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  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  Next

Comments 71401 to 71450:

  1. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    You have to wonder why Curry was even invited to join the BEST group, since she clearly has no idea what they did, since their own FAQ contradicts her comments. I bet Muller is regretting inviting her to "participate" at this point.
  2. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Shoyemore : "Just like with tobacco-smoking, it may be that only when the effects of climate change become blatantly obvious that the mass of public opinion will shift." Doesn't stop a lot of people still continuing to smoke, though, especially in developing countries. As long as there is a lot of money (and power) willing to fight against any strong policies which would harm their business, there will always be those willing to do their bidding or unwilling to really fight battles that will be costly and time-consuming for little real result. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you and some of us have taken years to finally acknowledge that fact and give up, but I bet most of us still know smokers. How much more difficult is the battle against burning carbon ? (And that's a rhetorical question !)
  3. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    21, Shoyemore,
    ...it may be that only when the effects of climate change become blatantly obvious that the mass of public opinion will shift.
    Yes. More importantly, to highlight the key quote from Dr. Milne's presentation:
    At the moment, it's socially acceptable to put all that CO2 into the atmosphere.
    That's the crux of the problem. Until society as a whole considers it to be a wrong, bad, naughty thing to do, people will do it. Even if you put systems in place, many people will cheat and game the system. True change will only come about when it is morally reprehensible to irresponsibly generate and use energy. That, I'm sure, is going to require your point. Only when the effects of climate change are painfully obvious will people finally, really understand enough to make abuse of fossil fuel resources a moral rather than a scientific or policy issue, and only when it becomes a moral issue will people really be properly invested in the solutions.
  4. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Ian Forrester's links to the Daily Mail and Tamino (as well as related links to Curry's own site and WUWT), reveal a great deal of denial, reliance on the media and the GWPF for 'science', and desperation by all sorts of so-called skeptics. But no real scepticism, sadly. There can be found all those self-called sceptics who DO deny that the world has been warming, despite their own previous protestations. How do they manage to believe both assertions at the same time ? Plus, with regard to the Daily Mail, what a surprise to find the same shoddy, deceitful journalism. As well as Tamino's highlighting of Curry's (and the Daily Mail's) strange opinions, how could anyone think that a dodgy graph from the GWPF, that anyone could have produced, is in any way serious or convincing to anyone but those in denial ? And, the only other person they consulted (apart from Muller and Curry) was McKittrick, for some reason. Why ? Supposedly, many of those who could have been quoted criticising the BEST reports are not able to, because, apparently, they are actually reviewing the papers. No, I don't know, either... And Curry has, once again, tossed out some controversy, reckon she may have been misquoted, not understand what all the fuss could possibly be about, and become more of a darling for those in denial. Quite by accident and not intentionally, of course...
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] GWPF = Global Warming Policy Foundation
  5. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Tristan, It may be OT, but you should realise that a major 20th century mathematician and philosopher, A.N.Whitehead, described the entire canon of western philosophy as "A series of footnotes to Plato". Aristotle's ideas of virtue and leading a virtuous life are very important in contemporary moral philosophy. Kant is generally regarded as the greatest of modern philosophers, bar none. Oh, moderator, forgive these, my short digressions. Dead white guys aside, Tristan, I am not sure if you are advocating anything new. Professor Richard Alley, a registered US Republican with a modest lifelsyle, made an excellent documentary for PBS on climate change last year.. but there was no record of it changing minds drastically. Unfortunately, there is no short-cut or drastic approach that will crash through the log-jam. Just like with tobacco-smoking, it may be that only when the effects of climate change become blatantly obvious that the mass of public opinion will shift. At the moment, I think the core of public opinion is moderately convinced, but are unsure of the measures to be taken. In fact, the debate is moving much more to the field of policy, in spite of denialism.
  6. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Muon, Show that the scientific method is self-auditing. Show the embarrassment scientists feel when they realise their published paper was actually in error. Show that the reward of science is not the paycheck, but the citation. That sort of stuff. If people have to choose between Rio Tinto and the CSIRO show them what the CSIRO is. Shoyemore, I almost mentioned Plato myself as an example of someone whose ideas were interesting for historical reasons, rather than his pertinence to modern ethics. I'm not arguing that science relax its standards at all. I'm arguing for a shift of strategy. One that focuses more on the identities of the players involved.
  7. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Tristan, I presume you have been to the website and read what it says, otherwise your comment seems irrational and aribitary to me. Here it is again, correctly this time: The Varieties of Scepticism As for your comments about Kant, I am sure Plato, Archimedes and Aristotle would disagree, were they around, not to mention Hume, Hegel and Nietzsche. Some philosophers are for all time, as are some scientists. Your strategy for convincing the public, if you are advocating that science relaxes its stardards of empirical truth, seems to me to be bound to fail, and indeed to make things worse. If that is not your strategy, then for clarification tell us why you are taking issue with people who insist on a high ethical standard, that scientists and science populatisers must meet? We already know that the opponents of science give themselves permission to use dirty tricks. Science, and those who write and speak in support of it, must continue to hold itself to a standard that its foes do not.
  8. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Both sides of the morality/rationality debate are correct. True naturally (no religious) moral/ethical behavior has evolved through millenia of subconsious rational analysis of our world. Thus are equivalent. Therefore ethics, morality and rational thinking are compatible. All this of course are applicable to ideal societies. True rational thinking is not possible from the majority of our global society. On the other hand ethics/morality has been highjacked by religious/mystical movements for the leaders' own purposes. What is one to do? First, stop debading amongst ourselves!! We have a crucial role to study, analyse, explain, and educate using ALL positive tools in our disposal.
  9. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Shibui#8: "data & codes should be included to allow for possible replication." Isn't that an outgrowth of the disinformation strategy that Milne labeled 'false experts'? That lets an out of work weatherman set himself up in a position to question the work of people with better training, experience, resources and expertise? That lets more than one commenter here say, in all seriousness, 'I gathered some data and I can't see it happening'? That the average Joe/Jane believes that he/she should be able to 'replicate' the results of complicated science? Tristan#14: "You don't have to convince people of the science ..., only that you are the more believable party in the debate." How do you do that? Rick Perry (cited by Milne more than once) claims that scientists falsify data for their own gain; do we put tax returns up and say 'show me the gain'? Milne made brief mention of 'fear' in his Yoda voice; he touched on it equally briefly with 'it can't be cows because I like my beef.' Disinformers use the fear card without hesitation, with nonsense claims of -CAGW and economic breakdown due to the dread 'green tax.' This is deeply entrenched human behavior; we act as a society to make change when there is something we fear. Sadly, it's going to take much more bad news to make that happen.
  10. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Shoyemore, Naming your website "Rationally Speaking" implies you might make rational, rather than arbitrary arguments. Things have come a long way since Kant. The strategy for convincing the public of the climate crisis has to assume that the political and financial adversaries will outright lie whenever they have to.
  11. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Tamino has a post on why Curry's comments are nonsense.
  12. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    @Tristan, Naming your website "Rationally Speaking" does not imply the writer eschews moral condemnation, which is open to any blogger. Besides, I think Immanuel Kant, who insisted that rational thought can arrive at ethical actions, would disagree with you. Kant argued that lying was irrational because a society in which lying was commonplace and condoned would be a bad society in which to live. Therefore, we should rationally be honest always in our dealings. Even utilitarians agree with that. Indeed, if you replace, "society" with "science" he has a point relevant to the thread. If scientific facts can be blurred and obscured by political propaganda, that is surely bad for all our futures. I think that is the essence of Torcello's 2nd point in #2, and probably underpins Milne's points also. "A climate of denialism", no matter in what field it exists, hinders effective public policy decisions, and is unethical when it make unwarranted accusations and propagandises for political advantage. BTW, I do not think this is OT - just a more general statement that Milnes'.
  13. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Tom, if we drop the notion of ethics, than all conflict resolution resolves to either coercion or haggling over price. That is approximately the scenario. Muon, I wasn't suggesting a passive approach. Far from it. A debate between a competent skeptic and a scientist over the science will go over the heads of most people. It's easy to play smoke and mirrors well enough to make the details hard to fathom for the layperson. It would be much better to show the community what a scientist really is. What their goals are. That they aren't on a gravy train. That they make 50k a year despite having the ability to earn two or three times that in the private sector. That sort of thing. You don't have to convince people of the science (that's pretty darn hard with all the obfuscation thrown your way), only that you are the more believable party in the debate. What matters is the public's perception of the players, which the mining/energy industry realises, hence all those awful ads on tv prior to the passing of the carbon tax legislation. We need to build sympathy for the scientists.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Italics fixed.
  14. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    8 - Shibui The pay wall issue crops up often, along the spectrum from: it being frustrating for all of us too "They are trying to hide the truth". Still, admins and editors gave to be payed and websites maintained etc. as it is universities get money to fund libraries to subscribe to [some of] journals their scholors need. To make journals free, the grants -from around the world (so administered by the UN?) - would have to go to the journals directly, maybe based on some kind of ranking based an No of downloads. Worth campaigning for, maybe.
  15. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Dave - my thanks for your overview of the droughts and their causation of tree-death rates. One additional aspect perhaps worth considering is droughts' stressing of trees leading to death in future years - as I know occurs with temperate species - which would notably raise the rate of dieback. The data I'd really like to see in future articles on this issue are the current projections of dieback/wildfire CO2e emissions - which are potentially more than problematic as I understand it. I recall that the I(G)PCC got as far as indicating that under BAU global forest cover might change from a sink to a source later this century, but, given both the other interactive feedbacks' acceleration and the inevitable warming due to the 'sulphate parasol's' loss if anthro GHG outputs are controlled, that appears characteristically understated given forests' present climatic destabilization. One aspect on which data seems scarce is the destination of the carbon that the Amazon forest is assumed to be sequestering. In a 60-million-year system with only a foot of soil under it, can that sequestration be measured by the volume transported down the Amazon river and deposited on the seabed ? Moreover, it would be good to read how the net intake of CO2 compares with the net output of CH4 from swamps and from anaerobic decay within fallen trees - in terms of CO2e. I suspect that there may be information from the Amazon Forest's degradation that causes major surprises in future years. Regards, Lewis
  16. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Brilliantly done. Milne is not afraid or ashamed to call out the deniers and to categorically reject their techniques: Cherry picking, discarded evidence (love the trash dump image), false experts, logical fallacy. Bravo! Tristan#7: "let the community figure out who is more likely to supply accurate information." That's exactly the technique that allows the disinformation industry to enjoy so much success. Did you miss the point that 'no one's opinion matters' in resolving a scientific question?
  17. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Tristan @7, if you leave out morality and ethics, you cannot focus on the goals of the participants because any stated goal must be presumed to be an ambit claim rather than a genuine objective. Having dropped the notion of ethics, you cannot logically presuppose an honest discourse. Further, and of specific concern to this site (if not this topic), if we drop the notion of ethics, than all conflict resolution resolves to either coercion or haggling over price. As future generations can neither harm nor benefit us, they can neither coerce or buy our good will. Rationally, therefore, in the absence of ethics the correct response to climate change is to live large because tomorrow you die. Paul D @9, Ethics is politics only in the sense that Physics is Climate Science. And while neither is science, science is not the limit of rationality, so that is an irrelevant consideration.
  18. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Oh dear, the "skeptics" are feasting on each other. Desperate times to be A "skeptic" or someone in denial about AGW. The cognitive dissonance and denial in some circles (e.g., GWPF and WUWT) is quite impressive and scary.
  19. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Judith Curry attacks her co-authors.
  20. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Shibui @8, It is unfortunate about many journal papers are often behind a paywall. However, you will be surprised how many PDFs of papers you can find online by Googling the title in quotation marks. Excellent lecture by Dr. Milne, thanks for posting this John.
  21. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    My apologies for a typo: para 3 above should start :- "Given that just 13.9MT CH4 equates to 1.0GT CO2 GWP on a 20yr horizon, . . ." Regards, Lewis
  22. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    While I've a great respect for the work of SkS, I'm puzzled by a critical gap in the article above, concerning the rate of CH4 emissions from permafrost. Last February's report from NOAA/NSIDC included a graph showing a curve of carbon output from ~2000 to 2200, peaking at around 1.6GTC/yr at ~2100. This projection excluded the enhanced melt effect of the warming due to its own output, and that due to sundry other mega-feedbacks, and that due to the loss of the sulphate parasol as anthro GHG outputs are controlled, but critically, it also failed to give a CO2e output for the permafrost carbon outputs it projected. Given that just 13.9MT CH4 equates to 1,000GT CO2 GWP on a 20yr horizon, this puzzled me for the same reason as the above article. From my own calculation, the NOAA/NSIDC graph's ~0.51GTC output in 2020 equates to a CO2e output of ~21% of present annual anthro-CO2 if only 10% of the carbon is emitted as CH4, and around 80% if half is output as CH4. - Even the lesser of these equates to a new America's-worth of GHG emissions in just 9 years time. Given that permafrost emissions' threat has been recognized for at least several decades, surely there are credible data available as to roughly what fraction of permafrost carbon has been, is being, and will be emitted as CH4 ? I can well accept that the degree of water saturation now occuring (and thus excluding oxygen and enforcing the anaerobic decomposition yielding CH4) may have made past projections controversial, but perhaps the sheer urgency of this issue would justify publishing the current 'best estimates' for this critical feedback effect ? Regards, Lewis
  23. Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
    BernardJ#139: "Curry seemed to have jumped the shark whilst simultaneously riding a shark." Considering she co-authored some of the BEST papers, that is the pair of positions she's trying to occupy. Only a very high-level expert can have opinions in Two Places at Once, Without Being Anywhere at All. (Oddly enough, it was a different kind of climate control that featured prominently in that particular parody. Careful study of that literature (from 1969) reveals the guiding principle of these folks: 'the sun isn't setting, its the horizon that's moving up!' That is earth science as taught at at More Science High). But it is self-parody, as the BEST website FAQ advises under the question Has global warming stopped?: the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
  24. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Maybe one should learn from Milnes talk. Morality and ethics is politics, which isn't science or scientific. I basically agree with Tristan.
  25. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Nice question about the fact that many journal articles are behind a paywall which can be expensive for the average person. Richard agrees that this situation should change, but that the journals are "business". IMO, as well as (more) public availability, data & codes should be included to allow for possible replication. Unfortunately some have not been, which has given rise to doubt in some sceptical circles.
    Response:

    [DB] It is indeed unfortunate that all published research is not publicly available, but many reasons exist for that practice.  As Albatross points out below, wrt papers, PDF's can often be found online using Google Scholar.

    As for data and code availablity, at least wrt the temperature data records, the data is publicly available.  For coding purposes what matters most is a description of the process used; researchers can independently "replicate" the results as the requisite code needed is self-evident to others knowlegeable in the field.  Indeed, the temperature records have been independently relicated and audited several times (most recently by the BEST skeptic audit team), by both professionals and amateurs alike, with the "hockey stick" signature of global warming evident with as little as a randomly-selectd 10% of the stations available.

    That there is then still doubt in some skeptical circles is then not due to data and code availability.

  26. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    [OT] Correct. I possess (and advertise that) little in the way of ethical imperative. [/OT] It is important in all areas of conflict resolution to release the notions of right, wrong, good and evil and focus instead on the goals of the participants. It does not advance the discourse to characterise Big Oil/Big Timber/Big Industry/Skeptics as evil/callous/irresponsible. It's far more useful to calmly present the goals of those agents involved in the discourse and let the community figure out who is more likely to supply accurate information.
  27. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    Bob Loblaw @ 36 I have read some of your posts at Realclimate and you have made a succinct appraisal of Dr Pielke's modus operandi. He really does avoid the tough questions. I have the impression that when he talks about 'Joules of heat' that he really does not fully understand the principle of conservation of energy. Maybe this is just his poor expression, however he does make a valid point that ocean heat content should be the prime measure of warming. If 90% plus of the heat energy gained by the Earth is stored in the oceans then it must show up somewhere in the system. Temperature change and ice melt is a consequence of this heat gain. I do have a question for dana1981 though. From Figure 1 (Church et al) in your post - does the graph of ocean heat content take account of the instrumentation changeover from XBT to Argo measurement in the 2000-2003 period? The sharp spike in Rob Painting's graph @15 illustrates this better.
  28. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    chris @44 I think it is more complex than 'Does he notice? Does he care?" After reading through a couple of the SkS 'Pielke Sr Dialogues' I saw symptoms which you would find in many old professors right across academia. All professors have their pet theories and will do their best to further them. Some push too far with what everybody considers cranky theiries and colleagues distance themselves. This can result in a 'bloody-minded' attitude from the theorist. And very occasionally they can be proved right so 'bloody-mindedness' does have a place in academia. Add to that the effect of being a lecturer/teacher where you soon find listening to what inquiring students are actually saying is a major effort and counter to the main job which is lecturing. So responding to questions can be often 'over-managed' to the point of not listening. All this is fine. It is the stuff of academia where pushing a cranky pet theory is hard lonely work. The problem in climatology today is the new non-academic audience who love cranky pet theories and who, like the cranky professors, don't listen to all of what climatology has to say. They are acting as a cranky professor re-invigoration system. Given the importance of climatology at this time, the last thing we need is loud cranky professors with their bad science.
  29. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Tristan @5, I will not be drawn into an of topic discussion. I will merely note, first, that you are wrong, and, second, that you have just admitted that in your view any conceivable behavior is compatible with morality. From the second if follows that any conceivable behavior is compatible with what you consider to be acceptable behavior. I will note the second point, and not assume hereafter that any of your actions are restrained by an ethical imperative. I recommend that all your friends and acquaintances do like wise.
  30. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    I contend that much of ethical theory is unsupportable, arbitrary and has been rendered obsolete by the field of anthropology. There is no basis for the idea of a 'genuine article of morality' that doesn't have roots in a theological/humanistic worldview. That is to say, ethics and morals don't exist in a vacuum. They are a function of whichever axioms exist in a given model. The AGW discourse should steer clear of moral proclamations, although appealing to the public audience will of course involve drawing behavioural equivalences between action/inaction on climate change and action/inaction in other areas.
  31. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    Whatever their fan-clubs might imagine now, I strongly suspect that in the fullness of time history will look back very unfavourably on the 'scientific' pronouncements of the likes of Pielke and Curry. On the matter of the zombie meme about recent plateauing of global temperature, I would invite both Pielke and Camburn above to engage in this little exercise... 1) consider the scenario where global temperatures increase following the median trajectory described by the IPCC 2) consider too that this scenario unfolds with future annual temperature variability of the same magnitude as has been observed to date 3) on average how many years prior to 'present' would, at any random point on the future time-line, always be statistically non-warming, even when there is an underlying consistent global warming occurring, and even when there is absolute recent warming occurring? Once that has been properly dealt with, they could try this alternative: 1) consider the scenario where global temperatures increase following a severe-case trajectory described by the IPCC 2) consider too that this scenario unfolds with future annual temperature variability of the same magnitude as has been observed to date 3) on average how many years prior to 'present' would, at any random point on the future time-line, always be statistically non-warming, even when there is an underlying consistent global warming occurring, and even when there is absolute recent warming occurring? What do these answers say about folk who trumpet non-warming in short time periods immediately prior to present?
  32. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Tristan @3, the claim that morality is arational is one of the most pernicious and evil ever made, and flies in the face of much of ethical theory. Because in fact morality, at least the genuine article, is truly rational, speaking rationally may require from us moral condemnation. Indeed, speaking rationally about morality requires of us the moral condemnation of those who would divorce morality from reason, and reason from morality.
  33. Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
    Nah, parody always wins. Or is at least more entertaining. The relevant cherrypick is the interval from 2002 forward.
    And that is exactly what happened, to wit: Curry seemed to have jumped the shark whilst simultaneously riding a shark. Sad thing is, I don't think that it was parody... [Not sure how the double posting occurred - apologies.]
  34. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    A site called 'rationally speaking' makes declarations of moral condemnation? Being rational is the process of evaluation without recourse to moral judgment
  35. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Readers might be interested in a more academic evaluation of denialism. Massimo Piglucci has the best philosophical site on the web (and why not? He was formerly a Professor of Palaeontology, with a track record of opposing creationism). In a recent post he drew attention to a journal article by Lawrence Torcello on the subject of ethical standards in public discourse, with special reference to the various "denialisms" - HIV, vaccines, climate etc. Torcello points out that actual skepticism is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). Pseudoskepticism, on the contrary, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational. Torcello proposes three recommendations for public discourse: (1) Ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body; (2) It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation; (3) It is imperative upon educators, journalists, politicians and all those with greater access to the public forum to condemn, factually and ethically, pseudoskeptical assertions without equivocation In (2), some have typified this as censorship. I disagree - the word "unwarranted" most certainly applies to many climate denialist tropes e.g. that scientists are enriching themselves on great money. Thanks for the post, SkS, I think you are tops for (3) in Torcello's list except that you go beyond condemnation in favour of refutation. All great philosophers have held that, if the playing pitch is level, the truth will always win (eventually!). Rationally Speaking: The ethics of scientific inquiry and public discourse
  36. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    I've found these "discussions" with Dr. Pielke very iluminating. I had assumed that Dr. Pielke, while occupying the "contrary" position on climate science, was essentially presenting his position in good faith, with an assumed set of scientific justifications. He's demonstrated very clearly that that simply isn't the case. Does he realise the impression of bad faith his discourse reveals? Perhaps he doesn't care. In any case and in line with the general philosophy of SkepticalScience this has been very educational and revealing.
  37. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Great lecture! And no, not just because of the SkS plug. The bull in the china shop analogy is a pearler! The role playing voice gives it that extra spark of humor.
  38. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    gpwayne @42, an incitefull essay, which deserves an easier link. One part I particularly enjoyed was the comment on the similarity in argument style between creationists, 9/11 tuthers, and AGW deniers, a commonality I have noticed myself:
    "In his 2005 book The Wisdom Paradox, clinical professor of neurology at New York University School of Medicine Elkhonon Goldberg wrote that pattern recognition was an aspect of perception that does not deteriorate as we age, and may in fact improve throughout our lives. What we describe as ‘wisdom’ is often an ability to deduce hidden or opaque information, sometimes with (apparently) very little to go on, because we recognise the patterns. When Pielke turned up at the SkepticalScience site to defend his position, the patterns emerged thick and fast. My familiarity with his methods owes much to the time I have spent in CiF arguing with AGW sceptics. Not just them, but creationists, 9/11 troofers, Millennium bug deniers, even – to my surprise, since I thought we’d really nailed down the lid of this particular coffin – a few ozone hole sceptics, emerging from their foxholes to discover the war was over, and they lost. Methods employed by these disparate groups are remarkably similar, and consistently inconsistent. In particular, if you have a really good argument, they will relentlessly avoid it."
  39. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    Well, my reaction to all this is a sense of deja vu. As a student of communication strategies, the discussions have followed a path very similar to that employed by Pielke in response to my basic rebuttal on this site of his claim that 'global warming has stopped' based on a single metric - that of upper OHC. The constant shifting of goalposts, the obfuscation, the claim to be offended by 'allegedly' personal remarks while also making them (e.g. 'snarky'), all conform to the pattern of rhetorical sleight of hand on display in my previous discussion with the man. I have written about my encounter, and the patterns employed by people who I find disingenuous, here: http://wp.me/pv7Zf-9J That said, I think the manner in which the discussion has been held, moderated and maintained by SkS is a credit, both to the site and to the discussion of science. You have exposed the weakness in Pielke's science, and allowed him sufficient rope, as it were. Those who can be bothered to check the facts, the arguments and the rhetoric can, as ever, decide for themselves who is properly sceptical, and who is not.
  40. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    You rock Daniel. Thanks!
  41. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    It was a good day, it was a bad day; added 3 months of posts long thought lost: Jan 13, 2010 Models Jan 19, 2010 Hottest Year Jan 27, 2010 Post Dispatch Jan 30, 2010 It’s a slow week Feb 4, 2010 Skikda Feb 6, 2010 Gridiron Games Feb 8, 2010 Combining Stations Feb 8, 2010 The Real Climate McCarthy Feb 13, 2010 Prime Meridian Feb 15, 2010 Dropouts Feb 15, 2010 Open Thread #18 Feb 15, 2010 Summer and Smoke Feb 16, 2010 Growthgate Feb 18, 2010 Cherry Snow Feb 22, 2010 Statistical Geometry Feb 22, 2010 Snow Feb 23, 2010 GHCN: preliminary results Feb 25, 2010 False Claims Proven False Feb 25, 2010 Shame Feb 25, 2010 Interesting Comment Feb 25, 2010 Show and Tell Feb 26, 2010 Thanks Feb 28, 2010 Update Mar 1, 2010 Replication, not repetition Mar 5, 2010 Global Update Mar 5, 2010 Message to Anthony Watts Mar 11, 2010 Update, and a good post by the Rabett Mar 11, 2010 Not a Random Walk Mar 16, 2010 Still Not Mar 21, 2010 The Power — and Perils — of Statistics Mar 22, 2010 Good Bayes Gone Bad Mar 24, 2010 Bad Bayes Gone Bad Mar 25, 2010 Temporarily Offline
  42. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    The content of the post contradicts the "scientific robustness" claim too, trying once again to blame global warming on the all-but-dead galactic cosmic ray hypothesis. Basically calling Dr. Muller stupid while themselves making a really dumb argument.
  43. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    Another defamatory depiction of Dr. Muller curtesy of Dr. Pielke Senior's friend and colleague Anthony Watts at WUWT. Yet, Dr. Pielke continues to assure us that Anthony Watts is "devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness".
  44. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    BEST's FAQ page tackles the meme we've heard a lot lately: Has Global Warming Stopped? The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades Their conclusion: the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
  45. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    Camburn @35, Dana noted above Dr Pielke's abuse of imprecision about statistical significance. You show the same pattern. In particular, while it is possible to draw a line from a point inside the 2004 1 sigma error bars and a point inside the 2011 1 sigma error bars which is flat, trend lines are not determined by drawing a line from peak to peak, still less from peak to trough as is so often done by so-called "AGW skeptics". Because of the relatively low 2006 values on that graph, a trend line from 2004 to 2011 would rise.
  46. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    Camburn @24, I have responded to your points elsewhere, where the comments are on topic. In brief, I show a graph of the BEST temperature results for CONUS showing a positive linear trend over the last 100 years. The graph matches the pattern shown inline by DB @24. I also point out the need for spatially homogeneous sub-samples to avoid distortions, a requirement not met by the BEST sub-sample on which you relied. Please respond on the other thread.
  47. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Elsewhere Camburn is trying to maintain that BEST shows that temperatures have not risen in the contiguous states of the United States (CONUS). Unfortunately for him the BEST program includes a paper analyzing the difference in trends between OK and Poor climate stations as rated by Anthony Watts'Surface Station Project: As can be clearly seen, CONUS shows a warming trend over the 20th century. There are three statistically significant phases - a warming trend from 1900 to the 1930's, a cooling trend from 1940's to the 1970's, and a warming trend since then. The three warmest periods all fall within the last 15 years. What is not so clearly seen, because their patterns are so close, is that the poor stations as rated by Watts show a smaller warming trend than do the OK stations. That is something worth noting. Also worth noting is that Camburn's discussion of CONUS was a distraction after he was shown to incorrectly describe the BEST results for the entire world. On that point he defends himself by saying:
    "GISSTEMP tells us that the number of sites used is not important. The BEST data in the reconstruction that you are talking about should match fairly closely the other sites used."
    Of course, what GIStemp shows us is that reasonably sized spatially homogenous sub-samples of the data will show the same pattern. The BEST data set on which Camburn based his claims (a randomly chosen sample of 2000 stations excluding all stations used by GHCN, Hadley/CRU, or GISS) is not a spatially homogenous sub-sample. On the contrary, it shows significant spatial bias because of the very heavy bias in the station quantities towards North America and Western Europe, a bias exacerbated by the exclusion of the overlapping stations.
  48. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Why do the BEST results seem to stop at the start of 2010 instead of going up to the present like all the other data sets? That makes the graph end on a cold month instead of the hottest year. Since GISS and NCDC both have 2010 as the hottest year, this ending month biases the BEST graph low, especially to lay people using their eyecrometers. Since everyone else has the data presumably BEST had it also.
  49. Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
    Even Dr. Pielke has admitted that the upper 700 meters of OHC warmed since 2003, and of course when we include the deeper layers, the warming is even larger. All of this is discussed in the post above. Camburn seems determined to deny this, but the thing about denial is that it doesn't change reality.
  50. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    dging, see the final figure in this post (although it uses 3°C sensitivity, not 3.4°C. As you can see, the result is that the projection is a bit low).

Prev  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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