and comments gave me the leg up I needed to get started on this. Thanks again for that.
  44. IPCC is alarmist
    Moderator, is it against the comments policy to point out evidence of motivated reasoning on Krisbaum's part?
    It [an IPCC report] is used to decide the fate of trillions of dollars of investment through carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes.
    It appears Krisbaum is concerned about the cost of mitigating AGW, and is really making an argument from consequences . If so, perhaps he should be directed to The economic impacts of carbon pricing thread.
    Moderator Response: [DB] It is always welcome to suggest more appropriate threads for portions of discussions, if applicable. The one you suggest would indeed be a valid thread to continue that portion of the discussion.
  45. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Just a couple of quick notes (and something interesting to try) re Kevin C's python script. It turns out that if you modify the script slightly to generate average annual (instead of monthly) anomalies and compare your results with the official NASA/GISS meteorological stations index, you will see that there's a pretty decent match, albeit with the python script output showing a bit more warming than the NASA/GISS results do. This is most likely due to the fact that the GHCN network samples that SH more sparsely than the NH, and as a result, you have more empty 5degx5deg grid cells in the SH than you do in the NH. Since the script does not interpolate to empty grid-cells, this causes the NH (which has warmed more than the SH) to be overweighted in the global averages, with the result being more apparent warming than the NASA/GISS results show. You can get around this by adding grid-cell interpolation code to the script (way too much work) or simply by increasing the grid-cell sizes from 5x5 to 20x20 degrees (a lazy boy's approach that works surprisingly well). If you plot the output of the script with the above mods (annual instead of monthly anomalies, 20x20 grid-cells) along with NASA/GISS results, you will see that the python script results match the NASA/GISS results ***amazingly closely***. A quick word of caution: Memory consumption with 20x20 grid-cells goes way up -- the run brought my old laptop w/1G memory to its knees. Make sure that you have at least 2G of memory (and no other memory-hogging apps running) before you try this.
  46. michael sweet at 02:23 AM on 6 August 2012
    Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
    Jyushchyshyn: I am sorry, when you said "James Hansen also says that we should never build anymore coal fired power plants. But does this mean that we should shut them down before zero emission replacements come on line?" here I must have misunderstood you.
  47. IPCC is alarmist
    I think it's simple question time: What does the IPCC's use of grey literature mean for you, krisbaum?
  48. michael sweet at 00:25 AM on 6 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    Tom @ 74, Your point that lead authors are part of a team is well made. I reviewed the CV of the author that Krisbaum linked to. Apparently he had received a MS in Geology shortly before the 1994 IPCC report and received his PhD in 2004 after he was a lead author. He remains an expert in the field. I noticed in his list of publications an unusually large number of book chapters. From this I conclude that the author is an exceptional writer and summarizer of others work, just what you need for a lead author of a summary report. It is typical of fake skeptics to make mountains of nits that are irrelevant to the point. In any case, if you have to go back to 1994 to find an author that you think might have been inappropriate for an unpaid position writing a report that was not very important at the time you are looking very hard to be disappointed. When did you last cite the 1994 report? Where I live it is 2012. This shows that all of the writers for the third and fourth IPCC reports were qualified.
  49. Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
    michael sweet I never claimed that James Hansen or anyone else advocated shutting down coal plants before zero emission replacements come on line.
  50. Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
    michael sweet I never made any such claim.

Prev  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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