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  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  1352  1353  1354  1355  Next

Comments 67351 to 67400:

  1. Doug Hutcheson at 16:54 PM on 3 January 2012
    A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    John Hartz@59 That declaration by the Cornwell people shows just how dangerous religious fundamentalism can be in the Christian sphere. Islamist fundamentalists threaten death by terrorism; Christian fundamentalists threaten death by species extinction. The difference is only in degree, not kind. Homo Sapiens? I think not.
  2. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    This previous post indicates that we have reach some kind of threshold already or are just stepping through one with respect to the sigma events.... http://www.skepticalscience.com/Canada-wildfire-threshold_IMC.html "In our opinion this is a sign that there are also threshold values for forests above which the wildfire regime drastically changes," reports Volker Grimm. "It is likely that the Boreale Plains have in recent decades, particularly around 1980, experienced a change to a system characterised by wildfires.
  3. North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
    Watch "Last Day of the Dinosaurs" for how mammals became dominant. As far as I know that hasn't been seriously challenged by anyone. There is plenty in the geological record to show that a meteorite hit on earth caused mammals and eventually humans to become dominant on earth. Put another way boiling most of the earth, followed by two years of cold and darkness caused by the debris cloud *could* be considered a temperature change. But I would consider that a *little* intellectually dishonest. Wouldn't you? I am actually surprised there was any life left after that meteorite hit. There is a theory that life on earth is an anomaly since we should have been blasted back to bacteria a long time ago by a meteorite. ie the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs was small.
  4. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Right on que.... Seems like its going to be a regular thing already.... South Australia is sweltering with the hottest start to the year in more than a century as a hot air mass which can sear vegetation moves across the state http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-03/more-power-cuts-possible-as-heatwave-continues/3755802
  5. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Just an editing note. For a general audience, it would be good if you defined sigma (and maybe even used the word sigma instead of the greek symbol) before using it. I know that it refers to standard deviation, and you know it does, but it's used as such before it's defined. For that matter, you might link to a definition of standard deviation for the statistically uneducated.
  6. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Chris @2 I have my own version for what might wake people up. The 3 Cunard criuse liners, their Queens - Mary, Elizabeth & Victoria - stationary side by side, packed with tourists, On September 15th, surrounded by nothing but open water. At the North Pole. My current bet for that, based on the trends from PIOMass is 2016.
  7. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Having read the draft of Hansen's website, i'd have to agree with Mikemcc @ 9 regarding the section on Gov Perry. Yup, well founded and i think deserved, but in a scientific paper will give a broad spectrum of the denialatti a hook into dismissing the science. More broadly, having that in could mean that if it gets reported in the MSM it would be for the Perry part, not the findings.
  8. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Also dawsonjg, who do you think is paying these climatologists to promote AGW? Governments? If so, can you explain why so many of these same governments have been steadfastly ignoring or downplaying the findings of their bought-and-paid-for experts? While handsomely subsidizing the extraction industries, no less? For that matter, why couldn't these global conspirators get meaningful emissions cuts passed during the eight years when their alleged ringleader Al Gore was in the White House? The payoff for all the expense, lawbreaking and secret bullying it'd take to create a phony scientific consensus seems pretty paltry to me, no matter who's footing the bill. Let's look at things realistically. You've got the oil industry, which is one of the most profitable businesses in the world, pumping huge amounts of money into government, media and pro-industry thinktanks. That's not subject to dispute. You've also got governments downplaying or ignoring scientific concerns relating to AGW. You've got hard-right politicians threatening to prosecute high-profile climate scientists like Michael Mann. And you've got large media outlets that tend to blur the distinction between, say, Lord Monckton and mainstream climate scientists. And yet, despite all of these phenomena -- which are actually demonstrable and quantifiable -- many people still believe that someone's paying scientists all over the world "billions" to advance a theory in which the laws of physics cause the climate to behave in pretty much the way that those laws predict. For reasons no one actually knows, on the basis of evidence no one actually has. And in this narrative, amazingly, it's the climate scientists who are bullies and ideologues; the powerful interests who are casually slandering them as incompetents, frauds or worse are somehow their victims. The theory that certain industries have spent a large amount of money to manipulate opinion for their own benefit is consistent with all of the phenomena I've brought up here. The theory that someone or other has been paying climatologists to support AGW for some nefarious reason or other is incoherent, in addition to being totally unsupported by evidence. If you disagree, I'd love to know why.
  9. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Mikemcc, You are referring to this statement in Hansen, Sato and Ruedy: "I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on those days for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life." Science cannot disprove the possibility of divine intervention. However, there is a relevant saying that "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This is a purely factual reference to a real event. How is that an attack?
  10. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    ChrisG I'm no expert but I think that you're correct. The worlds deserts appear at the base of the hadley cell. The cells descending dry air creates them. As the world gets warmer the hadley cells get more intense and move towards the poles. The real problem is that the most furtile land on the planet lies just poleward of the base of the hadley cell. So as GW gets more intense the planets food bowl gets more adversely affected.
  11. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    A terrific(if sobering)paper that quantifies an arguement that I have been having for a couple of years now. That a shift in a mean value has a disproportionate effect on the incidence of extreme events. I have e-mailed Prof. Hansen though to ask if he would remove the attack on Gov. Perry prior to publishing the paper. While the attack is well founded, it is not really well placed in the paper, it just gives deniers an opening to attack the paper whilst ignoring the science.
  12. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    I'm glad to see that the baseline issue was raised, because I have been concerned that the practice of 'rolling' baselines permits absolute temperature changes due to human carbon dioxide emissions to be disguised. Hansen has long explained why he uses the period he does (as KeenOn350 explained in turn) and I hope that future climatological analyses might be urged to use Hansen's approach wherever possible. On another matter, does anyone know off-hand how many separate long-term analyses there are of latitude shift of the prevailing westerlies? I'm curious to know if in future we will have the "Roaring Fifties-are-the-New-Forties"...
  13. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    "Even so,it is biased a bit high, as our CO2 emissions were already having an effect, especially in the 1970's!" Oh your just full of good news aren't you. This seems to me to be a pretty "simple" analysis (albeit of lots of data) in concept, and the way the graphs are presented should make the conclusions easy to communicate (which is enormously important) to the public. Will be interesting to the reaction when its published. Anyone want to make bets on how controversial this paper will be since up till now anyone attributing an extreme event to AGW has been (maybe with reason?) accused of mixing up weather and climate. What this paper seems to me to do is "plot" climate changes over time, and "oh looky" some of what we see from that correlates with the observed "weather". Thats going to be a powerful thing to take to the ongoing debate. [inflammatory snipped]
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] If you have something worthwhile to say about the science please say it. Needlessly inflammatory comments are frowned upon here, and contravene the comments policy.
  14. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Rob H, And there sure are a lot of these so-called 'think' tanks. The denial business must be berry-berry good.
  15. Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
    @ dalyplanet
    "Tisdale has a very interesting rebuttal to this paper at WUWT today."
    Methinks someone has an "interesting" definition of "rebuttal".
  16. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg: What is the basis of your assertion that climate scientists have received billions of dollars in renumerations?
  17. Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
    Tisdale has a very interesting rebuttal to this paper at WUWT today.
  18. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg... Think tanks pay some heavy coin. [link] You might note that almost all the lead AGW skeptics have think tank positions. Spencer, Michaels, Lindzen, etc.
  19. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg - I have to say that your posts have been a fascinating review of many of the popular myths of climate denial, with this most recent one being that somehow climate scientists would make money falsifying data in some huge conspiracy. Once again you have demonstrated that you are not a publishing scientist, as anyone in the field knows how silly an accusation that is. The fame and position in science go to those who publish solid data that stands out in the field as being objectively correct. Those caught falsifying or plagiarizing data (Wegman), publishing poorly written or clearly incorrect papers (McIntyre, Spencer), or just making fantastical stuff up (Gerlich and Tscheuschner) receive no rewards in the field of science. The risk, the downside to writing bad papers or falsifying data - that's huge. The rewards may indeed include being able to get additional grants, or rather having a slightly higher percentage of your grant applications go through - success breeds success. But please note that grants do not tend to increase the income of the scientists involved. Very few practicing scientists are in the upper 1% income levels... On the other hand, if you wish to write advocacy papers for particular industries (Tobacco Institute, Clean Coal, Exxon, etc.), promoting a position that is not based on the science but is instead thinly disguised propaganda contrary to facts (Michals, Singer, Soon), you can get a lot of $$$ for it in "consulting fees". This is apparently driven by the billions in profits that some industries see at risk if they have to change their course of business. This is not to say that someone writing from an "advocacy" position will always write worthless stuff - but you have to consider the motivation behind it, and judge the material accordingly.
  20. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    First, I suggest that the links to myths be moved below the embedded video. Possibly as the last thing in the article. I don't think this video is intended to dispell particular myths, but it does speak to multiple audiences. I think it does an excellent job of framing climate change as a wicked problem and of illustrating key tactics used by those who don't want the public to take action on it. It is honest in its recognition that there are distortions at both ends of the spectrum (I assume, an acknowledgement of Dr. Schneider's famous quote that is so often misrepresented) I think it should arm laypersons with some honest skepticism to help distinguish between those who are part the cacophony and those who are real musicians. Overall, very little time is given to repeating the myths. The video is bookended with several perfect sound bites, starting with "You couldn't add 4 Watts of energy over every square metre and have nothing happen!" For me, the strongest soundbite was: "So our behaviour in the next generation could precondition a sustainability issue for a millenium - or ten - based upon the convenience of one species for one generation. I find that a very morally daunting prospect." Dr. Schneider's passing was a great loss, and if this video inspires more climate scientists to 'take back the airwaves', then it is worth its weight in gold. And if this video doesn't do so, then perhaps the 'climate scientists rap' video would :)
  21. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Thanks for the interesting advice guys. Philippe says: 'As usual, with often touted "billions in climate research," fake skeptics make heavy use of the method that consist of accusing others of what they themselves do.' Do I take it from that that billions have been funding 'fake skeptics'? I know about the often touted few million from Exon and McIntyre's travelling expenses, but who pays the rest to whom? That FF gravy train sounds interesting Rob, what's that all about? No innuendo, I'd really like to know.
  22. North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
    http://crisisoflife.net/the-threat.html
  23. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    If dawson is going to bring up the "corrupted by the money" argument, I'd have to suggest that main stream climate scientists are not real smart on that aspect (no offense). If they want to get on the real gravy train they should publish work vigorously rejecting AGW and land themselves a lucrative FF funded think tank position. The money researchers make doing actual research is a penny ante game. I would suggest that nearly all climate researchers are motivated merely by the desire to learn more and get things right.
  24. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Mace @ 7:22 I agree that consistent baseline periods would be nice, but to some extent they depend on available data. Without reference to sources ( I think there is mention of this in some of Hansen's material): - 30 years is considered by most climatologists to be the necessary minimum period for a good climatological baseline - Hansen normally uses the period 1951 - 1980 as being the 30-year period farthest back in time, for which there is adequate available data, in enough different parts of the globe, to establish a meaningful baseline. Even so,it is biased a bit high, as our CO2 emissions were already having an effect, especially in the 1970's! DaveW
  25. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg wrote: But consider who controls the billions of dollars poured into climate research Ah, the old they've-been-corrupted-by-the-money line. Desperate hand waving. Just for once try looking at the development of climate science. The basic physics were sorted by the 60s, 50 years ago, yet it took until the 80s before the world at large took notice and realised that we could face a very risky future. Only then did the "billions" get ploughed in - after it became clear that we needed a helluva lot more research pronto. Yet denialists portray the situation as if the money had been available up front before any conclusions were drawn and they imply or even state that climate scientists decided to make a grab for it by manufacturing fake science. Somebody should sue these nasty minded traducers for libel.
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] all caps changed to bold font. No all caps in the future thanks.
  26. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    apirate @ 27... Are you capable of applying the same standards of discipline to the economic aspects of the issues? The knife cuts both ways. I find that most people who choose to reject AGW do so first out of an emotional response to the idea of taxing carbon. After that they are merely looking for confirmation of the conclusion they prefer.
  27. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg: What Mann does is not [science] at its best. Before this goes any further, let's get one thing clear. You've acknowledged that working with Mann's data is beyond your capabilities. You've also conceded in #35 that you lack the necessary skills to judge which side's arguments are scientifically sound. It logically follows that you lack the knowledge to critique Mann's work. And from there, it follows that you have absolutely no right to accuse him of bad scientific practice, let alone anything worse. That being the case, perhaps you should show a bit of humility and tone down your rhetoric. Take yourself out of the equation for a moment and think about this in abstract terms. Suppose that on the one hand, lots of respected scientists in a variety of countries and fields have used a variety of methods to arrive at results that basically agree with one another. And suppose that on the other hand, a guy who doesn't understand these disciplines or these methods decides that their conclusions are possibly or probably wrong because he saw a website that attacked one of them. Logically speaking, what's more likely: That all these scientists made errors that somehow turned out to agree with each other? That all these scientists put aside their professional rivalries and personal morality in order to falsify mountains of evidence over generations for some unknown purpose? Or that the guy who doesn't understand the science is easy to mislead? On the Internet, there are sites explaining that the AIDS virus doesn't exist, that chemotherapy is deadlier than cancer, that the Holocaust never happened, that vaccines don't work and that evolution is mathematically impossible. The arguments sometimes sound plausible, and the authors are sometimes actual experts in the relevant fields. They usually have no problem citing instances of "official suppression" of their work, not least because their followers usually can't appreciate the distinction between "suppressed" and "thoroughly debunked countless times" or "correctly viewed by experts as the work of a crazy person." And they usually have no problem coming up with plausible motives for conspiracy, because money and power are at stake in just about any field you can name. I'm sure you know all of this as well as I do, and I'm also willing to bet that you side confidently with the scientific consensus on most or all of these "controversies." So why do you feel justified in throwing that perfectly rational approach out the window here? If you really want to get to the bottom of this argument, that's the first question you need to address, I'd say. Challenging Mann's work before you've even begun to understand it -- let alone all the work done subsequently -- is like showing up for the Tour de France on a plastic tricycle and expecting to win.
  28. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Suggested reading: “Portraits of the Southwest in the Shadow of Drought.”New York Times, Dec 26, 2011 This article reviews two recently published books: 1. “A Great Aridness : Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest” by William deBuys, a conservationist based in New Mexico; and, 2. “Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City” by Andrew Ross, a social scientist at New York University.
  29. apiratelooksat50 at 08:04 AM on 3 January 2012
    2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Phila at 24 I don't agree with your statement about emotion being feminine and foolish. It's human nature. Science should be about the scientific method and facts. Passion for your discipline is necessary, but emotion should be reserved for children and puppies.
  30. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Perhaps you could highlight a case where you found it confusing. For the purpose of determining trends and changes in the record, it doesnt matter what baseline you use. It only changes the zero.
  31. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Hey, I have an idea. Lets say Mike Mann is a bumbling researcher who makes mistakes and should be cast into the netherhells with others like him (eg Spenser, Christy, Soon, Baulinus, ... Hansen, Einstein etc). Now lets see what a difference to the science that make. Better? Whoops, still have hockey sticks, global warming and anthropogenic causes...
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Perhaps dawson should review 'Its not about the hockey stick' for some much-needed perspective.
  32. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Mace, I think you are just going to have to accept that there are different periods of interest, just as a business is sometimes more interested in how this month compared with last month, and sometimes more interested in Q4 year-over-year results, and sometimes wants to see if a product line has grown revenue since 5 years ago. In this case, Dr Hansen may have simply thought that when observing anomalies for the last 30 years, the previous 30 would be an appropriate baseline. I think he mentions his reason in the paper itself, but memory fades. I don't think it matters, other than Hansen's baseline would probably not be appropriate for whatever the Met Office is doing just as theirs would not be appropriate for his observations.
  33. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    It would be really useful, if a commonly defined baseline period from which anomalies should be calculated were used by climate change scientists. It's very confusing looking at graphs that cover different time periods and use different baselines in order to influence the viewer as to the veracity of their argument. Anybody know why different climate change scientists use different baseline periods e.g. The UK met office uses rolling 10 year periods, whereas Hansen et al seem to have settled on the 1950-80 period to be their baseline.
  34. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    There is a high risk of me over-interpreting this information, but I'd like to toss out some thoughts and see what/if anyone else thinks of them. The areas where 3-sigma events are most commonly occurring seem to be clustered in three bands, the equator, and two bands roughly 30-40 degrees north and south. On the north and south bands, I'm wondering if the temperature anomalies are, at least in part, a result of Hadley cell circulation encroaching on regions previously under Ferrel cells. This would be consistent with GCMs that predict, and actual observations of, Hadley cell expansion in a warmer climate. Second SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess): If you project the increase forward, by somewhere around 2020 about 20% of the globe will be under a 3-sigma event in any given year. I wonder what people's memory is for events like Texas, Southern Europe, and the Moscow region. If events like these are happening about every 5 years in any area, will that finally get through to the general population that we are better off doing something about it than not?
  35. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    How can anybody has a physical based argument other than AGW to explain what we are observing?? We are correct to call them deniers. They are in denial.
  36. Philippe Chantreau at 06:24 AM on 3 January 2012
    Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Dawsonjg says, talking about science "What Mann does is not it at its best." One has to wonder then what M&M do should be called; whatever that may be, Wegman's work should wear a similar name. This is recommended reading for all those who think that Dawsonjg or M&M have any kind of a valid point. It reviews the errors in M&M methodology (first identified by David Ritson) and dives deep into the computer code used by M&M, where the explanation lies for their findings. It also clearly demonstrates how Wegman did not truly replicate anything. Dawsonjg has rambled about funding and politics. This contains a nice timeline summary of the emergence of M&M, readers can decide how much the whole thing was influenced by politics and money sources. As usual, with often touted "billions in climate research," fake skeptics make heavy use of the method that consist of accusing others of what they themselves do. It ensures that subsequent denunciation of what is really happening loses all impact, with masses thoroughly confused as to what to believe. They then naturally gravitate toward what they are inclined to believe anyway. All factual information becomes moot. Dawsonjg illustrates very well that feeling in the following quote "So who am I to believe?" Surely enough, he mixes that with "All I can do is read the pro and con arguments." Reading the pro and con arguments found in the press and blogs is the last thing one should do when considering a scientific issue. SkS is a better blog only because it has its roots in the science that has been published. Science publications on the matter considered is what should be read, not arguments from blogs or newspapers. Dawsonjg should know that, as he claims also "I know what science is suposed to do." If one knows what sience is supposed to do, then the "arguments" worthy of consideration are the following, listed by Tom Curtis above: Jones 1998 (Nature), Huang, Pollock et al 2000 (Nature), Broecker 2001 (Science), and Esper et al 2002 (Science). There has been more, Moeberg has been mentioned, along with numerous other reconstructions, some excluding tree rings. All the stuff on blogs and opinions pieces in newspapers are nothing but noise, and, to use some exotic statistical terminology created by M&M, it is not "trendless."
  37. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    OPatrick @ 30... My point in saying people new to climate science should watch the video is I think it presents an accurate portrait of the issue which is greatly lacking in general. Who else have you ever heard make the statement that "good for you and end of the world are the two lowest probability outcomes?" And who else ever quite clearly lays out the case that the problem is fossil fuel industry special interests? (Other than Naomi Oreskes.) These are two extremely important take-aways that are rarely if ever heard by the general public.
  38. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg @ 35... "I have read thoroughly convincing analyses that the hockey stick is 'problematic'." We all know what you've been reading and many here have read that same work. But you might stop to consider this... Why did someone go to so much trouble to try to undermine one piece of science? Normally, if a piece of research is poorly crafted and the results are suspect the course of action is to reproduce similar research using different methods to show that the results are erroneous. The new research would conflict and probably supersede the previous research. There you go. Problem fixed. MBH99 shown wrong. Move on with the research. So, why haven't McIntyre or Montford done this? Why do they only operate to try to find flaws without producing any actual research of their own? Why don't we have any multi-proxy reconstructions from them showing a different conclusion? They obviously consider themselves qualified. They obviously have the time and backing to perform such research. But they don't. Why? I can tell you for sure that the Idso's (who are well connected with the same folks) have several hundred studies on the MWP that they've collected and posted online. I've poured through them in detail. But they also don't go so far as to try to produce a multi-proxy reconstruction of that data. Why? You should really go and watch that Peter Hadfield video on the scientific process. Here is the link.
  39. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    climatehawk1#33-While I share some of your reservations about mentioning the myths in a video aimed at dispelling them,I would point out that the excellent Climate Crock series that you cited,also includes small snippets of denialist propaganda in it's videos as well. It's a tough call between showing blatant distortions as examples of what denialsts are up to,and giving their myths 'air time',(regardless of how small).
  40. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Tom C, Off-topic here, but Kennefick 2005 showed that peer review (as we know it) did not necessarily apply at Annalen der Physik. As usual, the real story is not as clear as wikipedia would have us believe. But an Einstein throwdown in a denier argument is about as valuable as 'Galileo was outvoted.'
  41. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Tom C#32: Isn't 'released to the general public' a bit of an overstatement? The video is linked here, on Climate One and a few environmental sites; it is also on plomomedia's youtube channel, where it has all of 3600 views. Isn't it also a major goal of SkS to discuss communication of climate science and issues? Not only do we have books highlighted in the upper right panel of the site; we show the Eureka Award for "excellence in the fields of scientific research & innovation, science leadership, school science and science journalism & communication." Your key points are all vital; however, we must face the fact that we are not exactly winning the battle for 'hearts and minds.' If there are valid points to be made by professional communicators, why not listen and learn?
  42. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg continues his preference for innuendo rather than facts, on this occasion suggesting that there was no proper scientific critique of MBH 98 and 99 prior to McIntyre and McKittrick's interventions. As it happens, following publication and prior to M&M's intervention MBH 98 and 99 where criticized by Jones 1998 (Nature), Huang, Pollock et al 2000 (Nature), Broecker 2001 (Science), and Esper et al 2002 (Science). Mann responded to these criticisms, agreeing with some points and rebutting others. Mann also published a detailed analysis of the virtues of different climate reconstruction methods, developing the RegEM which was later further improved on to become the EIV algorithm. Hans von Storch also published a methodological paper in 2004 performing a detailed analysis of different algorithms for reconstructions. So, before M&M had even appeared on the scene, the scientific community was conducting an extensive debate on methods of reconstruction and Michael Mann had already replaced the MBH algorithm with a superior one two years before M&M decided to criticize the by by then six year out of date method of MBH 99. Clearly dawsonjg's innuendo of scholarly inaction is a complete fiction and without any basis in fact. What is more, it entirely neglects that no substantive criticism in M&M 2003 or 2005 has stood the test of time, and their most fundamental criticism has been shown repeatedly to be itself flawed far beyond any problems found in Mann's earlier algorithm. Given dawsonjg's continued use of innuendo, complete absence of evidence presented in his case, and defamatory comments, perhaps it is time that he be required to fully comply with the comments policy. Muoncounter, it is a minor point but Einstein did go through peer review.
  43. Stephen Baines at 02:56 AM on 3 January 2012
    Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg You are stuck on this idea that editors and reviewers can somehow be corrupted by those "billions of dollars," whereever they are, to allow a consensus to develop despite all evidence to the contrary. I am a subject editor at a pretty well read journal and I cannot conceive of how such a thing could happen except in the least populated and most arcane corners of science. You have to understand that people editing and reviewing papers are actually, at some level, professional competitors of the people they edit/review. In fact, the editors deliberately pick the reviewers to reflect a range of opinion/expertise. Editing and reviewing activities also occur in the public eye of at least some of your quite critical peers. The appearance of favoritism or collusion (or the opposite) is very much looked down upon, and often stigmatized. If anything, lack of critical insight in the reviewing process will hurt, not help your chances at getting funding because of the infuence on your reputation as a critical thinker. Knowing someone is no guarantee of a friendly review, either. I have often had to reject papers by people who I consider friends of mine. Given all this, it is really hard for someone truly familiar with the process to comprehend your thinking. Perusing the level of critical discourse even in the "leaked" CRU emails confirms how seriously even those with close working ties interrogate each other about methods etc. If I weren't convinced that you simply didn't have the experience to temper your judgement, I might even find it insulting that you would even intimate that somehow it could as thoroughly corrupted as you suggest. Second, If you think climate science has problems due to the amount of money sloshing around, I can think of no worse counter example than medical science, in which the amount of money sloshing around dwarfs that in climate science. Lots of potential conflict of interest there! Still, as you say, they manage a pretty tight ship...although there are several high profile instances of fraud that pop up now and again.
  44. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Indeed, Tom D, and dawsonjg could further use some reading on Einstein's life and work--the Isaacson bio is readable enough. Good grief. Dawsonjg, you're working backwards. You're starting with models and trying to disprove physics. Read Weart. Understand the development of the science. There is no multi-generational hoax involving tens of thousands of scientists. I know you will say that you're not making this claim, but your rhetoric strongly implies the claim, and all I know about you and your ability to think comes from the words you string together.
  45. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg, you should learn about how science works--including funding--before making such extreme claims. It is obvious that you never have been a published scientific researcher who has applied for funding, been accepted and rejected for funding, and has reviewed funding proposals. Nor do you understand the difference between funding of research and peer reviewing of research results that were produced regardless of the funding of the work that produced those results. You can start learning with historian Spencer Weart's account of the history of Keeling's climate research funding and of funding for science in general.
  46. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    You describe the way the review process should work John Russell, the way it worked for Einstein and the way it still works in some fields such as medicine. But consider who controls the billions of dollars poured into climate research and who influences the peer review process and who has been claiming that the debate is over and anyone who disagrees is an industry funded denier - imagine where we would be if Einstein had politicised the process in that way. And investigate what MM had to go through to get their peer reviewed papers published. And consider whether the graphs presented above would ever have replaced the 2001 hockey stick if McIntyre and a few others had not navigated the obstacles and weathered the vilification to prove it was 'problematic'.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Accusation of fraud, conspiracy, etc violate the Comments Policy. Einstein did not go through 'peer review.'
  47. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg @37, if you cut of the "snake" at 1000 AD (the duration of the MBH 99 hockey stick) then it isn't a snake. Still less so if you cut it of of at 1600 AD to compare it with MBH 98. This ignores the fact that by drastically restricting the data available for the reconstruction, it was inevitable that the green line above should show more variability. The simple fact is that through all your inuendo you have carefully kept the data of stage, and the reason is obvious. When the data is placed front and center your case transparently evaporates, and all you are left doing is playing word games. It should of course be noted that you have not said anything to impugn any of the many other reconstructions which confirm Mann et al 2008's result. Nor, quite frankly have you presented a single substantive reason to think there is anything wrong with any of the proxies used in Mann et al 2008 to begin with. Your entire case todate has consisted of asking some rhetorical questions on another thread, and asserting on this one without evidence that the proxies where "problematic". That apparently is enough to count as evidence in your mind.
  48. apiratelooksat50 at 00:58 AM on 3 January 2012
    North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
    Excellent article! It was most likely climate change caused in part by the formation of the Great Rift Valley in Africa that led to the development of the human species. Populations of early hominids were separated by the geological forces. The resulting rain shadow led to the demise of the rainforest in East Africa and the transition to savannah. Competition for food, shelter, and water led to animals, including human ancestors, adapting and evolving. Some species perished along the way while others thrived.
  49. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    @dawsonjg As I understand it; if those "thoroughly convincing analyses that the hockey stick is 'problematic'" have any merit, then they'll be submitted to a credible journal and peer reviewed. If the reviewers feel the 'analyses' have any merit, then they'll be approved for publication and will appear in the next available issue of the journal. Then the scientific community will read and consider the 'analyses', and those with an interest will undertake further work and submit further papers, following the same procedure. That's the scientific process. Whether we like it or not, what is said in blogs is largely irrelevant to the consensus view of the science at any particular moment. What Mann wrote a decade or more ago can really never be 'wrong', as it represented the best understanding of the science at the time it was written. If subsequently someone can show that a paper is flawed in some way, then, more often than not, the original author is likely to write another paper correcting any flaws and incorporating the new ideas. That's how knowledge of climate science develops. It's what Steven Schneider did in the 70's when he realised that the paper he'd written predicting forthcoming cooling was based on an over-simple model, and the fact was we were actually warming. As a layman, I find this quite easy to understand. It's a logical procedure that works well. Don't you think so?
  50. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    My profession is communications, not science, and those who are concerned about the video's content are, IMHO, correct. I work on mythbusting daily, and to the best of my ability, I don't even mention the myth I'm responding to, let alone repeat it or give free air time to it (e.g., the short ad on the benefits of CO2 that is included). Tom Curtis in #32 is right about one thing: the video is done. That being the case, my advice is: find another video and use that instead--there's plenty of other good stuff out there, like the Climate Denial Crock of the Week series. This one is excellent as a motivational tool for a group of climate scientists who know the score (like those assembled at the AGU). It is almost useless as an introduction to the problem or as a persuasive piece for the average person who is wondering what's up. I say that with a great deal of regret, because I had high hopes when I sat down to watch it.

Prev  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  1352  1353  1354  1355  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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