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  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  Next

Comments 69251 to 69300:

  1. Pete Dunkelberg at 10:19 AM on 28 November 2011
    The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    The Schmittner came with commentary that is hard to ignore: A long interview with co-author Nathan Urban, some questions raised in New Scientist and more by James Annan. I don't recall the same degree of discussion before the SKS post on the other two papers skept.fr mentions. It is interesting though that sensitivity in warmer times (albeit Earth Systems Sensitivity, also discussed at Serendipity ) is high while at cool times it's low if this holds up.
  2. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    skept: There are many threads on climate sensitivity (use Search), but consider this one as a starting point. In it you find a review of many sources, offering estimates of climate sensitivity as high as 8C. However, the graphics shown remain consistent with the 2-4.5C range of estimates. Clearly, those papers arguing for 8C have not made their case. This continues to be a stunning example of false equivalence. Many posts here attempt to put multiple papers in context and consider multiple lines of evidence. Rather then posit the appearance of cognitive bias, please provide more concrete examples than the sensitivity question.
  3. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    I think that: These two classes of compounds [HCFCs and HFCs] are very potent greenhouse gases and last much longer in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. is wrong. While they are potent greenhouse gases, HCFCs and HFCs were developed specifically to have much shorter lifetimes (about 10 years) in the atmosphere than CFCs (about 100 years). So their impact and lifetime is comparable to that of methane, and is one or more orders of magnitude shorter than that of CO2.
    Response:

    [DB] Closed subscript tag.

  4. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    Related article... Emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, heat-trapping industrial gases used in air conditioners and refrigerators, must be curbed to help combat climate change, according to the United Nations. The UN report today comes as governments adhering to the ozone-protection rules of the Montreal Protocol consider phasing out hydrofluorocarbon-23 production, whose warming potential per molecule of HFC is 11,700 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The European Union this year banned as of 2013 its use in the emissions-trading program of credits linked to the industrial gas generated under the UN carbon market. “Keeping a global, 21st century temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) will require urgent action” to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, the UN Environment Program said today in a statement. “By 2050, HFCs could be responsible for emissions equivalent to 3.5 gigatons to 8.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide, comparable to total current annual emissions from transport estimated at 6-7 gigatons annually.” Source: “Air-Conditioning Gases Must Be Curbed to Protect Climate, UN Says” Bloomberg, Nov 21, 2011 To access the entire in-depth article, click here.
  5. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    Hydro-fluoro-carbons
  6. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    In an other thread, muoncounter gave me the advice to discuss my point here (off-topic where I initially posted). So, here is my point. Schmittner et al 2011 find a low sensitivity. In this article , SkS explains to its readers why there are some reasons to take the results with caution : you discuss in details the models, the proxies, the methods, etc. Lunt 2010 and Pagani 2010 find a high climate sensitivity. In this article , SkS doesn't explain to its readers why there could be some reasons to take the results with caution : you do not discuss in details the models, the proxies, the methods, etc. In my opinion, this is a potential double standard and without explanation from your part, it hurts the confidence I can place in your impartiality. Comparing these two articles on a very similar subject, it seems you deploy a high skepticism for a low sensitivity study but a low skepticism for a high sensitivity study. It looks like a cognitive bias in favour of the most alarming publications, and anyway an unequal standard of quality for the information you give to your reader. Could you explain me why I'm wrong? Thank you. PS : please, no strawman, I'm not denialist and I fully agree with IPCC WG1 conclusions. But I prefer to know if, beyond the very legitime and useful demonstration of denialists' misinformations, I will find on SkS a fullly impartial and convincing view on current climate science results, or a discretely biased presentation of these results.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz} The articles posted on SkS speak for themselves. How you react to them is how you react to them.
  7. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    Never fear, actually thoughtful, I can't claim too many wondrous moments of enlightenment of others on websites. One did come back to me when reading - was it number 3 or 5? - graphs do work very well. With some people, when the ground is prepared thoroughly. Got a strongly positive response with graphs a couple of times - though it was with Arctic sea ice stuff, not much wiggle room there. As for the tsunami. My approach is simply to keep plugging away. The big thing is never to focus on the responders. Always work on the basis that the silent readers are your real audience. And the hardest of all? Never press for an instant response, nor claim credit for an apparent change of mind. I learned this one long ago as a union person in management discussions. If I wanted a certain approach adopted, I'd just raise it in ordinary conversation. If it had legs, it would turn into common knowledge or 'accepted management practice' in 6 to 18 months. 'That was my idea', or 'I told you so' were always tempting. But I knew perfectly well that good ideas are worth much, much more than my personal claim on them - and that claim risked a negative response.
  8. actually thoughtful at 07:30 AM on 28 November 2011
    The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the gap with an alternative explanation
    Apirate - on first glance your comment seems to indicate you think this article could be used to debunk the truth with myths. That raises two questions -the first, already asked by muoncounter - how can you use myths to debunk facts? The second, why would anyone, let alone a science teacher, WANT to debunk the truth about science? Please explain your post more clearly.
  9. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Gary@90: "Why are climate scientists supporting causes? Is getting the science right not enough?" Why do you automatically assume that getting the science right isn't the cause he means? Mann did after all say (email 0071) "So please let me know if that would be ok ... As noted above, I want to get the science right, and if you think appropriate, go ahead." (ellipses in original) He's on record as wanting to get the science right. Is that not a cause worth defending? "back up trend claims with statistically significant data" "Skeptics" never do. That's why they obsess over very small sample sizes with trends they know are not going to be statistically significant and pretend they mean something.
  10. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    The "cause" would honest science and fighting misinformation from vested interest. Same way lawyers support the cause of justice; doctors support the cause of best medical practise; and with the same kind of funding. "It's good to know that AGW skeptics will no longer be required to use a particular software package, back up trend claims with statistically significant data or even do the actual data analysis. " At that sir is a wilful and dishonest extrapolation of what you read, utterly unsupported in the way that science has actually proceeded as shown by the publications produced, which of course back their claims with data analysis and statistical methods that others can reproduce. As to excel, I also am pretty much a non-user. Can you even calculate significance bounds properly with it in time-series with auto-correlation? The top experimentalist in this building is also pretty much handicapped in the excel department, wisely leaving the detailed statistical analysis to other but no one is suggesting he has no place in science - quite the reverse. And Gary, looking at other commentary you have made, perhaps you might like to take the challenge here to convince us that your skepticism is rooted in science rather than political concerns.
  11. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    "If there is a cause, then there appears to be those who are on the team and those who are not." The logic behind this claim is beyond me. "Is getting the science right not enough?" It used to, untill big-something lobbies decided to intervene on scientific issue. I'm sure you know very well that getting the science right is not enough when it touches "special interests". Overall, it appers that your idea of fighting for a cause means some sort of conspiracy or politically organized group, money, written documents and such. It ain't necessarily so.
  12. actually thoughtful at 07:22 AM on 28 November 2011
    The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    adelady - I am humbled by the hard-fought truth of your post 1t 17. How does that play out in effective communication on the internet on climate issues? I find my first instinct is to pull up facts and logic that refute the deniers untenable position. But, honestly, that approach is not working. I would appreciate your thoughts on specific approaches to combating/educating the tsunami of deniers out there.
  13. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Based on Dr. Jones' example, It's good to know that AGW skeptics will no longer be required to use a particular software package, back up trend claims with statistically significant data or even do the actual data analysis. All in the name of science. And when did skeptics ever do any of that in the first place? Several months ago, the CRU made all of the raw temperature data that skeptics had been demanding freely available to them. Can you point to any actual analysis that skeptics have done with that CRU data? Remember that skeptics have had access to that data for about 4 months. Also remember that the Muir Russel commission was able to produce preliminary analysis results from the CRU data in just a couple of days.
  14. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    I used the word "team" in comment #74 because in emails 810, 3115 and 3904 Mann criticizes those who don't support "the cause." If there is a cause, then there appears to be those who are on the team and those who are not. It's obvious who is not on the team and Mann clearly states that they are not "helping the cause." Why are climate scientists supporting causes? Is getting the science right not enough? ( -snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Getting the science right IS the cause.

    Trolling snipped.

  15. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    skept.fr#26: I'm sorry, but that is a case of false equivalence. The term 'alarmist' is impossible to quantify: There are some who believe in the myth that the IPCC is 'alarmist'; others believe that IPCC projections are conservative (the conclusions of the SkS article on Lunt 2010 is a case of the latter point). By contrast, the term 'denialist' is descriptive of a serial willingness to ignore significant factual evidence. Search, for example, for anything on SkS with the word 'Monckton' in it. Let's try to keep on topic. The Debunking Handbook threads would be more appropriate.
  16. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    To follow John H's post @88. I would highly recommend that people read Dr. Bickmore's superb post (Bickmore is a former AGW skeptic): "Contrarians File for Intellectual Bankruptcy" You can find it here.
  17. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Great idea to put this together. Great resource. Thanks.
  18. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    With the exception of SF6 (c. 0.6% of GHG forcing), the 'lesser' GHGs do appear to have reached stable levels, including HCFC-22, if this NOAA graph can be relied on. Or are there some further gases missing from this account? HFCs? That's new acronym for me.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] HFC = hydrofluorocarbons, heat-trapping industrial gases used in air conditioners and refrigerators. HFCs are replacements for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, gases that gained favor in the early 1990s as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, linked by scientists to the depletion of the ozone layer.
  19. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    #24 KenH : a bit off-topic, but I agree with you. When a French interlocutor told me first about SkS, I browsed (very rapidly) and I concluded (very unfairly): ‘oh they seem one-sided, just the same that Idso’s site but on the opposite side’. A more attentive reading leads me to recognize the quality of this site, I was wrong. But I think SkS should be more cautious in the over-use of rhetorically agressive expressions, and also avoid any double standard. For example, if a study find a high sensitivity, it should be explained and examined here with the same scrupulous doubt adressed to Schmittner et al. It seems that it is not the case. For example, here is a SkS article on Lunt 2010 and Pagani 2010. Theses studies concluded to a higher sensitivity (3 K would be the fast feedback response, but more in the pipeline on long term). There is zero critics from the author about the methodologies, the proxies, the models, the uncertainties, etc. So, if the SkS reader is informed with high skepticism on low sensitivity but low skepticism on high sensitivity, he may logically conclude that there are selective biases in the explanation of current climate sciences conclusions.
  20. Pete Dunkelberg at 04:27 AM on 28 November 2011
    The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Thanks for this handbook. The topic is in the current news: Global warming: Propaganda creates myth of disagreement.
    “Misunderstanding the extent of scientific agreement about climate change is important because it undermines people’s certainty that climate change is happening, which in turn reduces their conviction that America should find ways to deal with the problem,” Maibach, concluded.
  21. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana1981 writes: "Another concern regarding the study is in the model they used - the University of Victoria (UVic) climate model, of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCMA)" This is incorrect. The UVic and CCCma models are different models developed at different institutions. Schmittner et al. used the UVic model, which is a climate model of intermediate complexity developed at the University of Victoria. The CCCma models are fully coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models developed at Environment Canada. These models were not used in Schmittner et al.
  22. Daniel J. Andrews at 03:57 AM on 28 November 2011
    The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Thanks for this. I recognize I was making these errors in some of my posts, and even when I was aware of one of the backfire effects, struggled to figure out how to debunk a myth without highlight the myth. Obviously, the handbook works well for any debunking in any subject (creation-evolution, HIV-AIDS, vax-antivax, etc).
  23. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    “The climate denialists have of course focused on the good news aspect “ “which are the climate denialist "endgame",” ”Somehow the climate denialists glossed over this aspect” “Just another of those denialist self-contradictions” I’d like to suggest that this blog stop using the term denialist. I find when I read a piece that uses the term alarmist, I tend to automatically categorize the author and the mindset, and may not continue reading. Alarmist has become a loaded term, and I don’t expect a rational discussion of climate when I see the term. I think there is a similar danger with using the term denialist. This blog is an excellent source climate information. There are a large number of people whose opinion on climate that is not at the extremes. When these people encounter these loaded terms (alarmist, denialist) they may simply stop reading. KenH
  24. Philippe Chantreau at 03:39 AM on 28 November 2011
    Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
    I see that what constitutes an ad-hom was not clarifed for Karl. An ad-hominem argument is a rethorical tactic that consists of attacking the person in an attempt to invalidate the person's message, while the attack on the person has no bearing at all on the validity of the message, whether or not there is any truth to justify the personal attack. It is a logical fallacy. Example: Chris Monckton eats little children for breakfast, therefore his tilted graph is horse-puckey. This example consitutes a logical fallacy and is a true ad-hom argument. Whatever Mr Monckton eats for breakfast has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his graph, as unspeakable as it may be. Of course we all know that Mr Monckton does not eat little children for breakfast, but whether the accusation is true or false is irrelevant. His tilted graph is horse puckey because taking a graph made by someone else and tilting it at an a angle to make it look different is, in itself, a grotesque misrepresentation that needs in fact no particular refutation. A lot of people confuse ad-hom and personal attack. They are different. An ad-hom logical fallacy does contain a personal attack, but goes beyond and draws a conclusion that does not follow from the personal attack. A personal attack alone is just that. If it does correspond to reality, then it becomes pretty close to a statement of fact, provided the language remains factual. As for the "modern luddites" comment, it can be argued to be a statement of fact. It is not an ad-hom, since no conclusion on the validity of anything is inferred directly from the statement. On ideologies, I definitely agree with Paul D. It's only a few select micro-organisms that have killed more people than ideologies. They certainly are one of the worst ever enemy of mankind.
  25. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Suggested reading: “The Truth Behind the Emails of ClimateGate Parts 1 and 2” by John Austin., Decoded Science, Nov 26, 2011 Click here to access this article.
  26. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    Victull @ 5 and 11 Skeptical Science has addressed this type of thing over and over. If we choose the right short run of data, we can end up with some very odd trends indeed. The problem with this, in other words, is that all of us can identify ten year downward or level trends in the data even though the overall trend is upward: that is the nature of the kind of data we are considering. For example, just eyeballing the graph for Funafuti in Figure 1, I think I can see similar flat stretches or declines in the 1960 to 1970 and then 1980 to 1990 periods. On the other hand, the overall trend for Funafuti/Tuvalu and all the other locations in Figure 1 shows sea levels are rising for the 1950 to 2009 or 2010 period. Indeed, within that period, there are also decades where eyeballing the Funafuti graph can identify rapid rises (1950 to 1960, 1971 to 1981, and my favorite, since it overlaps the trend you've pointed out, 1993 to 2003). While La Nina events don't last for ten years, as you point out, it is readily apparent from the graph in Figure 1 and the associated graph in Figure 6 that La Nina and El Nino events correlate to upward and downward spikes in the data, and it is not fair to imply that there has only been one year of La Nina conditions in the last decade. NOAA identifies two significant La Nina events that predate the 2010-2011 La Nina event, which began in July of 2010. Both of these La Nina events took place after the impressive El Nino of 1997/98, which created spikes in many data sets around the world. One La Nina lasted from 1998 into 2001, and the other from 2007 through 2009. And now we have a third ongoing La Nina event. Here is the NOAA link: Multivariate ENSO Index with El Nino and La Nina events since 1950 Thus, the trend at Funafuti/Tuvalu from 2000 to 2010 is strongly influenced by the fact that it begins with a La Nina event which raises the local sea level, and ends with an El Nino which decreases it. [This paragraph inserted per request] Ultimately, it is important to note that because Funafuti/Tuvalu is in a relatively small area of the Pacific that has been exhibiting very large sea level increases, relative to the global average, over the 1950 to 2009 period, it makes sense (to me at least) that its graph contains these kinds of seemingly contradictory trends. An analogy that works for me is this: If I submerge my foot into a bucket of water or take it out, the water level in the bucket rises and falls quite appreciably, but if I insert my foot into a lake or take it out, the effects are much less dramatic. Tuvalu Island just happens to find itself in a part of the Pacific that for various reasons is behaving more like the bucket than the lake.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inserted missing text per request.
  27. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    84/86 - Tom Curtis, Mango: Apologies, I think I read and reacted to quickly, not having read the original text in the Torygraph. IMHO using excel, in the casual point-and-click way alluded to in the email, is almost a 'sackable' offence for any serious, reproducible, work! It is not only bizarre to read that people think this a key skill; but indicative of how many people are clued out as to how science is actually done in real life. Anyway, sorry again for a poor post.
  28. Sea level is not rising
    This explanation is not up to the standards of excellence I would expect from this site. What would be helpful is more explanation in support of the statements that LMVoB (Monckton) has blatantly doctored graphs, notably a discussion of his key claim that "a global isostatic adjustment correction" is open to questioning. He says in the caption to the graph that appears before the second one you show: "The question is whether or not this “correction” is justifiable." Quite. Given this is his justification for tipping the graph like so, I would be grateful if someone with a better grasp of such things than I could furnish an answer.
  29. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Victull, Higher sensitivity implies that surface temperatures will rise faster due to greater climate feedbacks and a shorter time to reach an equilibrium Not necessarily. Greater feedbacks simply result in a greater radiative energy imbalance, which takes the system further away from equilibrium. That leads to faster initial warming, but also to more eventual warming so speed to achieve equilibrium will be largely unaffected. In the range of GCMs, there is a fairly robust 2:1 ratio for equilibrium to transient response regardless of sensitivity. Differences between the models on speed to reach equilibrium relate to thermal inertia and thermal capacity of the system, particularly the oceans, not to magnitude of sensitivity.
  30. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    victull : 'Higher sensitivity implies that surface temperatures will rise faster due to greater climate feedbacks and a shorter time to reach an equilibrium; and conversely with lower sensitivity. In energy gain terms there might not be much difference as a higher forcing imbalance over a shorter period might equal a lower imbalance over a longer period' This is not the way I interpret the difference between high and low sensitivities. You suggest that they differ in the rhythm of warming until a new equilibrium is reached. But more fundamentally, they diverge in the estimation of total radiative feedbacks (albedo, WV, lapse rate, cloud, carbon cycle) due to a 2xCO2 forcing, with moderate feedbacks in low sensitivity and pronounced feedbacks in high sensitivity. The pace of warming, whatever the sensivity is, is related to other factors : ice response, oceanic thermal mixing, etc. As far as I remember, there are no particular correlations in IPCC models between the levels of transient and equilibrium climate response, nor clear indications of total relaxation time's range among models.
  31. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    bartverheggen @16 the model is fitted to the locally reconstructed temperature, it is forced to give less cooling by lowering climate sensitivity. Looking at the behaviour of their model, it gives a sensitivity of 3 K when applied to current global warming. If not constrained by the MARGO dataset, like in this paper, the model gives a cooling of 3.6 K with prescribed ice sheets. In my (humble, really) opinion much of the low sensitivity they found is due to the dataset and to a regional bias. I'm confident that others will take a deeper look into these results.
  32. Pete Dunkelberg at 01:30 AM on 28 November 2011
    Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    You say "This is particularly true since the LGM only experienced fast feedbacks,...." I'm not sure why you say that.
  33. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    #16 boba10960 : I agree with this strange divergence about proxy interpretation, that I mentioned in another discussion (interested persons can read the full Shakun et Carlson 2010 paper). #17 bartverheggen : ‘It's a little strange at first sight that the UVIC model resulted in a larger temp trend than most other models due to colder pre-ind temperatures’ As I interpret it (to be confirmed), this is not exactly the point made by tamino, and I don’t think it is a good argument against CCCMA skill for paleoclimate simulations. Tamino showed that when simulating the 20th century in IPCC runs, CCCMA obtains a too low warming in the first half of the period, and a too high warming in the second half (albeit with a correct overall warming trend for 1900-2000). The most plausible explanation is that such models of intermediate complexity deals poorly with decadal variations due to AO circulation (short term natural variability) and, maybe, that aerosol forcing for industrial period is not correctly parametrized in the model. But I don’t see the poor realism on short period with relatively small variations (20th century, 0,8K) as a fatal flaw for simulating longer periods with more pronounced changes (LGM-Holocene, 3 or 5 K on 10 ka). #11 Andy : these technical questions remains quite obscure for me too... even with Tom Curtis' explanations on #13 or Annan's on his blog!
  34. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana1981 The Schmittner et al. (2011) paper has aready been seized upon by deniers to claim that the global warming story has been exaggerated. The Murdoch mouthpiece Weekend Australian has already quoted it in Editorial in an attempt to cast doubt. It is important that the issue of climate sensitivity not be given too great an emphasis so that the clear case for the cause of global warming is not sullied. Higher sensitivity implies that surface temperatures will rise faster due to greater climate feedbacks and a shorter time to reach an equilibrium; and conversely with lower sensitivity. In energy gain terms there might not be much difference as a higher forcing imbalance over a shorter period might equal a lower imbalance over a longer period.
  35. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    DrTsk @6 Well DrTsk, I don't see any of the respondents disagreeing with my point about the last 10 years. You are talking to a lukewarnmer here - not a skeptic. That does not mesn that any query about a confusing picture need be dismissed as 'pink elephantry'. Rob Painting - I noted the 'hide the incline' post, however La Ninas don't run for 10 years. The 2010 La Nina was a big one but would not account for a 10 year trend.
  36. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Anyone working in paleoclimatology is well aware of the fact that any proxy for temperature is influenced by other factors as well, and correcting for these other factors introduces substantial uncertainty in paleo temperature estimates. For example, for sea surface temperature (SST) estimates, it was recently shown that the Mg/Ca ratios of foraminefera shells, one of the most commonly used SST proxies, has a large salinity bias (J. Arbuszewski et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters 300 (2010) 185–196), particularly in the subtropical Atlantic where Schmittner et al. note warmer SST values than expected. Also, I have seen unpublished data showing systematic offsets of about 4°C between SST values derived from alkenones in surface sediments (another commonly used SST proxy) and historical SST data. One must be cautious in interpreting paleotemperatures, both on land and from the ocean. A reflection of this is can be seen by comparing another recent synthesis of Last Glacial Maximum temperatures presented by J.D. Shakun and A.E. Carlson (Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1801-1816), who reported a global average cooling of 4.9°C: "The magnitude of the glacial-interglacial temperature change increases with latitude, reflecting the polar amplification of climate change, with a likely minimum global mean cooling of (approximately minus) 4.9 °C during the LGM relative to the Altithermal." This is substantially greater than the estimate by Schmittner et al. Shakun is the third author of the Schmittner paper, so I am curious to know why Schmittner et al. do not cite Shakun's finding.
  37. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    @les #83 Like most people in the world, I'm a nobody. However, I strongly believe the use of a particular software package doesn't stop people from doing their job properly. I used to work at a university in the UK and I know of a professor, who held in high regard, but he didn't know the SI unit for something in his own speciality and, I heard, he had to be told by one of his students. Didn't stop him from doing his job and being bloody good at it.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Correction: Every person in the world is a somebody.
  38. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 23:22 PM on 27 November 2011
    Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    My last house mate is a post doc Researcher and generally tries to avoid using any Microsoft software. Instead he mainly uses Linux based computers running R for stats analysis and for producing graphs. All his publications are written using LaTeX instead of Word. His background is Theoretical Physics, which may explain why, however his current research is in carbon capture and storage. My point is that scientists may not know how to do simple functions on excel because they use other packages to perform that same function. These other software maybe more suitable for there general needs. I think most people will agree excel isn't very useful for more than general applications such as simple personal accounting.
  39. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    les @83, MangoChutney said that inability to use Excel was not a sackable offence. While it may be that the Vice-Chancelor of the University of East Anglia disagrees, it seems very implausible, so I do not see your problem with his comment.
  40. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    81 - Mango - just who are you to dictate that? I was once speaking with a MS engineer who told me he had learned that people where using Excel in an operating theater (something to do with anesthetics or something) - he almost hit the roof as, in his opinion, it was dangerous to depend on Excel in that context. Excel does some things well but a lot of the add-ons (not least of all graphing) are decidedly dodgy and it's often not possible to know or control what it does. If you are producing assured results, you should use a tool which is built to do the job (R, matlab, etc.). Maybe, maybe not 'sackable'; but arguably - by those who know the domain - unprofessional. So, again, who are you to make decide how appropriate this is?
  41. Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
    Oh and BTW, I have in the past had my comments deleted by moderators here. Yes it is annoying, but life goes on and one finds ways of expressing ideas within the context of the rules.
  42. Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
    Karl an 'ad hominem' attack has to be directed at a person, not a loosely defined group of people. Regarding my observation of America. It was an observation and an expression of disappointment in the current situation. I am on record as being critical of all current political ideologies, whether left or right.
  43. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    #80,81 Mango - thanks for your honest assessment of this particular non-controversy.
  44. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    sorry, i was referring to the wrong email. Inability to use excel is still not a sackable offence
  45. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    @garythompson gary, I'm sceptical of the whole AGW thing, but I think the inability to use Excel isn't a sackable offence, even if Jones meant the comment seriously. When making this remark Jones was refering to Scott Rutherford's mistake when providing data to M&M - Rutherford transposed data wrongly because he didn't realise the limitations of Excel. Again a genuine error
  46. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    It's a little strange at first sight that the UVIC model resulted in a larger temp trend than most other models due to colder pre-ind temperatures, whereas in this Schmittner study that same model resulted in a warmer than usual LGM temp. It's a bit apples and oranges of course, but it seems to require some explanation or the other?
  47. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    With regard to Gary Thompson's efforts to start a fake controversy over whether Phil Jones uses Excel, Fortran, or Matlab for his statistical analyses; clearly that is no more grounds for controversy than whether he uses an IBM, HP or Acorn computer in his office. Frankly, who cares. But he is correct that email 1885 is evidence of a genuinely controversial act which reflects very poorly on the person involved. I refer, of course, to David Whitehouse's attempt to argue that global warming has stopped because over a six year period with a warming trend, that trend was not statistically significant. In Phil Jones' words, "Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I'm getting at you. I'm not - just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. ... I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing." Indeed, stupid nonsense is right. Arguing that evidence of continued warming is evidence of a cessation of warming because the evidence of warming is not statistically significant (Whitehouse's argument) is beyond absurd. You would think denier's would be more wary about drawing attention to such examples of ... stupidity(?), dishonesty(?) ... I'm not sure how to categorize it. Perhaps the deniers are to used to people staring fixedly at the Great and Powerful Oz, rather than looking at the small man behind the curtain.
  48. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    So we should judge the experties of a scientist from his ability to use a spreadsheet? I bet most would let a student do the dirty job. This email is telling for another reason. Jones is well aware of what trends and statistical significance are, unlike other skeptical scientists; Pielke Sr. and Curry come to mind.
  49. Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
    In references to Lars earlier comments about Nordic swimming exploits (Although Beowulf probably beat him) and water temperatures. Although Lamb's comments are anecdotal, they may well be right. Surely that is the whole gist of the map from Mann 2009. If the North Atlantic basin, particularly around Greenland was an area that showed so much warming, one would expect the water to be warmer. In fact our Nordic Hero/Shepherd couldn't have done what it is claimed he did if it wasn't. And it is most likely that an incursion of warm water into those regions was the likely cause of the hot spot on Mann's map. Nothing exceptional about any of this. But it has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether the whole Earth was warmer at this point in time. Which is surely the point of why skeptics love to cite Greenland, grapevines in England etc ad infinitum but don't mention the North-East Pacific, Australia, etc during the same period. That is surely the point. It is what the global picture looks like that counts.
  50. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Dan Bailey, I would suggest deleting the e-mails from Gary Thompson's comment. I personally don't think SkS should be a party to publishing private e-mail correspondence, no matter how prevalent such a transgression may be across the rest of the Internet.
    Response:

    [DB] Agreed and done.

Prev  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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