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  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  Next

Comments 71051 to 71100:

  1. Extreme Melting on Greenland Ice Sheet, Reports CCNY Team
    LewisC #4: You state: "It's my hope that SkS will help to remedy this lack of public information about the rising trends of the interactive feedbacks ..." SkS has been doing just that since its inception. To see the results, insert the word "feedback" into the site's search box and click "GO".
  2. Climate's changed before
    Out of interest, and for future reference in any discussions with colleagues, what would be specific examples of wrong information (as distinct from polemic) in the appinsys site? It was the most convincing skeptic site i came across, the arguments being supported by a lot of impressive graphics. Sorry if off topic here, but I am never quite sure which thread to move to for digressions.
  3. Climate's changed before
    Thank you all for the wealth of suggestions for further reading. To be honest, From now on I will tend to rely on IPCC advice and reports, in which I now have much more confidence.
  4. Extreme Melting on Greenland Ice Sheet, Reports CCNY Team
    LewisC wrote: "...why the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has failed to include updates on the progress of each of the mega-feedbacks in each of its reports?" WG1 Section 8.6 Enjoy.
  5. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    FundMe#40: Enjoy the inexorable. -- source Any questions, find the appropriate thread.
  6. Extreme Melting on Greenland Ice Sheet, Reports CCNY Team
    Back last spring there was a paper on albedo loss (in geophysical letters I think) which cryosphere buffs will no doubt recall, which reported that albedo loss now imposes a forcing equivalent to around 30% of anthro CO2 emissions - i.e. around 9.0GtCO2e. This is the only feedback for which I've seen a current figure intelligible to the layman, and I'd like to know if this present report supports that finding or not. Given that we face at least seven interactive mega-feedbacks of which six have been accelerating for some decades, I'm getting increasingly skeptical of the lack of proportionate attention being focussed on them, and particularly of the lack of translation of their scientific evaluations into lay English. The report noted above was exceptional in describing the forcing as being 'equivalent to around 30% of anthro CO2 output' - but it could be still more effectively expressed as 'about one-and-a-half new America's worth of warming, and rising by the year'. I would like to think that the lack of public information on the trend-lines of accelerating feedbacks is due simply to the difficulty of their evaluation, and to a grievous lack of co-ordination across the scientific community. But neither point holds true. First, several of the feedbacks have a directly quantifiable track record - i.e.: - rising DOC in peat-bog outflow streams (~6%/yr) since '62 due to elevated CO2 feeding microbial peat-decay rates; - rising percentage of water vapour carried by a warming atmosphere; - declining cryosphere (recorded graphically since the '60s space program) and resulting albedo loss; - declining permafrost - with limited but significant monitoring of resulting emissions allowing a credible estimate of its rising contribution to warming. Second, the failure to assemble, translate and disseminate those feedback trends to the public cannot logically be explained by an accidental lack of co-ordination in the scientific community - there has never been an issue on which global scientific research has collaborated to the extent it has on climate, and the feedbacks have been known for decades to pose the most extreme hazard of the entire climate issue. Skepticism is not a comfortable state of mind - it opens concerns that there is, at some arcane level of society, an interest in steering scientific enquiry away from the issue of the feedbacks - that could radicalize public demand for action - in favour of the deficient focus on anthro-emissions' impacts generating a scant public pressure for action, that has proved easily deflectable by mounting a circus of denial at home and a theatre of nationalistic rivalry abroad. Some may dismiss this perspective as mere conspiracy theory - but then they must either ignore or answer the question as to why the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has failed to include updates on the progress of each of the mega-feedbacks in each of its reports? As a great many climate scientists would assert, being self-reinforcing hazards they most certainly warrant that degree of attention. It's my hope that SkS will help to remedy this lack of public information about the rising trends of the interactive feedbacks - as a crucial part of its seminal role in informing and educating society on the climate predicament it faces. To my knowledge neither the I(G)PCC, nor the great scientific academies and institutions, nor the NGOs are fulfilling this critical role - so Sks would actually be breaking new and very relevant ground in doing so. Regards, Lewis
    Response:

    [DB] "It's my hope that SkS will help to remedy this lack of public information"

    Science and scientists have been researching climate change and publishing that reaseach for more than a century.  There have been active calls by scientists and scientific bodies for the public and media to pay more attention to their findings for many decades (which is why, for example, President Nixon established the EPA).  So it is not for a lack of transparency, will and effort to reach the public that the message is not being delivered.  So hints at conspiracy on the part of science are vastly misplaced.

    That leaves the issue squarely in the laps of the media and the well-publicized and well-funded efforts of the anti-science community to block any efforts which may result in a declining usage of fossil fuels.  And that is far beyond the realm of this post.  It is my hope that any individuals willing to pursue this line of dialogue take it to a more appropriate thread (many exist), as it is off-topic here.

  7. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    What would be even more telling than plotting the inexorable rise in Global temperature is, if you could plot the inexorable rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on the same graph as the temperature.
  8. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    @Tom Curtis #44: How about transforming your excellent commentary into an article?
  9. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Sphaerica #38: How about transforming your excellent presentation into an article?
  10. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn, Camburn, Camburn, I'd grown tired of (-self-snip-) and gone to bed, but here are your graphs of 200 years of "continuous warming" with various trends. Readers should note that observations and coverage get increasingly sparse and unreliable the further back you go. HADCRUT (suffers from lack of coverage at the poles where current warming is known to be greatest, goes back to 1850): BEST (suffers from lack of ocean coverage, goes back to 1800): GISTEMP (suffers from Camburn not personally liking it, only goes back to 1880 because data prior to that date is considered by GISS to be too unreliable and sparse to be meaningful):
  11. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Glenn, I don't understand your objection. S&C originally claimed that their satellite research showed that 'actual warming' was significantly less than indicated by the surface temperature records. This was heavily promoted as evidence against the AGW consensus and thus the sort of thing which might end up in this database. However, even S&C now concede that their analysis was wrong. Thus, if their original research were to be included in the database, as one of Lindzen's (similarly disproven and withdrawn) 'cloud iris' papers was, I'd think it both more accurate and indeed 'fair' to indicate that they subsequently corrected their mistakes. It certainly doesn't make sense to treat these things as 'currently active' objections to the AGW consensus given that even the authors no longer support them.
  12. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    D Marshal @39: 1) There are two possible issues with bad surface stations. One is that a bad surface station will show a different trend over time. There is no particular reason to believe this is so, but it is at least a possibility and should be checked. The second is that a good surface station that is modified by later construction to make it bad will generate a false trend because its absolute measured temperatures will have become warmer as a result of the changes. Clearly, if you use 60 years of data instead of 30, a higher proportion of the "bad" stations would have been good stations at the start of the analysis period. You don't need to know which stations they were, or when they where degraded. So based on this, increasing the study period will increase the trend in the "bad" stations if there is an actual problem. On the other hand, in the worst case (for the analysis) scenario, it may be that all "bad" stations where degraded either 30 years ago or less, or more than 60 years ago. In this unusual circumstance, the fact that the spurious trend caused by degradation of the stations is analyzed over a 60 rather than a 30 year period would halve the spurious trend. As the difference between the trend in OK (ranks 1, 2, & 3) and poor (ranks 4 & 5) sites is 0.0684 degrees C per Century, in this worst case example for the analysis, that would make a difference of just 0.07 degrees C per century in the analysis, hardly significant. Further, if that unusual circumstance did apply, it would show in distinct behavior between OK and Poor stations over the last thirty years and the thirty years before that. In fact, no such distinction is apparent in the reconstruction (which does not suffer from this problem): So, for the primary issue, using a 60 year rather than a 30 year analysis is likely to exaggerate the spurious trend, although it de-emphasize it by a trivial amount. Regardless, choice of period makes no difference to the compared reconstructions which show clearly that station quality does not distort the record of trends. However, using a 60 year analysis with only 30 years of metadata does make it difficult to attribute any spurious trend found to the first or second effect. Consequently an additional 30 year analysis would be nice - but essentially Watts is grasping at straws. 2) With regard to the UHI effect, Watts' critique is even worse. It's main point is given by he quote from Willi Eschenbach, who says,
    "That seems crazy to me. Why compare the worst stations to all stations? Why not compare them to the best stations?"
    However, in the UHI paper, the 40% "very rural stations" are compared to all stations. As far as avoiding contamination by the UHI goes, the "very rural" stations are the best. Eshenbach's (and Watts') argument, then consists in simply mis-describing what was done. His secondary argument is no better. Watts says,
    "They didn’t adequately deal with that 1% [of urbanized surface area] in my opinion, by doing a proper area weighting."
    But, of course, in the reconstruction the stations are area weighted, so he is simply claiming as a counter argument that they did not do what they in fact did. He probably suspected that was not a good argument, so he then dragged "33% of the sites show a cooling" across the trail to confuse the scent. (It is, of course, irrelevant to the UHI issue.)
  13. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Self-correction: @40 Disagreement #2 "provided temperature changes over time at the same rate at both locations". That's not true. They can of course warm or cool at different rates, but the absolute temperature of either station at a point in time is irrelevant for computing the trend. (Slaps own wrist)
  14. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    The article quotes Muller, "But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics." Yet, we've seen Curry, Pielke, Spencer, and many others doing this thing no scientist could do... frequently and vehemently. Pielke, at least, is still afforded some measure of respect and none of them have been widely denounced. Muller also infamously said that there were now a 'list of scientists whose research I will not read' over the fake 'Climategate' scandal. So where is the indignation and denunciation over this actual 'scientific malpractice'? I wonder if that even exists as a legal concept. Were the scientists who insisted that smoking was not harmful ever sued for it? Malpractice is a 'failure to follow accepted professional standards which results in harm'. That is an accurate description of what the denier scientists are doing with their "lying with statistics" (and what the tobacco apologists did decades ago)... but so far as I can see there are no real consequences for such behavior in the sciences. Indeed, some of these people are hailed as heroes and/or make a living off of it. Fred Singer has been doing it professionally for decades. Do scientists need to take a page from the medical and legal professions and develop standards and procedures for dealing with scientific malpractice?
  15. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Riccardo @40, agree - Watts hasn't demonstrated any ability to do the science yet so no-one actually analysing the data should pay him any attention. But DMarshall is correct about the size of the following he has, and unfortunately there seems to be an epidemic of Dunning-Kruger syndrome amongst his followers so they buy into his science fiction (er, mods, what's the plural of hominem?) I don't think the authors should have stuck to his stipulations, but I tend to agree with "should have stated right at the outset as to why they chose to analyse the data the way they did", if only to grab the scientific high ground right from the start. It comes across much more strongly than doing it in rebuttal. It's disgraceful that science has to become a PR exercise to cope with this, but it's also reality.
  16. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    DMarshall @39, I can answer a couple of these. #3 in his points of agreement (the quote from David Whitehouse/GWPF, which has subsequently been hyped into a new denier meme that the "human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated"). This is a soundbite cherry-picked from a paragraph which a) is a conditional statement, not a conclusion or statement of fact, and b) about questions which the paper didn't attempt to answer. Very good rebuttal on The Way Things Break. Disagreements: #1 I'm sure somebody, somewhere has looked at the actual numbers (I haven't), but the point is that the BEST results and the two papers Watts cites here (Menne et al and Fall et al) agree, so even if using 60 years was catastrophically wrong, it doesn't seem to have biased the results. (Of course Watts will be trying to argue that that the BEST results would be very different from the other two papers if they had used 30 years worth of data instead of 60 - but then he should run the numbers himself and demonstrate this convincingly. Don't hold your breath.) Also in #1, he quotes Willis Eschenbach's comment: "That seems crazy to me. Why compare the worst stations to all stations? Why not compare them to the best stations?" This is nonsense. The objective is to use all the data to compute a mean and trend. So, simplistically, you get "the number" (whatever metric you're computing) from all the data, then you get "the number" from the worst data, and you compare the two results to see whether the worst stations introduce a bias to the overall results. Whether the "best" stations introduce a bias is a completely separate question (and again you would compare them to everything). Disagreement #2: Watts is confusing measurements with trends. Again. The fact that a station is much hotter (or colder) than another station is irrelevant for computing the trend, provided temperature changes over time at the same rate at both locations. What the authors are saying is that the hot spots cover too small an area for their growth to have a big impact on the trend. (Some warming in urban areas will be due to increased urbanisation.) #3 I think several people have observed that this is an outstanding example of pot-kettle-black... ;) Unlike Watt's Heartland Institute paper, these have all been submitted for peer review. Hope that helps - I'm sure others will chip in.
  17. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    DMarshall so a team of professional scientists should stick to what a former TV weatherman "stipulated"? The surface station project provided the raw data, i.e. what "the casual observer thinks ought to cause bias"; the Berkely team analysed those data and reported the conclusions. You may disagree, as Watt does, on BEST's methodology but you can not ask the Berkley team to comply with Watt's wishes or expectations. Not even Watt asked that much.
  18. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Simple decision analysis: 1. What was the temperature 100 years ago? 2. What is it today? 3. If higher, then we may need to do something, if not then don't. 4. Does it look like it is cooling today? 5. If yes then jump to 6 otherwise continue with low carbon policies. 6. Has it 'cooled' for short periods (a few years) in the past 100 years? 7. In the case of 6 being yes, then the only way of being sure of a long term period of cooling is to wait for a number of decades and see what happens. If test 3 shows warming over hundred years then the probability is high that current cooling is short term and the burden of proof is on skeptics to show it is long term. Which requires a long wait and eliminates that as an input to policy decisions today. So we continue with low carbon policies. 8. If the test at 6 is negative and the past 100 years has seen long periods (30 years or so) of cooling (we haven't seen that) then skeptics may have a point. Basically, based on risk and probabilities and the cherry picking temperature scenarios presented by many skeptics. They basically lose any policy argument based on their own analysis of temperature records. So Nigel Lawson and similar political ideologists are perverting logic and the course of decision making by presenting graphs of recent temperature records (10 years).
  19. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Watts' criticism can be found at the link below. Can anyone comment if he has valid criticism of the methodology? I think that Muller might have been mistaken to not stick to what Watts stipulated or should have stated right at the outset as to why they chose to analyse the data the way they did. Watts' reasons against BEST results Watts may be an amateur but he has a huge audience and influence. Since he put himself out there by saying he would accept the results, cornering him would really have taken the wind out of the denialist and skeptic sails, if the data supported AGW.
  20. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Glenn @37: Ant? Watt Ant? (Sorry, that was completely irresistible!) ChrisKoz @12: I think the mug joke is referring to Occupy Wall Street ("we are the 99%") and the study showing that 97% of climate scientists agree with the premise of AGW. I rather like it - I'll buy one of those if they make them (although I'm not a climate scientist either). Camburn @24, John Russell @25, I know zilch about IR photography, but does the "ground" colour represent the ground temperature you would obtain by sticking a probe in the mud, or the temperature of the layer of air immediately above it? Which can be quite different from both the ground temperature and the temp at about shin level.
  21. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn: What makes you think that the climate changes 200 years ago were natural and not anthropogenic? See this Realclimate post that describes the growing recognition that the Earth was cooling 5000 years ago and AGW started then due to land use changes by ancient farmers. It appears that ancient farmers had dramatic effects on climate. The little ice age deniers crow about may be just due to changes in anthropogenic forcings at that time. Please provide links to data that supports your claim that climate changes in the past 200 years were natural and not human caused.
  22. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Glenn, That is not how it happened at all. C&S analyzed the data first and then claimed for over a decade that climate was cooling and their unbiased satelite data showed it [Pielke Sr advocated using satelite data as the primary metric of AGW during this time, perhaps this relates to his current proposal to use ocean heat]. RSS and others then showed that the C&S analysis was in error and corrected them. C&S only changed their calculations after they were proven wrong. C&S did not "bounce off each other", rather C&S were dragged kicking and screaming to where they are now. C&S now ignores the fact that they were wrong and deniers used their data over that time to mislead policymakers in the worst way. Every error they made caused a cooling bias in their record? Normally we find that when scientists have to make several choices in data analysis they have some errors that increase the result and some that lower it. This results in the final analysis being close to the true result. Why did C&S only have cooling errors? C&S continue to run lower than RSS, should I believe that? The entire approach of C&S was wrong and they deserve to be called out on it. This needs to be remembered when we look at their current proposals. Should we listen to Hansen who has always been at the "warmest" extreme and has a long record as being correct, or should we listen to "skeptics" with an equally long record of being wrong? Would you go to a doctor whose last 10 patients died due to neglegience or one whose last 10 patients were corrrectly treated?
  23. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    The current warming, in both hemispheres, is unique in the last 20,000 years, see: Björck(2011). So yeah, I'd call that really dramatic.
  24. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    CBD @13 "I didn't see any papers from Spencer or Christy on their early satellite temperature record, but if any do eventually get added it would be worthwhile to indicate that they later agreed they had gotten it wrong. Et cetera." I would take a little exception to this comment. Whle there are grounds for doubting C & S's scientific credentials on other issues, I don't see grounds for questioning them on this. They used one analytical technique, RSS have used another. They have bounced off each other and seem to have homed in on a common result. That is how science is meant to work and I have seen nothing in the interplay between these 2 groups over many years to suggest otherwise. Just because we have valid criticisms about other aspects of the science they are putting forward does not meen that we should label every activity they have engaged in as flawed.
  25. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    caerbannog @28 "4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting." And Ants' basis for this claim that this reduction in stations used 'compromises "something" is what'? Sorry, WUWT is a maths free zone so he can't answer that question. "5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming." Again, how does removing a warm station bias the record. As distinct from removing a warming station, which would cause a cooling bias in the record. Like deleting stations from the Canadian Arctic. Ants' seems all to willing to pander to the basic innumeracy of his audience with emotive but badly reasoned views.
  26. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn @23, yes, you are playing tricks. The first obvious trick you are playing is the appeal to uncertain data to undermine the impact of well known data. The following graph shows the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval of BEST data, along with trends: Although these show the trends of the confidence interval rather than the confidence interval of the trend, it is clear that data prior to 1880 is insufficiently exact to distinguish with confidence between zero trend over the course of the 19th century, and a moderate trend (0.14 degrees C per decade), although substantially less than that of the last 40 years. When the denier habit of using short trends which lack statistical significance (because they are short) is shown for the smoke and mirrors it is, you appeal to long trends which still lack statistical significane because of the uncertainty of the data. It's the same trick, it just had not yet been exposed. I should note that any long term trend in the 19th century is almost certainly not due to the mythical "recovery from the little ice age", but entirely due to some exceptionally cold years at the start of the 19th century due to the Dalton Minimum and the eruption of Mount Tambora. Indeed, examination of the BEST 20 year average data shows the late 18th century to have been about as warm as the 1850's (with very low confidence). Your second trick is asserting straight out falsehoods such as "[the] GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations". Really?
  27. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn:
    I don't know how to upload pictures or I would.
    Personally, I'd expect any erstwhile "Galileo" to be capable of learning something as simple of this, given that their presumption is that they're overturning a wide swath of modern science ... (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  28. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Hypotheticals like that are pretty useless anyway. If in 4 years there are leprechauns and unicorns in my backyard, that is worth looking at in very serious fashion too. Meanwhile, there actually is a continuing global warming trend for the past 40+ years. When are we going to start taking that seriously?
  29. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn @20 If the cooling, slowing, or lack of warming [...] for the past 10 years continues for another 4 years, it is worth looking at in a very serious fashion You have just shown not only the ignorance of the statistical nature of the processes we are talking about; but also the disregard to the content of dana's article. Dana cited the work which has proved that at least 17y of data is required for any statistical significance: Santer et al. (2011) Your period of 14 years, that you want to cherry-pick in some 4 years, will be insignifficant. If I was you and trying to be as skeptic as you, I would say, that we need to wait for some more: 7 years. Or I would say "perhaps we can find out with usual 95% confidence, that 2000+ trend is different than previous century trend, using given statistical test" if I wanted to challenge Santer et al. (2011) findings.
  30. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn: a) "dramatic" is a wholly subjective term. b) The recent warming trend is still going and will only accelerate unless we get GHG emissions under control. Arguing that it's not "dramatic" yet is rather pointless. Who cares if it's "dramatic" as compared to other recent warming periods? Let's please discuss some science as opposed to subjective rhetoric.
  31. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn: "As far as HadCrut3. It used to be the established metric. ". Are you saying there was a trend before 1900? I don't see much there, but maybe I messed up here? Trends 1800-1900, 1900-2000
  32. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Spaerica: IF HadCrut3 is a reliable metric, then how in the world am I cherry picking? This sort of arguement baffles me. HadCrut3 has the most documentation for a long based temp metric. When you are going back to the 1800's, it was the first to established the temps. This is getting to the point of being silly. We have a long term warming trend.....agree? The recent warming trend is NOT a dramatic one in comparison to previous, within 200 years.......agree?
  33. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    23, Camburn,
    I am not trying to "play tricks".
    laughs
    Note the long term warming for the past 200 years or so.
    So what? I've been aging myself for 50. If I get hit by a car and die, will you tell everyone I died of old age, as evidenced by the fact that I'd been aging steadily for 50 years? Use some sense.
    Actually, you have proved my point.
    No, actually, you proved mine.
    So, show us a graph of the past 200 years?
    I did. You need to see it all at once? To prove what? That global climate recovered from the Little Ice Age before rocketing into temperatures not seen in thousands of years, which are a result of an unnatural forcing with a source and pace never seen on this planet in it's entire history?
    Or is all of a sudden HadCrut3 not a realiable metric anymore?
    No, it's just a perfect example of a cherry pick on your part, and I thank you for it. It makes it clear to any truly skeptical reader exactly what sort of games deniers play to sow doubt.
  34. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    And any further comment regarding forcings should be on the thread linked by myself or related threads.
  35. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    The question still remains, how much is caused by co2,ch4 etc and how much is the result of normal forces. Of course - it's not like climatologists have been studying these kinds of things in an effort to quantify the contributions of solar forcings, greenhouse gas forcings, aerosols, water vapour feedbacks, cloud feedbacks, and so on. ... Oh, wait. They have been.
  36. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Spaerica: No, I am not trying to "play tricks". I don't know how to upload pictures or I would. Note the long term warming for the past 200 years or so. Note the warming from even longer, 1910-1945. Over 30 years so this is suppose to be important....right? (-Snip-) Actually, you have proved my point. During the past 200 years there have been short term period of warming, short term periods of cooling. The general trend has been one of warming, as the warming trends overcame the cooling periods. So, show us a graph of the past 200 years? As far as HadCrut3. It used to be the established metric. I still have problems with GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations. (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] "I still have problems with GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations."

    Note that DMI is a product synthesized from models and augmented by some observational data; it is not an observational product, nor is it a global product.  Thus your point is seriously in error.

    Multiple off-topic bits snipped.  Please see the earlier Warning to you.

  37. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    20, Camburn,
    ...it also must be noted at least, as it could be a short term trend change...
    You didn't really say that, did you? Did you even read the post above? Or did your fingers simply snap into denial mode by instinct?
  38. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    19, Camburn, First, here's your skeptic game played with 1800 to 1900: And here it is with 1900 to 1975: This is fun. Can we play some more? And here's your graph from woodfortrees.org: And here is yours using the BEST data instead of HADCRUT (which is known to be low among all data sets for modern warming because it does not provide any coverage of the area of the globe with the greatest anomalies, the poles): I am assuming that the point that you are too shy to make is that warming from 1917-1943 was equivalent to modern warming, so it must all be natural. You ignore the fact that the first spate of warming lasted only 20 years, while the current warming has lasted more than 30 and is continuing. You ignore the fact that the warming from 1917-1943 did not push temperatures above levels not seen in thousands of years, with a threat to push them above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. You cherry pick start and end dates for both of your series. You cherry pick the data source. You cherry pick the duration. Oh, wait! I'm sorry. I didn't realize. You really had me going there. Thank you! Thank you! Your point was clearly to demonstrate the main topic of this post -- that deniers play games with graphs to trick people. Well done, Camburn. You totally Poe'd me. Totally.
  39. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Sphaerica@18: My point is, one would expect the rise after 1970 as we were in the midst of a Grand Solar Maximum. The rise of the early 20th century has had various reasons for it, but none really stand out as correct or wrong. My point is that the warming presently is not dramatic. If the cooling, slowing, or lack of warming, whatever you want to call it for the past 10 years continues for another 4 years, it is worth looking at in a very serious fashion. Tom@16: (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.  You are being egregiously off-topic.

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

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit  off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

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

  40. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    She has put up a post supposedly addressing the issue of a "pause," and says that while there isn't a statistically significant pause, there's no evidence to say it didn't happen. Also she is now claiming that BEST can't say anything about global warming because it's a land-only data set. Apparently since land only covers 30% of the globe in a reasonably well-distributed manner, it's unable to say anything about global climate... Tamino has already called her out for dodging his question about having a scientific basis for her claims that warming paused since 1998 with BEST data, and using that claim to attack Muller.
  41. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Sphaerica @18: Ok......look at the rate of rise in the following graphs: wood for trees comparison of two time periods
    Response: [JC] This argument is examined in What caused early 20th Century warming? Note: we went to the trouble of writing three levels of rebuttals (the advanced version by Dana is particularly high value) so I recommend reading those pages.
  42. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Added the following: Nov 12, 2006 Picking Cherries Nov 15, 2006 Who the heck started all this global warming fuss anyway? Nov 17, 2006 Monckton part ? Nov 21, 2006 The Thermometer Record Nov 27, 2006 Warming up to Iceland Nov 30, 2006 Supreme Court Nov 30, 2006 True Grit Dec 4, 2006 Wherefore art thou warming? -Still Missing- Dec 5, 2006 Wherefore art thou warming? Part 2 Dec 7, 2006 Honest doubt, honestly expressed -Still Missing- Dec 7, 2006 Questiones Naturales -Still Missing- Dec 9, 2006 Models on the Table -Still Missing- Dec 11, 2006 Balloons and other things Dec 12, 2006 Clearing the Air Dec 15, 2006 Moosehead Lake Dec 17, 2006 Al Gore Dec 28, 2006 Svalbard Saga Dec 31, 2006 Weighting for Averages Jan 5, 2007 Temperature Records of the Week Jan 9, 2007 The Signs are Everywhere -Still Missing- Jan 13, 2007 Coming soon to a blog near you -Still Missing- Jan 14, 2007 Once More, with Feeling -Still Missing- Jan 23, 2007 Change in the Wind -Still Missing- Jan 24, 2007 Here Comes the Sun, part 2 -Still Missing- Feb 15, 2007 Millerism -Still Missing- Feb 24, 2007 Question for Believers -Still Missing- Feb 24, 2007 Water, Water, Everywhere, Feb 26, 2007 Congratulations, Al -Still Missing- Mar 6, 2007 Fast CO2 -Still Missing- Mar 7, 2007 Questions and Answers Mar 13, 2007 The Long, Hot Winter -Still Missing- Mar 15, 2007 Crisis? Apr 11, 2007 A Tale of Two Cities Apr 15, 2007 Temperature Records of the Week: Shelby County, Tennessee Apr 17, 2007 Pay It Forward -Still Missing- Apr 27, 2007 Debate Numbers -Still Missing- May 30, 2007 Note to readers Oct 5, 2007 Wait For It... -Still Missing- Oct 19, 2007 IPC projection falsified Nov 4, 2008 Northern Ice Northern Ice Nov 5, 2008 Yes We Can -Still Missing- July 8, 2009 Vapor Lock July 13, 2009 Why should we make sacrifices? July 14, 2009 Warming, Interrupted? Aug 4, 2009 Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature Aug 5, 2009 Open Thread #15 Aug 6, 2009 Graph Jam Aug 12, 2009 Monbiot vs Plimer Aug 19, 2009 CO2 and the Volcanoes Aug 22, 2009 Constant Aug 23, 2009 Sea Floor Gas Aug 24, 2009 Methane North and South Aug 26, 2009 Loony bin
  43. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    15, Camburn, If you have an intelligent, defensible point to make then make it. Vague, indecipherable implications of doubt and distrust are worth nothing (unless your goal is simply to confuse and befuddle people).
  44. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Global warming is like slowly puting on more clothes on a hot day, you will get hotter and hotter. But if the sun goes behind a cloud you will get cooler for a short period.
  45. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn @15, at no point on the graph does a short term trend (ie, less than 13 years) become a reliable indicator of future trends. At all points on the graph, medium term trends (20 - 40 years) are reasonably reliable indicators of future trends, although they fail at certain well known inflection points. Most importantly, at all points in the graph, the best predictor of future trends has been Global Circulation Models incorporating known forcings including (most importantly) anthropogenic forcings. Which just goes to show, physics is a better predictor than statistics, which is a better predictor than statistics done badly. And (as though you didn't already know), at the moment both physics and statistics done well both predict an ongoing upward trend. As a result, agw deniers just can't keep their focus of statistics done badly.
  46. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Anthony Watts was surprised to learn the pdf had been deleted, and kind enough to email me a working link to Fall et al 2011. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf Having read through, I have to retract my comments above. The interpretation I gave came not from the study itself, now I remember, but from an article on the paper at WUWT. Nowhere in the paper is it suggested that biases in min/max trends make the mean trend suspect.
  47. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    I would recommend that you go back a bit further in time with the graph, say approx 200 years? Gets quite interesting.
  48. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    @ WSteven: I don't see how deniers can continue fooling themselves. They don't have to fool themselves, just the rest of us. For their purposes, it suffices for their arguments to be noisy, not coherent.
  49. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    *these are not the trends you are looking for* Utahn - no worries, the post is coming soon! Probably Monday at the latest, maybe even tomorrow.
  50. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Thanks Dana, I'll look forward to it, you tease!

Prev  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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