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  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  Next

Comments 71901 to 71950:

  1. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
    @Tom Curtis #15 What is the citation for the "Holocene Temperature Variations" graphic?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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."
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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 ;)
  10. 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.
  11. 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.'
  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    From reading some of the bemusing justifications over at WUWT, it appears that the so-called skeptics are presently congregating around the "Of course we all accept that it has warmed since the LIA/beginning of the Interglacial, but it's natural. And we still can't trust the temperature record. And Muller has gone native and is now part of that ever-increasing conspiracy..."
  18. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    59 - Dale (gosh, haven't you got a lot of replies!)
    Muller hasn't "sucker-punched" anyone. He's confirmed what everyone knows and acknowledges: that the Earth has warmed.
    via tamino it appears, at least, that Mr. Watts didn't know that. To deny that a huge part of the 'debate' hasn't revolved around accusations of malpractice, corruption and poor science by very professional scientists is disingenuous.
  19. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    For the record, Muller's own apologia for the BEST study can be found in The Wall Street Journal. Personally, I think his 'there were lots of very compelling reasons to doubt global warming, but fortunately I have now come along and disproven them' position is a load of self-serving 'bovine waste product'. He has enough integrity not to produce falsified or heavily biased results, but not to admit that he shot his mouth off about 'problems' in the surface temperature record without first looking at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All of the 'concerns' he raises had been shown to be nonsense before he ever got involved. This editorial and the 'maybe some magical other force, for which we have no evidence at all, is causing the warming' bit in the study show that he's still not to be taken seriously unless he shows his math.
  20. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Oooh... I didn't get to the disclaimer that Micheal Palmer put at the end of his post on Watts' site. Get this:
    Disclaimer I am not a climate scientist and claim no expertise relevant to this subject other than basic arithmetics. In case I have overlooked equivalent previous work, this is due to my ignorance of the field, is not deliberate and will be amended upon request.
    What a wonderful source of information WUWT is! One can visit that site and feel truly and completely well informed and ready to pronounce judgment and take action on the most compelling issue of our day.
  21. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Just a few days ago, one of Dale's other sources of information, JoNova, hosted a blog post by none other than that highly respected and touted climate-scientist-economist-comedian the Lord Viscount Barry Cohen, mathematically proving that Canada shouldn't try to cut emissions because in the grand scheme of things it won't matter, and if Canada tried to cut emissions all by themselves, without the rest of the world doing anything, it would cost them $84 trillion per degree. Yup, skeptics that visit these sites are very well informed on the science. I'm quite sure that every time a true skeptic visits his doctor for a checkup, he also goes to a car mechanic or cashier at a nearby grocery store for a balanced second opinion on his health, especially if the doctor gave him any bad news. That would be the properly skeptical thing to do.
  22. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    And yet today Anthony continues with his inane position with a post titled: "Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend" Here, guest poster Michael Palmer (from the department of chemistry at the University of Waterloo) purports to show a new method of analyzing the surface data in the U.S. only and concludes that there has been no warming at all. So a chemist [not a statistician or climate scientist] works on a problem of temperature observations and statistics [not atmospheric or ocean chemistry or atmospheric physics] studying the data from a single continent [not the globe] in which he single handedly [not as part of a working group like BEST or in concert with other scientists] produces a blog post [not a peer-reviewed paper] to demonstrate in the face of all evidence to the contrary that there is no warming trend. This is the site that Dale finds credible, where "skeptics" accept that there has been warming and work in a rational and balanced way to resolve the conundrum of what is causing that warming.
  23. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale wrote : "You're kidding right? The sceptic goalpost for most of us is, and always has been, "sure, the world has warmed...... but WHY?" This applies to the BEST research. Sceptics don't care that they show global warming. We know that." Those "sceptics" obviously don't include A. Watts :

    Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. SPPI Report co-authored by A. Watts

    And yet, you then followed that up with : "I read a lot of information, from here, WUWT, RC, CA and even scientist blogs. Doesn't matter how many times you say sea levels will rise 8 stories (Tim Flannery) or the surface records are corrupt due to siting (Watts), without proof that can hold up to process and due diligence it's just unvalidated waffling. So I read from SkS, RC and others, as well as WUWT, JoNova (more for an Aussie home flavor), CA and others." (My emphasis) So, you reckon "sceptics" have never doubted that the world has been warming, and yet one of those that you go to for 'information' is on record as doubting that it has. Do you think he is one of those "sceptics" you mentioned ? If so, why has he doubted the increase in temperature; if not, why are you going to him for information ? Also, with regard to Tim Flannery, where did you get your information from ? You claim to "...cover all bases, and [are] hopefully smart enough to dismiss alarmism and hype and get to that actual science (I avoid media releases for just that reason)" and yet you appear to have believed one thing and missed this :

    A great deal of misleading information about climate change is circulating in various media, making the commission's job a pertinent one. Contrary to the editorial in question, I have never said that we may see a sea-level rise of 80 metres by 2100. That's flatly contradicted in my book The Weather Makers.

  24. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    Lloyd, yes if the estimated volume trend continues the way it has been then we'd hit zero some time this decade. However, there is a school of thought which holds that the volume decline is likely to level off soon - basically grounded in the idea that the loss has primarily been due to export of older/thicker ice and thus that the rate of loss will decline as the amount of thick ice remaining decreases. For potential effects on life forms you could search for 'polar bears' on this site. I've also seen research and news articles about impacts on seals that den on the ice, some Atlantic and Pacific species now being able to cross the gap, micro-organisms that live in the melt ponds but not salt water, et cetera. I don't recall any SkS articles on these other issues. Suffice it to say that if the ice goes there will be radical changes for lifeforms not only in the Arctic, but the Atlantic and Pacific as well.
  25. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale wrote: "The SkS article does not say "some amount". It states that 'human activities are causing climate change'." Which... they are. Note, it does not say 'human activities are the only factor involved in climate change' or 'human activities are responsible for all climate changes'. "Human activities are causing climate change". Accepted reality. Not one of the big 'skeptic' scientists will challenge it. Yet here you are holding it up as some kind of unreasonable statement. "Basically, the SkS comment is misleading." This from the guy who changed 'may be' to 'most probably is'? As to Watts. I find it fascinating that you can claim to read and understand all sides of the debate, specifically including Watts, AND that absolutely nobody claims the planet hasn't warmed significantly... even though that has been Watts central premise since day one. He is still claiming that the observed warming is an artifact of urban heat island biases and/or scientific malfeasance. Yet you simultaneously believe that he is a worthy source and that there is no one foolish enough to believe the things he says on a regular basis. That isn't skepticism. Heck, it isn't even denial. It's cognitive dissonance.
    Response:

    [DB] It is indeed difficult to get the full grasp of a complex discipline like climate science when one uses only half one's attention to studying it.

  26. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 21:53 PM on 24 October 2011
    The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale, Can I suggest you back up claims with references from the scientific literature. This adds scientific evidence to your argument and differentiates a sceptic from a denier. I would be interested if you have a source for this? "The drop in UV was attributed to cause a cooling in the stratosphere which induced stronger chlorine reaction with ozone, thus depleting it more and causing the arctic ozone hole." As DB has referenced an article that claims otherwise this adds doubt to your credibility.
  27. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    @ Dale. (-Snip-) First of all, if the entire decade of 2000-2010 was warmer than the entire 1990's & 1980's, then this means that warming DIDN'T STOP-a simple fact that even a simpleton should be able to grasp. Using an outlying year like 1998 is a fairly typical tactic of the (-snip-), but one which doesn't change the fact that there was an additional 0.1 to 0.17 degrees of warming between 2000 & 2010-depending on which dataset you rely on. Second of all, if the stratospheric cooling were the result of falling UV radiation from the sun, then we should have seen a correlated fall in tropospheric temperatures as well-yet instead we see rising tropospheric temperatures at the same time as stratospheric temperatures are falling-very unusual & not consistent with any *natural* cause of climate change we know of. Also, contrary to your claims, the Tropospheric Hot Spot is meant to exist even in a non-warming atmosphere. It is *not* a fingerprint of GHG warming. Nor, indeed, has it been proven to not exist, its just been difficult to confirm its existence using existing technology. Thirdly, there is a strong correlation between Total Solar Irradiance & Sunspots-where both datasets exist. However, as TSI data has only been recorded since 1978, its difficult to use data we don't have. Also, climatologists have shown a very strong correlation between sunspot numbers & previous climate change. (-snip-). Fourthly, Muller *has* sucker punched Watts very nicely. Watts' meme for almost the last decade is that the planet hasn't been warming, but that its simply down to Urban Heat Island effect-Muller is the latest in a long line of researchers who've debunked this meme, but still Watts & his (-snip-) band of camp followers continue to cling to it-which I consider to the height of arrogance & rudeness.
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  28. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Oh and Marcus, just on the UV thing. Not sure if you saw it but a couple weeks ago the arctic ozone hole was talked about around the traps. The drop in UV was attributed to cause a cooling in the stratosphere which induced stronger chlorine reaction with ozone, thus depleting it more and causing the arctic ozone hole.
    Response:

    [DB] You are aware, aren't you, that the enhanced GHE is responsible for said stratospheric cooling that is responsible for the increased Arctic ozone hole?  More confirmation of AGW.  Perhaps more reading of the science and less of the dissembling sites you mention is recommended.

  29. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    les @53 Muller hasn't "sucker-punched" anyone. He's confirmed what everyone knows and acknowledges: that the Earth has warmed. cRR @54 I have no problem with the GHG's causes warming argument. They do. Just because I don't believe every argument from the AGW side doesn't mean I don't believe in how the greenhouse effect works. As for heat, the first graph implies that ocean heat content has risen steadily. It hasn't. CBDunkerson @55 The SkS article does not say "some amount". It states that "human activities are causing climate change". There's no mention of natural cycles/influences at all. Basically, the SkS comment is misleading. Marcus @56 Please read what I said above. Just because the decade was the hottest, does not imply the temperature kept rising. Yes, 9 of the top 10 hottest years on record were from that decade, but only once was the 1998 record broken: 2005. 2010 was hotter than 1998, but didn't break the record set in 2005. BTW, cooling of the stratosphere can also happen due to reduced inbound UV. Which has been dropping for quite a while. In fact, GHG warming should also develop a tropical hotspot, which doesn't exist. Yet UV reduction would result in cooler upper stratosphere and no tropical hotspot. Sunspot trends? Oh come on. There's many natural cycles, and sunspot trends is just one of them. TSI is a better trend to follow than sunspots anyways. Arctic ice can also (and has been) melt from below up. This could possibly indicate warmer waters out of the thermohaline. But since the world got warmer, the ice is gunna melt mate.
    Response:

    [DB] "Yet UV reduction would result in cooler upper stratosphere and no tropical hotspot."

    With the introduction of this well-known denialist meme Dale stands revealed.  The "hot spot" mentioned is known to be a signal of any warming, not AGW-specific warming.  Note the Gish Gallop introduced to shift goalposts.

    Can we all now return to the subject of this thread, The BEST Kind of Skepticism?

  30. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    +1 for CBDunkerson's observation at #9.
  31. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    "The 2011 minimum has reached the lowest volume for 8000yrs" Georg Heygster, head of the polar research group at the University of Bremen,... (Overpeck 2005) "There is no evidence that the Arctic has been seasonly ice free for the past 800,000yrs". * seasonly ... not just one day but full season.
  32. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    @ Dale, another thing to consider re post-2000 warming is that the rate of Arctic Ice decline has been much higher than predicted in the models, which suggests that at least some of the warming which should have gone into the atmosphere, is instead being lost to melting ice. Not a good thing for us btw.
  33. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Another thing, Dale. If human activity is not responsible for the warming of the last 60 years, then how do you explain that, in spite of a significant decline in the Sunspot trends for 1950-2010, we're seeing a warming trend of greater than +0.12 degrees per decade (with a warming trend of +0.16 degrees per decade for 1980-2010), yet the period of 1890-1950, the warming rate was less than 0.1 degrees per decade-in spite of a significant increase in sunspot numbers during that time period?
  34. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    "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)." Oh, that old chestnut, it really does make me laugh no matter how often I hear such a patently false comment. Even if you ignore the lack of statistical significance, the reality is that-for the period of 2000-2010-RSS shows a warming trend of +0.01 degrees per year, UAH shows a warming trend of +0.017 & GISS shows a warming trend of +0.014 degrees per year (as compared to a warming trend of +0.016 degrees per year for 1980-2010). Fact is that it wasn't just 2010 that was the hottest year on record-9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 2000-something which should not have occurred if the warming had stopped or if cooling had set in. Yet given the fact that we've had a significant increase in sulfate aerosols & a significant decrease in total solar irradiance, we should have started to see some kind of cooling by now-yet clearly we're not-not even a significant slow-down in the rate of warming. As to your claims regarding the AMO, you are aware that Ocean Oscillations can't create heat-that they merely shift it from place to place, or between the ocean & the atmosphere. Any changes in the AMO (or ENSO) must be therefore due to an external forcing-either solar radiance (unlikely given the 30 year downward trend) or increased warming via greenhouse gases. Also, a significant fingerprint for GHG-as opposed to natural-warming is the ongoing cooling of the stratosphere. Now, you got any more Denialist Propaganda to try & spread at this site, Dale?
  35. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale, it is unequivocal that human activities are causing some amount of climate change. I can't think of a single 'skeptic' scientist who disputes that. Not Muller, not Lindzen, not Pielke, not Spencer... heck, not even Singer. You've moved the goal posts again. Before you claimed that CO2 is promoted as the sole cause. Now, as 'proof' of that, you present evidence that SkS says human activities (including, but not limited to CO2) are >a< cause. As to Muller, see my first comment on this thread. He (like Curry) has a history of making unsubstantiated statements at odds with established reality from a place of ignorance. Again, at least this time he had the sense to include a 'may be' disclaimer. If he looks into this, as he eventually did with the temperature record, he will find that it is equally false... as many other researchers have already established, just as they had for his false claims on the temperature record before the BEST project even began. If, as les suggests, Muller is 'setting up' the skeptics I'd be both appalled and impressed. Impressed by his willingness to sacrifice his own credibility, but appalled by a strategy of 'revealing the truth through deception'.
  36. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale #52, the graphs do not show the contradiction you want to read in it. Apparently the one is taking more of a running mean than the other, big deal. Heat increases, end of message. By the way, humans are increasing the concentration of an important GHG dramatically. So temperature goes up. What is your problem with this simple fact?
  37. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    52 Dale
    BEST does not refute any argument (natural or human). However, just the fact that they even mention AMO shows to me that someone there thought it possible. That shows doubt about the AGW evidence. And guaranteed Muller would have proofed every paper before it left, so the fact it's still in shows Muller isn't so strong in "human caused GW" belief that he removed it.
    This is a recurring trope with the 'skeptics' just now. I really hope they [you] hold on to it and continue to post it up... ... Muller has sucker-punched the 'skeptics' once; I'm pretty sure he's setting them up to do it again.
  38. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    skywatcher @50: You point to SkS's Earth buildup of heat article, which shows ocean heat continuously rising to 2008 (end of graph). This is in direct contradiction to another SkS image showing OHC being flat from 2004 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean_heat_content.gif). The flat period is also replicated in other locations, so it's hard to accept the Earth building up heat article on face value when it makes a mistake as obvious as that. CBDunkerson @51: "In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change." http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Very much implies (the way it's written) that humans are THE cause of GW. The article automatically fingers CO2 as the culprit (when that article is read in the series as intended). BEST does not refute any argument (natural or human). However, just the fact that they even mention AMO shows to me that someone there thought it possible. That shows doubt about the AGW evidence. And guaranteed Muller would have proofed every paper before it left, so the fact it's still in shows Muller isn't so strong in "human caused GW" belief that he removed it.
  39. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale in #33: "...they say ... and that human involvement is most probably over estimated." Dale in #39: "Gee, so sorry for not getting the exact wording correct. ... And if it is natural variability then the human component may be over estimated." (emphasis added) As you somehow missed where you went wrong, it was in changing 'may be', which BEST actually said, to 'is most probably', which Watts and others have falsely claimed... though you 'strangely' refuse to 'condemn' this. It's a bit more than an 'exact wording' issue. Had they claimed 'is most probably' without evidence you can be sure people would be calling them on it. As to the 'may be'; "What's interesting is they didn't automatically finger CO2 as the culprit." Not particularly. If you have really read as much as you claim you should be aware that mainstream climate science doesn't automatically finger CO2 as the sole culprit. Twenty years ago even it being the main culprit was seldom an 'automatic assumption' in the literature, though that has become less true as the evidence that it is the main culprit has become overwhelming. And again... the BEST study makes no effort whatsoever to refute any of that overwhelming evidence. Nor to provide any evidence whatsoever for an alternative explanation. That people who started out making all sorts of false and insupportable claims about AGW would continue to make a few such claims even after their own research has disproven their previous self-delusions is not surprising. At least this time they were more careful to say 'may', though even that is unjustified given literally zero evidence.
  40. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale, I'd be interested if you could show me the horizontal or downward trends in the datasets you mention. Call me a real skeptic, but all the trends I plot on woodfortrees since 2000 start low at the left-hand-side and end high at the right-hand-side, ie are positive? This leads me to doubt your claims. As to the significance of such short segments of a temperature series, read the Santer paper, any number of Tamino posts (particularly Riddle Me This, or the post right here at SkS. If you're as scientific as you claim, you'll realise that insignificantly short time periods are not relevant when considering whether the trend has changed. You'll also be interested in the post detailing that the Earth continues to build up heat. As to your suggestion of reading 'both sides', it would be OK if the other side was actually doing science...
  41. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    You all have GOT to be kidding. You expect climate change denial to dry up and blow away because of this one study? Rick Perry's still talking about the damn Birth Certificate!
  42. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Albatross, thanks for the links, but I've read those articles a number of times in the past. I've been reading climate change articles for years, so that I can make up my own mind. I read a lot of information, from here, WUWT, RC, CA and even scientist blogs. I believe 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's where the truth lies, in the science. Doesn't matter how many times you say sea levels will rise 8 stories (Tim Flannery) or the surface records are corrupt due to siting (Watts), without proof that can hold up to process and due diligence it's just unvalidated waffling. It's the same with BEST, until their papers go through process and due diligence, it's unvalidated. Note, by unvalidated I do not mean incorrect. The survey results you presented are interesting, but what was the actual question asked? That's not clearly noted on the results. The results mean completely different things if the question was "Has the world warmed in the last 150 years?" or "Is the world still warming?" 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). Or if it has, the trend is minuscule. And please save me the usual "2010 was the hottest on record" comments. Yes the decade is the hottest, but it's flat when compared to the rising trends of the 3 previous decades. I think of it as "the top of the curve". Whether it goes up or down is yet to be seen. In 3 years of talking climate change with people I know and people on the internet, I've come across no one who doesn't believe we've warmed at all. As for your final question, it's my experience that is a pretty loaded question at this site. I've been asked that question before and the context was always "do you believe what's written at SkS or not?" I am my own sceptic. I consider all articles (from both sides) sceptically till I've found confirming evidence from science. That is why I read information from both sides. I appreciate that if I only read information from one side my opinion will tend to lean that direction. So I read from SkS, RC and others, as well as WUWT, JoNova (more for an Aussie home flavor), CA and others. If that makes me a "denier" I'd rather be that, than 'persuaded' by limiting my information inflow to one side. And no, I will not join you in condemning Watts. I consider that poor form and bad manners, no matter who it is.
  43. Clouds provide negative feedback
    No, net feedback in the climate system is not required to be negative.
  44. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Dale, The "skeptics" and those who are in denial about AGW need to catch up with the science, the fact that internal climate variability can modulate the long-term warming trend has long been known by climate scientists. As the "skeptics" like to point out concerning CO2 and global warming, correlation is not causation (yet the fingerprints of anthropogenic warming are everywhere). Also, the way the AMO is defined introduces its own issues that complicates matters. Dale, I hope that you will join us in condemning Watts parroting misrepresentations concerning the correlation between the AMO and the global land temperatures the BEST papers on his web site. Either way the claim that "skeptics" do not question that the planet is warming is demonstrably false. Arguments "challenging" the warming currently rank 5, 7 and 9 on the most used climate myths. Those myths exist because "skeptics" and those in denial insist on repeating them. Also a recent survey in the USA shows that over 50% of Republicans believe that the global temperatures are not increasing [H/T ThingsBreak]. [Source] Another demonstrably false statement that "skeptics" are now making in their state of desperation is that the amount of warming caused by humans is unknown and that it is largely attributable to natural causes. First off, climate scientists are not attributing 100% of the observed warming to CO2, so "skeptics" claiming that are not being honest. Second, we have very good estimates that know that "a net anthropogenic warming of 0.49 to 1.12°C with a central estimate of 0.65°C warming of average global surface temperature." See here. Also see here and here and here. In reality, the people making a big deal about BEST are the "skeptics". They are besides themselves with panic, and even turning on each other. Seeing them trying to spin this and at the same time attack the BEST group is rather bizarre; but I must admit it is rather entertaining. Why are "skeptics" making such an effort to discredit, undermine and dismiss the BEST results if they agree that the planet is warming and that the global temperature records are reliable? No, they are in deep, deep denial of course, and that includes Mr. Anthony Watts and his apologists such Pielke, McIntyre and Monckton and Delingpole. etc. Now Dale, are you a real skeptic or a fake one?
  45. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    By the way, the speculation in the BEST paper regarding the human component possibly being overestimated because of AMO contributions reminds me a whole lot of the McLean et al. paper making the same argument about ENSO. In both cases they de-trended the data in their analysis, and thus could not conclude anything about long-term warming causes. It's possible that since the speculation in the McLean paper made it to the published version, the same will happen with the Muller et al. paper. But personally if I was a reviewer, I'd make them remove it. I don't see what's gained through baseless speculation.
  46. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    There's no question the importance of the BEST results has been way over-hyped, but only because the "skeptics" have for so long denied the accuracy of the surface temperature record. As for AMO, like ENSO it's an oceanic cycle that doesn't create heat and thus cannot cause a long-term warming trend. I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence in question is revised or removed during the peer-review process, because frankly it seems obviously incorrect IMO.
  47. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    PeterS @44 You're kidding right? The sceptic goalpost for most of us is, and always has been, "sure, the world has warmed...... but WHY?" Everything else is basically just noise to the central question. And quite simply a lot of people whilst they believe the whole GHG situation, disagree with how some scientists claim it works. For instance, logarithmic returns on CO2 cannot cause runaway warming (used as an example, not to begin an argument). This applies to the BEST research. Sceptics don't care that they show global warming. We know that. What's interesting is they didn't automatically finger CO2 as the culprit. IMO, some sceptics have made too much about that one sentence regarding the AMO. But AGW people have also made a big deal out of the global warming confirmation. The MSM going on about scepticism being dead now since BEST confirms global warming? Reminds me how the other side of the MSM reacted to CERN's initial CLOUD announcements. Over-hyped.
    Response:

    [DB] "The sceptic goalpost for most of us is, and always has been, "sure, the world has warmed...... but WHY?""

    Umm, no.  You forget that the skeptic "It's not happening" meme is one of the foundational cornerstones responsible for the creation of this website.  See the relevant portions listed under the Taxonomy listing.

    "And quite simply a lot of people whilst they believe the whole GHG situation, disagree with how some scientists claim it works."

    By some you mean the vast majority of climate scientists?

    "What's interesting is they didn't automatically finger CO2 as the culprit."

    Straw man.  No one is saying that CO2 is the sole "culprit" in the warming.

    "But AGW people have also made a big deal out of the global warming confirmation."

    Actually this is just another audit.  The temperature records showing the global warming signals inherent in the data were confirmed years ago.  But the "skeptic" need to minimize the results of BEST is understandable given that the skeptic self-identity is tied up in the many years of denial they have maintained.

  48. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Bibliovermis, I know net positive feedback does not lead to runaway warming. "So, the answer to your question is no." Which question?
  49. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    The burning of high sulfur coal creates sulfate particles which block incoming solar radiation thus limiting temperature increases in the short term. How much sulfate effect is included in the IPCC A2 scenario? To what extent is the current economic downturn flattening the temperature growth curve?
  50. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Holy jumpin' jehosaphat! Have the denier goal posts been moved SO far, that now they are clinging to some speculative sentence in an article that the human component of "global warming MIGHT be SOMEWHAT overestimated"? Game over. Humans are contributing to global warming. And probably to a significant extent. I doubt arguing over whether its 30% or 70%, is going to comport with two decades of previous denialsim.

Prev  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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