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  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  Next

Comments 71651 to 71700:

  1. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 203), "Can you explain how such variability could exist with a net negative feedback damping the system?" It's a highly dynamic and chaotic system with large changes in incident energy flux. Changes from day to night, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, etc., etc. It's constantly changing everywhere all the time.
  2. Clouds provide negative feedback
    202, RW1, Can you explain how such variability could exist with a net negative feedback damping the system?
  3. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Speaking of extreme weather, the sun's kickin' out some major whup-a** (for us NH aurora geeks): http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/gif/pmapN.gif
  4. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Bibliovermis (RE: 201), "No, net feedback in the climate system is not required to be negative." Then can you explain how the current energy balance is maintained despite such significant amount of shorter-term, local, regional, seasonal hemispheric and even sometimes globally averaged variability?
  5. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Nice headline over at Climate Progress today:
    Study Finds 80% Chance Russia’s 2010 July Heat Record Would Not Have Occurred Without Climate Warming "… the majority of monthly records like the Moscow heat wave must be considered due to the warming trend. In highly aggregated data with small variability compared to the trend, like the global-mean temperature, almost all recent records are due to climate warming"
    "For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming."
    "Our statistical method does not consider the causes of climatic trends, but given the strong evidence that most of the warming of the past fifty years is anthropogenic, most of the recent extremes in monthly or annual temperature data would probably not have occurred without human influence on climate."
    Fun stuff, this global warming thingy. The study itself can be found here (H/T to Mark Harrigan).
  6. Climate Change Demands New Decision-Making Strategies by National Leaders.
    Whaddyaknow! here's one Increase of extreme events in a warming world or at least a statistical analysis. Anyone know of any hard global datasets?
  7. Climate Change Demands New Decision-Making Strategies by National Leaders.
    Is anyone aware of a validated statistcal compilation being published about the changes in frequency (if any - though I'm betting they are on the rise) and severity (if any - though again I suspect worse) of climate related disasters and their negative impacts? There's been quite a debate about the attribution of any individual event to AGW - rightly so as any evidence will be, at best, indirect and challengeable - but a statistical picture over time would be more convincing and useful in the armory against "skeptics" and in the political arena as these events have very real "here and now" immediately felt sconomic costs.
  8. Climate's changed before
    This paper in a recent edition of Climate Research by Svante Björck would appear to debunk the skeptics argument Current global warming appears anomalous in relation to the climate of the last 20000 years In fact it would seem global climate has NOT changed by as much as it has recently in 20,000 years. The abstract states To distinguish between natural and anthropogenic forcing, the supposedly ongoing global warming needs to be put in a longer, geological perspective. When the last ca. 20000 yr of climate development is reviewed, including the climatically dramatic period when the Last Ice Age ended, the Last Termination, it appears that the last centuries of globally rising temperatures should be regarded as an anomaly. Other, often synchronous climate events are not expressed in a globally consistent way, but rather are the expression of the complexities of the climate system. Due to the often poor precision in the dating of older proxy records, such a statement will obviously be met with some opposition. However, as long as no globally consistent climate event prior to today’s global warming has been clearly documented, and considering that climate trends during the last millennia in different parts of the world have, in the last century or so, changed direction into a globally warming trend, we ought to regard the ongoing changes as anomalies, triggered by anthropogenically forced alterations of the carbon cycle in the general global environment. and there's a pretty good explanation of it at Science Daily Would like to see skeptical science do a feature on this paper please?
    Moderator Response: [DB] I have invited Dr. Björck to participate via a guest blog on the paper.
  9. SkS Weekly Digest #21
    You were expecting maybe a Kraken???
  10. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    papers, week #42 Ari..... Assumed negative feedback, Arctic winter.... positive feedback. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1285.html
  11. SkS Weekly Digest #21
    RE#2 Chris G or perhaps somebody near by facing the other way having a tea party?
  12. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    89 Dana Thanks.
  13. SkS Weekly Digest #21
    In the cartoon, I wonder what would make a good three-heads metaphor. I suppose if someone wanted to, they could draw 7 heads, and note that CO2 absorbs/emits strongly at wavenumber 666. But, bringing in a biblical boogeyman would probably not play well, with anyone, science-based or religious. For some reason, a Greek mythological monster does not raise eyebrows in the same way.
  14. SkS Weekly Digest #21
    Great work everyone at SkS. Can't wait for the new ones in the pipeline!
  15. Climate's changed before
    lancelot - you should probably make a start with Ch6 of AR4, WG1 report. In it, there is diagram (Fig 6.13) showing various reconstructions of temperature with hindcast modelling in grey, giving you a good idea on the uncertainties too.
  16. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    les - see my comment #47. Yes, the BEST paper only looked at decadal variations in de-trended data, meaning that their analysis could not say anything about long-term global warming causes (same as the McLean and Carter ENSO paper). Basically they found a good correlation between AMO and land surface temp variations on decadal timescales and then said "hmm maybe this means AMO could be contributing to global warming", but they didn't actually investigate that supposition. Nor did they think about it very hard, since as I noted in comment #46, oceanic cycles like AMO and ENSO don't create heat or cause long-term warming trends. Though over a few decades it could be more positive than negative, and thus could marginally contribute to a warming trend over a few decades, so that's probably what Muller et al. were suggesting. But they didn't actually investigate that possibility in their paper. Frankly the line in question was kind of a throw-away that the "skeptics" have latched onto in desperation.
  17. 9 Months After McLean
    I cannot fathom how that 1956 prediction could emerge from any, even wildly incorrect, assumptions. I can only presume that he was looking at a regional (arctic, US?) record where 1956 is closer to present and was interpreting it as a global prediction. Or he hadn't bothered looking at a global record at all but had just plugged numbers into some SOI->global temp equation he had incorrectly derived and hadn't bothered to even question the plausibility of the result.
  18. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    84 - Dana 1981 Regarding AMO Tino says (edited bits):
    M2011 specifically examine variations on time scales from 2 to 15 years. ... Subtracting the low-order polynomial effectively acts as a high-pass filter, removing the very slow fluctuations. .... Eliminating slow fluctuations was motivated by a desire to remove the long-term trend due to global warming or other influences.
    So this is just about medium term fluctuations and not about the causes of global warming; is that right? Then the appeal to this work as BEST saying "it's not us" by the 'skeptics' is some other paper? I'm confused.
  19. 9 Months After McLean
    When I first read the post, it struck me that the largest annual change (a decrease) occuring between 1963 and 1964, just happened to coincide with the Mt. Agung eruption. Coincidence? (Granted, there are other large decreases that do not seem to correspond to volcanic eruptions, and large increases of simlar magnitude, too.) Re: speculation. Without speculation, scientists would never develop new research questions. Scientists speculate all the time. It's just that they should identify it as speculation, and follow it with data collection and analysis to show whether it is reasonable or not. The denial PR machine will take it out of context whenever they can, but speculation is part of life.
  20. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 05:57 AM on 25 October 2011
    9 Months After McLean
    michael sweet, I disagree scientist should not speculate. Yes I agree they can make predictions based on current knowledge and scientific evidence but speculation, especially by sceptics, just feeds the denial PR machine. I'm pretty sure Hansen's prediction wasn't speculative but based on the vast quantity of data being generated by models. Also we were overdue a strong El Nino.
  21. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Albatross - Mea culpa, I was looking at the wrong paper. That said, you are quite right about the Watts surface station data not being continuous even over the last 30 years, and the fact that he's offered nothing but unsupported assertions. He certainly could use the data made available by BEST to run his own analysis, but based on past history I consider it quite unlikely that he'll make that effort.
  22. 9 Months After McLean
    Hyperactive: On the contrary, real scientists make predictions about the future to show their predictive powers. Four years ago Dr. Hansen predicted that in the next three years one would set a new record high. He was proven correct in 2010 when it set a new record. That shows the his methods have skill. McLean has shown how much skill his methods have.
  23. 9 Months After McLean
    CBD - maybe, but Figure 1 shows there's virtually zero chance of even a single month falling anywhere near 1956 levels. But I guess climate 'skepticism' is a very hopeful and optimistic mindset in general.
  24. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 05:22 AM on 25 October 2011
    9 Months After McLean
    This is why scientist should not speculate.
  25. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Albatross@83 The only thing accurate in that cartoon is the Sour Grapes.
  26. 9 Months After McLean
    No surprise. 'Skeptics' never consider themselves to be wrong. It will be fun to ask him about his prediction on January, though. If he ever answers that, of course.
  27. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 05:02 AM on 25 October 2011
    The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    James Delingpole with his view on the BEST research. No pretty, usual collection of misinformation and not surprisingly the line; we knew the planet was warming. Interestingly he did a blog post last year referencing D'Aleo and Watts claiming the opposite. Global Warming: is it even happening?
  28. 9 Months After McLean
    He's probably hoping that one month this year will drop below the 1956 level so that he can say that he meant one point during 2011 will be colder than 1956, not that the entire year would be. Even there he is facing long odds, but it verges closer to rationality than any other explanation I can think of.
  29. 9 Months After McLean
    NewYorkJ - your speculation #1 is probably the most likely excuse. I can see McLean claiming that his prediction was wrong because La Nina wasn't as strong as he expected. It will be fascinating to see his explanation, because as the above blog post (particularly Figure 2) shows, his prediction was utterly ludicrous and completely indefensible. I don't know what he can possibly say to save face after getting a one-year prediction wrong by ~0.6°C.
  30. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Watts has built himself up a nice system of denial. Papers are worthless until they're peer-reviewed (unless he likes them), and once it's peer-reviwed, it's just "pal review", so he can still reject any paper he doesn't want to believe. Dale @52 - as Albatross has noted, the graph you link is only of the upper 700 meters of OHC. It also does show an increase over the past several years, albeit a small one, but graphs which include the upper 1500 meters or more show a much larger increase in OHC. As we told Dr. Pielke several times, the oceans are greater than 700 meters in depth. As for AMO, tamino has a very good post on the paper in question. He shows that AMO actually lags behind temp changes slightly, whereas ENSO leads, and concludes
    "it seems more likely to me that the correlation of AMO with land-only temperature reflects a common cause rather than causality from AMO to temperature."
  31. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Muoncounter @78, "I hadn't seen the attacks you mention in point #3. Weren't we told that AW had the highest ethical standards? " I can't repeat the language used by a Watts affiliate on here without breaking the house rules, well let me try, Eschenbach at WUWT stated that BEST team are "media wh#res." And then Anthony posted this defamatory cartoon of Muller. For more vitriol and ridicule, hyperbole and conspiracy theories read the threads at WUWT if you can stomach it. But, as Dr. Pielke Sr. assures us "First, I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness. Second, he does not have boxes with derogatory labels on them identifying individual scientists." No, Watts just regularly posts defamatory opinion pieces and cartoons of scientists who don't share his beliefs and ideology. Is a cartoon mocking Dr. Judith Curry next on his list I wonder?
  32. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale @ 59 - "As for heat, the first graph implies that ocean heat content has risen steadily. It hasn't. Wrong. Note the following: And this from the SkS post: Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
  33. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    KR @79, Mr. Watts is upset about the findings in this paper titled "Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States", not so much the UHI paper in which they used the MODIS data. There is also the problem with the classification by Watts that they have not, to my knowledge been independently verified (the self-professed "auditor" decided to give their analysis a free pass), and that they only strictly apply at the time the site survey's were recently made, so using Anthony's logic, their classification doesn't necessarily apply for the entire 1979-2008 period used in Fall et al. (2011) either. Regardless, Anthony's complaint is unsubstantiated and at this point mere assertion rather than anything based on data analysis or facts.
  34. 9 Months After McLean
    I offer up some speculation on how McLean will defend his indefensible prediction. 1. The la Nina wasn't as strong as we thought it would be and was subsided by mid-year. 2. The solar cycle really picked up. 3. A supposedly predicted volcanic eruption didn't happen. 4. Data was fudged and can't be trusted. 5. The prediction was for what the surface record would be without all the urban heat influences, siting issues, and land use changes that is responsible for much of the warming. 6. The prediction is meant to be validated against the most reliable UHA satellite record, using methodology from 1997 and before. 7. The prediction was only for parts of the tropical Pacific. 8. It was an imposter who wrote that prediction.
  35. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
    @Tom Curtis #15 What is the citation for the "Holocene Temperature Variations" graphic?
  36. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Hi pbjamm @77, Re the time period, I must confess, their argument makes no sense to me, and it is something that can very easily be resolved, even by themselves-- they too have access to the data. And maybe the reviewers will ask BEST to expand their research to consider different windows. Re peer review. That doesn't surprise me, but Watts overplayed his hand by insisting that the papers mean nothing until being peer reviewed. If he thinks "peer review" = "pal review" why then did he initially insist the papers be subject to it before he would accept their conclusions? Also going by this comment by Eric Steig and what Tamio said in response, the BEST decadal variability paper in particular may have some issues-- so so much for "pal review". There is simply no logic to his argument, he is arguing an untenable position. Ironically, the ones engaging in PR, insincere PR, are WUWT et al., not BEST. But with all that said, I will consider the BEST findings much more robust once they have been through peer-review. Their methodology will not be perfect, but we are at the point now of dealing with nuances, and not glaring errors or biases in the data.
  37. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    pbjamm - Watts issue with 30 vs. 60 years is based on his surfacestations data, as supplied to Muller, only going back 30 years. The claim is that for the previous 30 years there is no data (collected by Watts) on how good the stations are, and hence conclusions on station quality versus trends are meaningless. This, of course, requires that Watt's data be the only relevant points in ranking station quality - not true, and furthermore that BEST used quality rankings in this paper - completely false, they ranked rural/urban using MODIS data, not by 'quality', a word that does not even appear in the "Influence of Urban Heating..." paper. In short, it's a completely bogus complaint.
  38. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Albatross#76: Add to point 5 that 'peer-review' itself is said to be corrupt and meaningless. Despite that, peer-review is vital and important, unless you need to 'Wow' a non peer-reviewed work like Salby or trumpet the press release of CERN CLOUD results, rather than the paper itself. I hadn't seen the attacks you mention in point #3. Weren't we told that AW had the highest ethical standards?
  39. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Albatross@76 I want to ask about your 6th point. I have seen (too)many comments at WUWT decrying the use of the 60 years of data instead of the 30 years that Mr Watts championed. The denizens of WUWT seem to think that this extended data constitutes a bait-and-switch by BEST. I do not understand the 'logic' of this argument and would love for someone to explain it to me. Since Watts and Co think it such a big deal could they not take the BEST data and perform the 30 year analysis themselves? WRT peer review, WUWT is already setting up their readers for the acceptance and publication of BEST by referring to is as Pal Review. That way for now they can claim it is not meaningful because it is not reviewed and in a few weeks they can claim that the review was corrupt and therefor meaningless anyhow.
  40. Climate's changed before
    227, lancelot, I'm sorry, one more final final thought, something I'd meant to say. In the end, CO2 is tagged as a culprit not because it's the only thing we can think of, but rather because by looking at the physics of the molecule and the system as a whole, it was predicted a priori, before any such effects could have been detected and entirely without doing any observations, that this would be the end result. When observations of all varieties -- current temperature, humidity, stratospheric temperature changes, paleoclimate studies of past climate change events (the topic of this thread), changing ecosystems, other planets, etc. -- all converge to confirm the abstractly and completely independently predicted outcome, it has to give one pause. Nobody ever looked at the observational evidence and then backed into CO2 as the cause. It was quite the opposite. With our eyes closed, we said "if I punch myself in the face, logic tells me it will hurt." When we opened our eyes and looked in the mirror there was bruising, a bloody nose, a split lip, and a whole lot of pain. Skeptics then went on to say "well, you can't think of anything else that might have hit you, so you immediately presume that it was your own fist."
  41. Climate's changed before
    227, lancelot, As one final thought, that you'll discover from reading Spencer Weart's excellent writings... it would interest most skeptics to know that for a very, very long time greenhouse gas theory and its proposed effects on climate were not mainstream science. They were viewed as crackpot or at best unlikely. GHG was once, for a very long time (100 years!), the "skeptical" point of view. It is only since the 1980s that strong evidence had mounted enough to turn that tide and transition GHG theory to the accepted, mainstream belief. Since then, evidence has continued to mount and the pendulum has swayed even further. So when one argues with scientists who now believe in GHG and the influence of massive amounts of CO2 on climate, one is arguing with true skeptics!
  42. Climate's changed before
    227, lancelot, An interesting comment, for sure. I think if I were to pick one aspect out that you should correct, it is this:
    I have an innate skeptical difficulty with accepting the simple logic of 'must be CO2'
    This is a repeated "skeptic" meme that is wholly untrue. Skeptics made it up to belittle the science. I would have the exact same problem if it were remotely true. No one ever said (or would have said) "Oh, shoot, all I can think of is CO2, so let's just assume that's the case and stop thinking there." You recognize this yourself to some degree when you list the other known potential culprits (solar activity, GCRs, etc.) and recognize that there is no evidence to support them. First, to know that there is no supporting evidence, obviously scientists have and continue to investigate them. Secondly, the science does recognize contributions to the system by a variety of forcings, both positive and negative. No one ever said that it was all CO2, and any statement along such lines is really completely missing the point. The scientists have constructed an understanding of the climate that recognizes the ongoing influence of a variety of factors, and has established to some degree of certainty the influence of all of those factors. There would really be no way to measure the expected influence of CO2 without doing so. Any implication to the contrary is just absurd. No one ever said "CO2 and only CO2" and no one ever would. To get to the core of why we do believe that CO2 is a major problem you have to start with the same basic physics from which Tyndal started in 1864, and progress from there. I would very, very, very strongly advise reading Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. It is exactly what you need to see, a historical, step by step accounting of how we got from 1864 to today, what scientists really believed and pursued from then until now, and thus why we believe that CO2 is a big, big problem. Please take the time to read that, and good luck. I look forward to seeing more comments and questions by you here at SkS. I'll do my best to help answer anything you may throw out.
  43. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Muoncounter @74, You are correct of course. What I should have said is that he cannot do so and still claim to maintain any sort of credibility or without looking downright hypocritical. And yes, that will not be the first time they have done so. In fact, the incoherent, internally inconsistent and contradictory nature of the "skeptic" arguments is their signature, and at the same time their downfall. Surprisingly (but sadly), alleged "skeptic" seem to find such flawed reasoning enticing. Right now we have (and there are probably more): 1) We have a self-professed "auditor" nit picking at the BEST data, he will no doubt go on to grossly inflate the importance of any issues identified. 2) We have Watts et al. misrepresenting at least one of the BEST papers on the AMO. 3) We have Watts et al. making defamatory and ad hominem attacks on the BEST group and authors (and in doing so that includes their former BFF Judith Curry). 4) We have ideological mathematicians posting at WUWT trying to undermine the credibility of the BEST research and refute the paper about decadal variability-- ironically they are trying to refute the very same research that suggests that the AMO may be playing a role in modulating global temperatures and which "skeptics" are spinning to claim that the observed warming is because of natural variability! 5) We have Watts et al. now claiming that the BEST papers are meaningless until they have been through peer-review. 6) We have Watts et al. claiming that BEST are using too large a sample size and considering too long a time frame. 7) We have Watts et al. complaining about a BEST paper which corroborates the findings of Fall et l. (2011), a paper on which he was a co-author. And on and on the panic, hypocrisy and logical fallacies go. It is quite the flagrant display of hypocrisy and denial by WUWT and their affiliates. BUT, the "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW assure us that they have never doubted that the planet is warming ;)
  44. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Before getting back to the subject of this post, please allow me to dismiss the misinformation that Dale is perpetuating about oceanic heat content (OHC). "This is in direct contradiction to another SkS image showing OHC being flat from 2004 " and "As for heat, the first graph implies that ocean heat content has risen steadily. It hasn't." Now to be fair to Dale it is not immediately obvious what OHC or energy in the system is being shown in the graphs. The graph he cites is the Levitus analysis for 0-700 OHC. The graph from Church et al. (2011) that he was directed to is determined by very carefully closing the sea level budget by considering all the data (including data from Argo floats), and those data do show a continued escalation in OHC. Two important points: 1) analysis by SkS of the 0-700 m OHC determined by different groups shows a wide range of trends between 2004-2010, but the trends for that period are all positive, some of them strongly so; 2) The OHC is known to display marked decadal and inter-annual variability, so one should be very careful about making gross generalizations based on a <10 year trend, and one should not expect a "steady" rise, and a perusal of the graphs indeed shows that to be the case. If one considers all of the Argo data since 2005, one gets"A global ocean heat content change (OHC) trend of 0.55±0.1Wm−2 is estimated over the time period 2005–2010" [von Shuckmann and Le Traon 2011]. Now we can hopefully get back to the subject at hand.
  45. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Albatross#73: "Watts cannot then try and claim that peer-review was corrupted" Of course, he can and will make those claims. He's already taken mutually contradictory positions: 'I will accept BEST, even if it opposes my position;' 'BEST can't be right because it opposes my position.' This form of 'skepticism' is based the fixed belief that 'the other side is always wrong' and 'I am therefore always right.'
  46. Climate's changed before
    lancelot#227: "If it is of any interest, I suppose I would be called a skeptic until a few days ago." There's nothing wrong with being a 'true skeptic;' I suspect most of us are. It is those who wear the cloak of skepticism to hide the mantle of denial that are a problem. As we see from the reaction to BEST, some of those folks are capable of holding mutually contradictory positions and refusing to see any problem with that. However, it appears you have carefully weighed the evidence and reached a reasonable, science-based solution. That's great news!
  47. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale @49, This thread is becoming another splendid diplay of denial and one-sided skepticism by apologists for WUWT. "I cover all bases, and hopefully smart enough to dismiss alarmism and hype and get to that actual science (I avoid media releases for just that reason)." That is not true, you go and read propaganda and misinformation from web sites like WUWT, CA and Jo Nova. You seem to have very interesting idea as to what constitutes a source of credible, vetted and reliable science. The latter three do not qualify. "It's the same with BEST, until their papers go through process and due diligence, it's unvalidated. " Note Hansen's and Phil Jones' measured responses to the paper in contrast that with the hyperventilating of Watts et al. Jones has said that he looks forward to reading the papers once they have been though peer review. Yes, we will see how the BEST papers holds up to peer review and whether or not their primary conclusions hold. But here is the beautiful irony Dale, "skeptics" have been claiming for a while now that peer-review is corrupted, unreliable and guilty of gate keeping etc.. Now they seem to be appealing to it and fully endorsing it as an excuse to dismiss the BEST research. Note too that very loud claims made by Watts prior to undertaking research were completely refuted by a peer-reviewed paper that he was a co-author on. I doubt very much that will be the case for the BEST research, but we will see soon enough. But if the papers do appear in print and their conclusions hold, then Watts cannot then try and claim that peer-review was corrupted or something along those lines, he is now saying that peer-review is required and the gold standard. "If the question is the later, then technically it hasn't according to HadCRUT, CRUTEM, NCDC, and the RSS, UAH satellite feeds since 2000 (GISS shows a slight warming)." Another demonstrably false statement by you, and a red herring and a shifting of the goal posts. This issue of "skeptics" cherry-picking short term trends that have no statistical significance has been dealt with ad nauseum before. Most recently here. Additionally, the climate system continues to accumulate energy. When invited to join us in condemning the actions of Watts you have declined citing it as "bad manners". What a ridiculous excuse. I suppose then that it is "bad manners" for the law to hold people accountable for their actions. And since when did calling someone on their bad behaviour and their bad manners become rude? That you cannot bring yourself to condemn the nonsense that has been going on at WUWT the last few days or such fine and upstanding actions like this (from WUWT) is very telling. So it seems then that we can assume then that you support his innuendo, vitriol etc. "I am my own sceptic." I have no idea what that is meant to mean. We do not decide to be our own 'skeptics' Dale. You do not seem to know what is means to be a real skeptic. Please save us the claim that you consider evidence from both sides. Well, that may be, but that does not mean you cannot fall in the trap of exercising one-sided skepticism, or fall in the trap of confirmation bias, or be suffer cognitive dissonance.
  48. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    A followup to my previous post: a quick read of the WUWT posting I referred to appears to have taken the intro section of Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change (by Glenn Tamblyn), read the "How NOT to calculate the Surface Temperature" section, and done absolutely everything wrong possible. How to (mis)cook your data, redux.
  49. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Anthony Watts is now, as apparent in his recent (today) "Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend" post, clipping any links to SkS. He's attempting to justify it with "SkS doesn't treat people with any sense of fairness - for Example Dr. Peilke Sr." It's quite clear that Watts is maintaining his denial, dumping the BEST results even though they agree with his sole peer-reviewed article, in addition to avoiding any linkage to useful information here. The Watts post, incidentally, consists of dropping all GISS stations with breaks in the record, averaging temperatures rather than anomalies (anomalies only calculated on the average temperatures), no area weighting, etc. Cherry picking and bad statistics in the extreme.
  50. Climate's changed before
    Sphaerica thanks. I was not expecting to find precise 'hindcasts', just quantification of trends. But I appreciate that setting precise start conditions are vital to run a non-linear model, hence the difficulties. My next question would have arisen from the last, but maybe is off topic. How confident are you that all natural forcings have been accurately estimated in the late 20th century? However I see from other parts of this site that this has been addressed. eg Hansen 1988 and subsequent studies seem to give broad agreement that since 1900, natural forcing is estimated as about 0.2 deg c, so the rest 'must be' CO2. I have an innate skeptical difficulty with accepting the simple logic of 'must be CO2', (there can be, and are, other suspects) but I do concede that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the only mechanism proposed to date which is backed up by both evidence and modelled predictions. So by far the most likely. And the data since 1970 fits very well with the AGW predictions. If it is of any interest, I suppose I would be called a skeptic until a few days ago. In view of Richard Muller's release of the results of the Berkley Earth (BEST) study on October 22, I have significantly reviewed my attitude to the AGW debate. My skepticism of the 'dangerous AGW' theory was based on the following: 1. Distrust (whether right or wrong) of the quality and integrity of evidence of global temperature (GT) increases as presented by NASA/GISS, Hadley CRU, NOAA. 2 Belief, as evidenced by proxy records for last 1100 years, that the current GT was probably not much more than 0.5 deg C above the historic average. 3 Evidence from proxy records that 0.5 deg C was within the range of historic natural variations, and thus plausibly explained as part of natural forcings. 4 Suspicion that the extent of natural forcing may have been under-estimated, and thus the effect of CO2 forcing over-estimated, due to lack of accuracy or completeness of the models. However: 1 I have no reason to doubt that Richard Muller and his team have done a very thorough job. 2 The BEST study indicates a rise of 1.25 deg C from what seems to be the historic mean level over the last 1100 years, at around 1900 AD. 3 1.25 deg C is well above the historic range of proxy natural variation estimates of +/- 0.5 deg C, even at peaks. 4 The rise post-1970 correlates well with the predictions of the IPCC and of Hansen 1988. 5 Therefore, in the absence of any evidence for abnormally high solar forcings, galactic cosmic ray activity, or other natural events, it is no longer plausible to suggest that warming to date is wholly or mainly natural. 6 The greenhouse effect of CO2 is the only mechanism proposed to date which is backed up by evidence and modelled predictions. As a result, on the basis of that evidence, I am bound to say I now give much more credence to the IPCC presentations of the effects of CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas, creating warming well in excess of natural warming, and likely to increase with increasing levels of CO2. From what you say, my logic may be based on seeing too much 'precision' in the proxy records. But that is what it was based on. If you have any more comments I would of course be very pleased to hear them. Thanks for the help in understanding.

Prev  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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