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  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  Next

Comments 55801 to 55850:

  1. michael sweet at 23:14 PM on 3 August 2012
    IPCC is alarmist
    Krisbaum, There is ample opportunity to challenge the "experts" appointed to write the IPCC reports if you can document that they are not qualified. Can you provide an example of a single one who was not qualified? Please do not waste my time claiming anyone who has a different opinion from you is unqualified, suggest only people who are really not experts in the field. The entire IPCC report is put online for comments before the final review. You, Exxon-Mobile, Anthony Watts and anyone else interested can comment and ask for changes in the wording or conclusions. How could you get more unbiased review than that? The SPM is reviewed word by word by representatives of all the countries. It is released in advance so that anyone interested can read it and develop their arguments (the draft of the scientific report is already on line for review when the SPM is written). Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration did not look out for oil interests and keep in mind the deniers arguments in this word by word review? In fact, the governments of oil producing countries, with help from the USA, diluted the conclusions of the scientists in the SPM. Your suggestion that the IPCC is alarmist is backwards, it reduces the conclusions to make AGW seem less of a problem. Are you suggesting a committee to review the work of the IPCC (which is essentially a big committee)? Who will appoint the members of this committee? If not the governments (who set up the Intergovernmental PCC) than who? Maybe you can select the members of this duplicate committee. Perhaps I can appoint a committee to oversee the one you appoint. Your suggestion is absurd. Please consider your arguments before you present them here and make sure that they make sense. Do you realize that the IPCC has only a handful of employees? The work is all done by volunteer scientists. The IPCC only coordinates the process.
  2. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Dana@43: Every so often, and against my better instincts, I'm compelled to go read up at WUWT, especially in cases such as yours, where someone on a rational blogsite mentions it. I really gotta stop that....it's like whacking meself in the head with a illogical ad hom hammer....! Thanks for your attempt to be rational and helpful: Reading the responses to your well-reasoned post on WUWT reminds me that: -This website is invaluable to those of us who actually do follow and understand the scientific method, and; -Reminds me NEVER to even try to post anything that smacks of logic and reason there. To the topic, as I read Watt's paper, I see precisely where it falls *way* short of being accepted in any decent journal, and even so, I look forward to its analysis by those much more qualified to interpret it than I. To Martin@47: You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.....
  3. Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Would anybody like to comment on this report. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/03/greenland_ice_sheet_not_about_to_disappear/ From my lay reading it suffers from the fact that it only looks back 30 years -difficult to reach any reliable conclusion in such short a time frame. Also there is no mention of the effects of fast rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on ice melt. Regards.
  4. Daniel Bailey at 22:05 PM on 3 August 2012
    Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Any one melt season typically melts less of the GIS ice sheet than the thickness of your topmost layer of skin. In the case of the GIS, the majority of that melt is compacted snow, not ice. Extreme melt seasons of the GIS mean that instead of the lower reaches being the ablation zone (where mass is lost) and the upper reaches being the accumulation zone (where the sheet packs on weight), much of the entire sheet is an ablation zone. So no growth in those years, just losses. Expected increases in mass loss of the GIS will be primarily due to calving at the marine-terminating outlet glaciers, such as Jakobshavn, Petermann and Zachariae.
  5. IPCC is alarmist
    The sulfate measurements over the last few centuries krisbaum @25 claims do not exist: (Source)
    "Figure 1: (a) Sulfate concentrations in several Greenland ice cores and an Alpine ice core. Also shown are the total SO2 emissions from sources in the US and Europe. The inset shows how peaks due to major volcanic eruptions have been removed by a robust running median method followed by singular spectrum analysis."
  6. IPCC is alarmist
    scaddenp - when i investigated the whole aerosol problem, i discovered that the IPCC dont have any solid science to base their estimates of forcing on. there are no solid papers on the aerosol effect - that definitively tell scientists whether aerosol levels have increased or decreased and by how much over the last 100 years. This is because we didnt record aerosols around the world until recently. Go find me one that has historial records. It does not exist.
  7. IPCC is alarmist
    This page lists the process; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml#.UBu0NqBs6Yk as you can see, the government chooses 'experts', a 'bureaux' selects authors.. tbose authors produce a 2nd draft which then goes to a combination of the expert panel & government officials and a final review!!! it is NOT a purely scientific publication / report. if it was, you would have absolutely no government involvement until the document has been produced. even better, you would have a group of people or committee completely divorced from the IPCC that would review what they had produced - and have the ability to deny publication pending changes or review. this does not happen. the SPM also gets written by the plenary. It is released BEFORE the main report.
  8. IPCC is alarmist
    scaddenp; the review process does not work like that... yes, the material is sent out to people to review, but the lead authors collect the reviews and decide which ones are to be included and which arent. even the Interacademy Council recommends this extra step of transparency and scrutiny. there is no separate body that is responsible for reviewing and approving or scrutinising the end result of what the IPCC produce. the Summary For Policymakers is a combined political & scientific production - this is how the process works!! I am not making up anything here.
  9. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Dana great post. I have a question regards the labeling of figure 5. If these are contributors to "global warming" shouldn't they add to 100%, i.e., human (sum of warming and cooling forcings) and natural (sum of warming and cooling forcings) influences? I don't know if I'm describing my confusion clearly. Thanks again Tony
  10. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Regarding 'nights warm faster than days' on your Fingerprints infographic: though commonly stated (it's mentioned in the new BEST paper) this is not really a fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. Direct CO2 forcing is not considered to have anything other than a negligable effect on diurnal temperature range (DTR). In terms of forcing, the primary anthropogenic cause of decreased DTR (nights warming faster than days) is aerosols, which reflect or absorb solar radiation, holding back Tmax while both Tmax and Tmin warm due to an increasing greenhouse effect. So, looking just at forcings, decreased DTR would actually be a fingerprint of anthropogenic cooling. However, some of the main factors involved in decreasing DTR are likely to be feedbacks - water vapour (the primary effect is absorption of solar radiation reducing Tmax, and not the greenhouse effect increasing Tmin), clouds and soil moisture. Unless it could be shown that the specifics of these feedbacks are unique to greenhouse warming, I don't think they could be regarded as fingerprints of anthropogenic effects. On the other hand, I assume that solar-induced warming would have an effect on DTR (make days warm faster than nights), at least at first order, so perhaps it could be considered a fingerprint for distinguishing solar and greenhouse warming. Refs: Stenchikov and Robock (1995) Stone and Weaver (2003) Zhou et al. (2010)
  11. Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Thanks for the clarifications! I just think stuff like this needs to be pointed out more, well, pointedly. BTW, in earlier times only a melting at the top and not on the whole Greenland, seriously?
  12. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Dana #43: Following the intervention of Lucy Skywalker, I seem to have been allowed to comment on WUWT (just so long as I don't mention the D-word, call Watts a hypocrite, remind readers of his egotistical sensitivities, or point out the misleading nature of his World Climate Widget). As such, my moderation failure rate at WUWT is down to about 25%, so I would recommend perseverance. Most recently, I have succeeded in getting through with a comment encouraging Watts to either address criticisms or embrace oblivion.
  13. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Good post and graphics, thankyou Dana. With the comments above, lead to some thoughts and questions, hope that is ok. "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." To establish skeptical view or "denial driven view", is very difficult but it strikes me there are many who fully recognise global warming, but are skeptical of the size for the issue, this can range from a healthy skepticism as part of scientific method to denial in disguise. I find that people that say things like "CO2 isn't even a warming agent", "its all volcanoes" are normally not "skeptics" (whatever that this) as such, more just not prepared to even look for fear of the possibility, for whatever reason. For those who are not skeptical about environmental change what does all this actually mean? "The BEST team also found that the observed warming is consistent with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.1 ± 0.3°C for CO2 doubling, in line with the IPCC climate sensitivity range, and demonstrates once again that contrary to the persistent claims of Richard Lindzen, the Earth has warmed as much as we expect given a relatively high climate sensitivity." For me this is could be slightly skeptical view, for to say that a CS of 3.1C is relatively high, is slightly underestimating the higher potential of CS, for a CS of 3.1C for me is a middle of road potential possibility of climate sensitivity, and there is a ~50% chance it could be higher. A relatively high CS would be 3.75C-4C, with a 3C mean and 95% range 1.5C-4.5C, SD 0.75C. And with that middle of the road potential Hansen is still calling for 350ppm by 2100. The higher ppm we get to the harder returning to 350ppm becomes and it makes sense that the higher the heating imbalance or the larger the effective heater the faster things will proceed. So my questions are, considering the BEST results confirmations of warming and the size of the CO2 problem. What is a safe peak ppm? a) 400-410ppm b) 410-420ppm c) 420-450ppm d) 450-500ppm e) 500-550ppm What is most likely CO2 peak, all things considered? Just wondering what people think?
  14. George Montgomery at 17:52 PM on 3 August 2012
    Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    This is a bit OT but has numerous parallels to Watts and BEST not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's before they commit to print, etc. In brief, there is a fair bit of excitement in the skeptic blogosphere already agog with the Watts et al 2012 press release. Their perceived problem with temperature records has now expanded from less than 2% to more than 25% of the earth's surface. This post on John O'Sullivan's blog says it all Breaking courtroom chaos as New Zealand skeptics rout government climatists. Or does it? Richard Treadgold who runs the NZ skeptic blog Climate Conversation Group has posted two comments on O'Sullivan's blog. The second comment includes each of O'Sullivan's post's paragraphs and has square brackets at the end of each paragraph which have been inserted by Treadgold and include a correction or clarification of the O'Sullivan paragraph. Here's an example: New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers move for sanctions likely to prove fatal to government’s case. [Incorrect.] Note: The third party peer-review report mentioned above involves the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Why the attention to detail and accuracy by Treadgold which leads to a plethora of corrections to the reported details. The answer lies on his blogsite: With friends like these we need no enemies. Wherein there is the following paragraph: The problem is that the judge hasn’t even made his decision, which my recent posts have made clear. We run a distinct risk of contempt of court if we appear to endorse the wild claims about the state of the case, of legal moves, even of victory, that are beginning to sound around the world. (my emphasis) There is a rich irony in at least one of the other paragraphs penned by Richard Treadgold. I'm not sure he's even aware of the hidden meaning in his words: This morning my inbox was filling up with requests to explain and I could sense some people becoming distinctly over-stimulated by the imaginary achievements of the brave Kiwi sceptics. (my emphasis) Treadgold then lists, in an easy to read format, each of O'Sullivan's paragraphs with a refutation or clarification of each. Gut wrenching stuff but hey that's peer review! There are already references to the O'Sullivan post in the comment section of newspaper opinion pieces in Oz. These faulty references will probably reverberate around the internet for years and become an entrenched part of skeptic folklore. Similarly for non-peer-reviewed press releases that may sink in a sea of irrelevance.
  15. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    A couple of comments on my simple python temperature record program from the post, given that it is getting a bit of attention. Python has 2 dialects, the 2.x series and the 3.x series. You need 2.x (latest version is 2.7.2). I suspect that the only change for 3.x is the final print statement. Save the code as ghcn-simple.py. Usage is: 
    python ghcn-simple.py inv-file dat-file polulation-class
    Population class is any combination of RSU (rural suburban urban). e.g. 
    python ghcn-simple.py gncnm.tavg.v3.1.0.inv gncnm.tavg.v3.1.0.dat RSU
  16. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Watts has always seemed to believe that just about anything NOAA (or any other agency) did to the surface station data was spurious and biased to produce a false warming trend, so it shouldn't be surprising to see the extent to which this assumption drives his study off the rails. Thanks for demonstrating exactly where and why that happens in detail.
  17. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Reg - I actually tried to post a very polite comment on WUWT informing Watts of this post as constructive criticism. My comment never made it through moderation, which is not surprising since my WUWT comments are censored about 90% of the time. Fortunately somebody else was able to get a link to this post through the moderation process, but other than a disparaging and dismissive response by a moderator and a couple of other flippant responses in the comments, it has been largely ignored. So let's just say your confidence that our feedback is welcome on WUWT is not borne out by reality.
  18. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Reg "Poe" Nelson: "Anthony encourages constructive criticism of his paper" He's also said that "the physics of heat sinks" proves that the true trend is 50% that of the commonly accepted trend. And that "the physics of heat sinks" is why he *knows* that there's a pony buried in the data. And, of course, when he posted the paper, he didn't say "here's a draft! comments, please"! Instead, he released a PR that said, unequivocably, that 50% of the accepted trend is due to spurious adjustments to the data. Insane. No rational researcher would put that forward without caveats. Compare with those italian physicists who measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light. They said from the beginning it was probably a mistake.
  19. IPCC is alarmist
    krisbaum, the list of IPCC and their affiliations can be found here. Furthermore you can see what each said, and what the chapter authors did with there comment. To be a reviewer, all you basically need to do is request a draft and sign an NDA. It's pretty hard to see how you could set up a more transparent and fair way for governments to get a review of the state of climate science. Now what is your evidence for bias? Hopefully a little stronger than "I dont like their conclusions so it must be wrong". Where is your evidence that they failed to examine important papers that would result in a different conclusion? If you are so sure they are wrong about aerosols, then surely you must have a paper that forms that opinion?
  20. Daniel Bailey at 14:11 PM on 3 August 2012
    Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Not entirely sure, but an aroma of Poe is in the air...
  21. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    "Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal. As it currently stands, the issues we discuss below appear to entirely compromise the conclusions of the paper." Anthony encourages constructive criticism of his paper. I'm sure he would welcome your feedback in his forum, which encourages open debate -- in the true spirit of the scientific method. I think we all agree that science, especially publicly funded science should be transparent. I encourage everyone to embrace the Open Science movement.
  22. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Mod: Apologies, but I thought a discussion on scepticism over attribution was appropriate for the thread considering Muller himself was originally sceptical of attribution and through this study changed.
  23. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Dale: it might help your case if you give a name of someone that you consider to be a "serious" skeptic. That will avoid having the discussion bog down in differences of opinion that are based on observations of different groups of "skeptics". Every good scientist is a skeptic, and raises questions about others' research. The set of self-styled "skeptics" (in the climate area) that are good scientists and true skeptics is very, very small (IMHO). Asking questions that have been answered many times (and where the answers are well-established and accepted by nearly all the scientists in the discipline), and asking them again and again because you don't like the answers is not skepticism. Muller and the BEST group had "skepticism" that was ignorant (or unaccepting) of well-established knowledge in climate science. Their results appear to have been a surprise to two groups: - a few of them that have now decided the mainstream climate science had it right - a few more of them that cannot accept the results, because they were never "serious" skeptics in the first place. The vast majority of climate scientists are not surprised.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please let us return to the OP of this thread; enough chasing after shadows.
  24. It's the sun
    smoidel @1004, I recently adressed your misinformation about Kilauea's heat output in detail here. I now see that instead of responding, or attempting to show where I was wrong, you have simply restated your same argument in a slightly different form on a another blog post where readers would not be aware that you had been previously, comprehensively rebutted. So comprehensively, in fact, that you were not able to muster a word in your defense. That sort of behaviour is called "trolling", and is not acceptable on this forum. If you think your argument has any merit, defend it where you first raised it, and where it was on topic. As to the small section of your post that is on topic, contrary to your assertions, climate models included the forcing due to changing energy emission from the Sun TSI. Asserting falsehoods (that they do not include it) in no way helps your case. More importantly, TSI has been declining since 1980, and hence cannot be the cause of the sharp rise in global temperatures since about 1975.
  25. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Dale - I've been hanging out in the "skeptical" blogsphere for a while, and while I'm going to stay away from a discussion of how to differentiate a "serious skeptic" from a "nonserious? skeptic," I disagree with your statement of the distribution of what "skeptics" tend to believe. First, I see quite a number of "skeptics" who either outright reject that CO2 is a GHG or who argue that as a trace gas, ACO2 could never influence global temperatures to any significant extent. Further, there are many "skeptics" who say that they don't doubt that the Earth is warming, and that ACO2 plays a role, but they systematically reject any scientific method for measuring and/or establishing a rise in global mean temperatures or attribution of any rise to ACO2 - so I think that their statement of what they believe is internally incoherent. Finally, FWIW, I have often been told by "skeptics" that the belief of "skeptics" is not monolithic, and therefore can't be easily categorized, only to turn around and read blog post after blog post where "skeptics" categorize what most "skeptics" believe.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Attempted thread-jacking aside, let us return to the topic of this thread, BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming.
  26. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Dale - the issue is that there is a difference between questioning and denying. It's not that the 'skeptics' say "I'm not sure climate sensitivity is as high as 3°C", for example, it's that they say "climate sensitivity is less than 1°C". It is in the nature of scientific inquiry to be skeptical. Scientists who accept the body of evidence are still open-minded skeptics. But most of the people who proclaim to be 'skeptical' about climate sensitivity, for example, are not actual skeptics. Their minds are made up that climate sensitivity must somehow be low.
  27. IPCC is alarmist
    Tell you what, krisbaum: I'll copy the reference list for the aerosols section of AR4 and post it on a neutral site dedicated just to that list. Will you then start looking through the literature? I don't care if the IPCC was formed by the Nevada State Clowns Association. That's no reason not to read the referenced literature. That literature was not peer reviewed by the IPCC; it was peer reviewed by the dozens of journals in which climate science is published. It was not summarized and interpreted by politicians. It was summarized and interpreted by scientists. If you have a problem with the credentials of any of the hundreds of scientists involved, let's have out with it. You are implying that these hundreds of scientists are colluding to construct a lie, and that the rest of mainstream climate science is in on it. A lot of greenpeace members? WTH? "a lot"? What sort of political stripe need a scientist be in order to gain your respect? Richard Alley is a conservative. Does he count? Or is he just a dupe of the secret leftist scientist coalition?
  28. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    tmac @9: I do read here regularly..... as well as a number of other sites (consolidation sites such as this one plus scientist blogs among them). tmac & dana: My point is that the "serious" sceptics are the ones discussing attribution. No "serious" sceptic questions whether warming has occurred or not, or that human emissions have influenced that warming to some degree. Hence the comment I quoted in 7 is technically not right and acts as a purely polarising comment rather than a scientific observational comment. Isn't the entire point of being sceptical in the scientific sense to question these things? To not question is to not be sceptical. Personally, I'd rather see questioning of results in science rather than acceptance. Regardless of what consensus says. There's plenty of examples where consensus was questioned only to find out something new about that topic. That's how science advances.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please return to the topic of this thread, BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming.
  29. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Dale @7 - I very much disagree that "serious skeptics" dispute attribution. As this post shows, there is simply no serious case to be made that humans aren't the dominant cause of the global warming over the past 50+ years. And frankly the case for low climate sensitivity isn't much less weak.
  30. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Dale #7-Why would it be a bad idea to post here? What is a bad idea,is not taking advantage of the huge resource here to answer the very questions that you pose. Hint:Asked,and answered many times over.Don't believe me? Just look for yourself.
  31. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    In an interview with Rachael Maddow the other day Muller said that we need to do two things to combat Co2: Conservation,and getting the third world and developing nations to replace coal with natural gas... No mention of renewable technologies at all. I will let you draw your own conclusions.
  32. It's the sun
    I have a question for the Atmospheric Scientists. Geophycisists and astrophycists both say the current climate models do not take into account significant natural sources of heating in the atmosphere and oceans. The astrophysicists point to increased solar energy from the sun, which contributes to heating of the atmosphere. The geophysicists point to heating of the oceans from volcanic activity. Between them the astronomy and geology community can point to natural sources of energy input to the climate system that account for around 0.4 deg F in the past century. This is over half of the observed change. Just what level of energy input is required to be considered significant? (-Snip-) (-Snip-) (-Snip-) (-Snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Multiple sections restating earlier comments without relevance on this thread snipped. Please see the comment Tom Curtis linked to below to pursue this further, if you wish. It is only on-topic there.
  33. IPCC is alarmist
    The IPCC is a political organisation - they choose the revieweres, the policies, they review the reports and choose the board in plenary sessions. Politicians are also involved in the Summary For Policymakers.. This is from their very own website. "The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. " The IPCC was setup by the UNEP - the United Nations Environment Program... (-Snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering snipped.
  34. Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
    krisbaum, I haven't heard of any scientists working in aerosols complain about the IPCC representation. You also know, of course, that each paper represented itself represents between dozens and hundreds of other studies. You also choose to read Dana as having said, "The IPCC has all valid opinion on aerosols." He said, rather, that the IPCC is the best place to start. So start.
  35. Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Daniel Bailey: Where do I can find the data used to make the graph "GISP2 Holocene Melt Years", and/or a high resolution version of that figure? (the link given above only shows a graph in low resolution)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Try here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html

  36. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    "For 'skeptics' to make a convincing argument that humans are not causing global warming" Whilst posting here is probably a bad idea, I do just want to point out that "serious" sceptics are not trying to say 'that humans are not causing global warming'. "Serious" sceptics (in fact most sceptics from my experience) agree that global warming is occurring and humans are exacerbating the issue through GHG emissions. What "serious" sceptics are saying is that the sole/majority attribution of warming to human emissions isn't correct and there's other things at play. This "global warming debate" is NOT about whether it's occurring or not, or even if humans are exacerbating the issue or not. The debate is quite simply about attribution calculation, or in scientific terms, climate sensitivity. Essentially, the results of both sides will be either rushed upheaval change, or slow planned change. There's no argument that we need to change.
    Moderator Response: [DB] As for "debate", see here.
  37. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Joshua @1. I heard that PBS radio interview today too and agree with you that it was interesting. The interviewer did a very good job pressing Muller regarding his rationale for being "skeptical" of previous work that arrived at essentially the same conclusions as BEST. As Joshua@1 notes, Muller's comments on the Kochs and the Koch Foundation response to BEST's conclusions were the most interesting aspect. Muller said the Kochs were fine with his conclusions, and they just want the best science, which we now have, thanks to BEST (according to Muller). Muller would not accept that the Kochs did or even attempted to discount pre-BEST climate science. He was adamant on this. It seems a new page may have turned in the playbook of those that want no CO2 reduction schemes: That being that only now, finally, it is logical to accept that warming is occurring due to fossil fuels, but (as Muller indicated in the interview)it would only make sense for the US to reduce emissions after the US is satisfied that China also will do so at the same time. Seems like a good way to not look obstructionist, not deny the science, while hoping for business as usual.
  38. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    KR - agreed that the BEST analysis of the surface temperature record is a very useful contribution. And agreed that the fact that their methodology yields a result consistent with the other groups' methodologies is really strong evidence that the surface temperature record is accurate. That's a really important point, as is the fact that when you compare raw and adjusted data globally, there is very little difference. Frankly it's exceptionally implausible that the Watts conclusion (of a spurious doubling of the temperature trend) is even remotely close to being accurate. Regarding the BEST attribution result, as discussed in the post, it's not really noteworthy, because their methodology was very simple and their results are just consistent with every other study. At least with their temperature record, while their results were also consistent with every other study, their methodology was a new and interesting approach.
  39. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    I find it quite interesting that the BEST averaging method (no metadata used, other than periods >= one year where stations were not operational), just identifying outlier breaks in data due to inhomogeneities with nearby stations and splitting records at those points, ends up consistent with the USHCN temperatures which use multiple types of metadata to directly correct for station moves, equipment changes, time-of-observation shifts, etc. This is also relevant to the recent thread on the draft paper by Watts, as the consistency/consilience of the results using two quite different methods of correction indicate robust data - which calls into question Watt's insistence that adjustments such as time-of-observation are biased. While I agree with Dr. Mann that it's nice to see the BEST attribution work finally reach the 1980's, the averaging methods they present are extremely useful work.
  40. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    Trent @2 - indeed Watts is backtracking, claiming that he's not backtracking because he says based on the method BEST used, their results were right, but he believes the new station classification system he's using has changed the results. Problem is as we noted in the previous post, Watts et al. messed up the analysis. So now the questions are (1) will Watts admit that their analysis is wrong? and (2) will Watts then live up to his word and finally accept the BEST results, that the surface temperature record is reliable? This will be a good test of Watts' purported skepticism. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.
  41. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    I think this is the appropriate topic to remind everyone that Anthony Watts once endorsed Richard Muller's BEST project Some excerpts from the article:
    But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.
    So he claims to have looked at Muller's methods and approves. Next:
    And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.
    Caught in the net of his own weaving. Poetic.
  42. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    An interesting interview with Muller (in particular, I thought the discussion about the Koch brothers was interesting)... http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/02/climate-change-skeptic
  43. Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
    Thanks Kevin. I am really glad to see someone offering Watts et al some constructive criticism, which might help them eventually climb out of the hole they have dug themselves in recent years... If Richard A Muller can do it, then so can they (we can but hope)... Typo alert: "It would be surprising is" should I think be "It would be surprising if"... (i.e. end of penultimate paragraph in the 'Adjustments Make Little Difference Globally' section).
  44. Daniel Bailey at 02:49 AM on 3 August 2012
    Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    "the global warming debate"
    Debate? If you consider it a debate when:
    - one "side" has centuries of research supported by actual convergent, consilient physical evidence from the lifetime works of hundreds of thousands of researchers whose works also comprise and underlay much of the technology of today that our lifestyle is based on. - the other "side" has only slander, misstatements, misrepresentation, dissembling, death threats and character assassination to go by.
    Yeah, that's a "debate" all right. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science. A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial.
  45. Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
    krisbaum, regarding aerosol literature, as KR notes, the IPCC is the best place to start as the definitive summary paper of the state of climate science. Skeptical Science has also written a number of posts on more recent aerosol research, if you use our search tool.
  46. Daniel Bailey at 02:19 AM on 3 August 2012
    Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Falkenherz, attempts to average-away the melt layers found at the Greenland summit are just another form of hiding-the-decline in the frequency of the melt events. Prior to the event in the 1800's it had been an interval of more than 700 years to the next prior melt event. [Source] Given the decline in insolation forcing over time, it becomes correspondingly more rare for a confluence of factors to conjoin to create a melt event. Furthermore, give the unparalleled forcing from the previously-sequestered CO2 bolus mankind has injected into the carbon cycle, overall warming will continue for decades-to-centuries, with summit melt to become a regular occurrence in the near future (Box et al 2012).
  47. Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Falkenherz, not exactly. First, the events are not the same. What happened last month was that 97% of the Greenland ice surface, including the highest point, melted. What happened about a 150 years ago was that just the highest point melted. Second, the melting at the highest point about 150 years ago was the only other time in the past thousand years that has happened. If you go back a few thousand years and then divide the total number of times the highest point melted by the total time period you'll get an average of about 150 years... but it is not a 'regular cycle' at all. So no, the 97% melt does not have to be repeated some time in the next 150 years in order to be significant. If it happens again that would be incredibly alarming. However, it happening even once was extraordinary.
  48. It's not us
    DSL, I read it, and it provides for several indicators of evidence. But I meant specifically the mass balance argument, and the comments here provide for much more detail already than in that article. I, as Julian, might just have a gap of logic here, and I hope that listing these very simplified figures will make it clear for me, if someone can point it out where they goe offroad.
    Moderator Response: [DB] A deeper-level analysis of the mass-balance problem for "skeptics" is found here.
  49. Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
    Am I correct that this melting was aprupt and ceased, and it is attributed as a one-time-freak event which, according to ice cores, can be found roughly every 150 years? So, if there is no repetition in the near future, this melting seems to be irrelevant to the global warming debate. If correct, imo this needs to be pointed out in the article, because right now, the article does not adress the Scepticist's line of argumentation.
  50. It's not us
    Falkenherz, I believe Tom Curtis has addressed some of this recently here. It should probably be incorporated into this article.

Prev  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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