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  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  1447  Next

Comments 71951 to 72000:

  1. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Funny thing, I was wondering last night whether or not McIntyre was going to "audit" (i.e., nit pick, make mountains out of molehills, feed fodder to the skeptics) the BEST research-- I wonder if he would have done so had their findings been at odds with NASA, NOAA and HadCRU? Very likely not. I wonder if Dr. Muller realizes that he is now officially a member of "The Team"-- ironic given how critical he has been of Mann et al. It is both entertaining and pathetic to watch those in denial about AGW implode.
  2. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Dikran - It may well be useful to list the steps in a consolidated post: if the steps are numbered and labeled. A nice tabular reference (perhaps the contents of a new post?) would be useful in this and other discussions - particularly as a drop-in for those in denial. If bugai or others disagree, they would naturally have to support which step(s) they disagreed with, and why. And if they wander off in obfuscation, that's easy enough to point out. --- That said: bugai - You have made a number of unsupported statements. - "The humans emit just 5% of the total CO2 influx. This is nothing and could increase the CO2 percentage in the air by the same 5%, no more." Incorrect - a 5% input sustained over centuries, with an observed atmospheric annual increase equal to roughly half of the anthropogenic contribution, certainly shows the anthropogenic input driving atmospheric CO2 rise. See the IPCC CO2 attribution section for any number of references. - "...where tau is the relaxation time. We know that tau is somewhere between 5 and 10 Years." Absolutely incorrect. Single molecular residence time is on the order of 5 years - you are conflating that with adjustment time, which is ~70 years halflife as a short term adjustment, with a several thousand year tail, due to the rates of rebalancing the CO2 input to the atmosphere and the multiple pathways. See the IPCC carbon cycle drawdown section. - "These (plankton die-off, ocean warming) are the two main reasons for CO2 rise, not the tiny emission by the fuel combustion" Sorry, unsupportable statement contradicted by all the science. We know the rates for those, and for anthropogenic emissions, and the math just doesn't support this claim. I hate to say this, bugai, but none of your statements on this topic have been supportable (yet - I have hopes). They all sound good, but the data shows otherwise. Skepticism starts with ones own closely held ideas...
  3. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai@187 "Yet, he is still welcome to put his arguments. But in one posting." You are not in a position to set the rules for the discussion. He is free to post them in any way he sees fit and you are free to ignore them. The difference is that Dikran's method looks like he is trying to move a discussion forward and you look like you are trying to stall it.
  4. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @KR and Composer99: see my posting #128. Concerning Dikran. I asked him to explain his position. He refused. It is not my fault. Yet, he is still welcome to put his arguments. But in one posting.
  5. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai - Given that you are claiming that anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive the observed CO2 increases, in contradiction to the vast majority of data and analysis on scientific record, it might well be said that the onus is on you to prove your point. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi Dikran is attempting to discern where you disagree with the general body of science. In the past I have noted that his technique (of covering all steps in the analysis) has been quite successful in identifying points of disagreement for further and quite useful discussion. You are more than welcome not to participate in this. However, I will note that leaving a discussion because you don't like how it is progressing, rather than proving your point, may well be taken by most readers as evidence that your hypothesis will not stand the light of day.
  6. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai: Given you are disputing a finding which has ample empirically-derived support in the peer-reviewed literature as outlined in the OP and on this website generally with no references to speak of (save for Wikipedia), I do not see how you are in a position to expect conditions from those who are arguing with the evidence on their side.
  7. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Wait a minute. Have you considered the fact that the data sample BEST used was too large? Don't you realize that if they used a smaller database, Anthony's opinion that the UHI effect is significant might have more likely to be validated? They should have been more selective in choosing their sample. After all, any legitimate researcher knows that it's easier to prove your hypothesis the more you limit your sample.
  8. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @Composer99: I did cooperate with Dikran and I am ready to continue, but he has to put all his steps in one posting. Then, we discuss. That's the condition.
  9. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    From a Nature news article:
    Steve McIntyre, who runs the sceptic blog Climate Audit, said in an interview that the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work. Although he hasn't gone through the papers in detail, he is already questioning the results reported by the Berkeley team regarding the questionable research stations and the urban heat island effect. McIntyre, a statistician, says he has already run a preliminary analysis and was unable to reproduce the results reported by Muller and his crew.
    Perhaps McIntyre has found that the UHI effect is even more negative....
  10. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    I rather wish bugai had continued to cooperate with Dikran; speaking as science laity, I was finding his step-by-step run-through enlightening.
  11. Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, it has already been pointed out to you that the "relaxation time" is not 5 years, and a specific reference given to back it up glossary of the IPCC report. Residence time is 5 years, not relaxation/adjustment time, which is 50-200 years (according to the IPCC).
  12. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To muoncounter: There is no doubt that short time signal can be observed in CO2 concentration. The CO2 relaxation time is 5 years. Fluctuations shorter than this period are not smoothed out. You cannot see "diurnal" osciillations there, but certainly the seasonal ones. Prooves nothing.
  13. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Don Easterbrook's Preface... what a load of cr@p. "How To Fit Every Silly Denial Misdirection Into A Single Preface" by Don Easterbrook. It's embarrassing.
  14. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Watta has now cut & pasted a rant from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (that same organisation that rates mass extinction of species as 'life flourishing abundantly'). In it I like best the GWPF description of the BEST coverage by Forbes - Breaking news the earth still goes around the sun and its still warming up. "This prejudiced, intolerant and inaccurate, (Forbes) article completely misrepresents sceptical views, and is a good example of the problem facing the debate about climate science within and without of the scientific community."
  15. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    Geo77@16 Yes, the negative sign of the UHI effect on global land temperatures, as noted by BEST, is counter-intuitive. Urban areas are unquestionably hotter than nearby rural areas and the growth of cities should, other things being equal, increase the contribution of the UHI effect on global temperatures over time. What's not surprising is that the UHI effect is very small, once the areal weighting of the urban weather stations is done properly. Urban areas, according to the MODIS analysis quoted in the BEST paper, only cover 0.5% of the the Earth's land area. And land only covers about 30% of the Earth's surface, so once ocean surface temperatures are included (which they are not, yet, in the BEST work), then we can expect even smaller UHI effects on global (land and sea) temperature trends.
  16. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Pandas and People is at least explicable, as it was published by a creationist advocacy group. The Skeptical Environmentalist is also supposed to be excused because Cambridge published it under their popular books section. Elsevier, on the other hand, is a legit academic publisher. I have full online access to the textbook through my university subscription, and I've got to tell you this thing has left me speechless. It is literally a repackaging of various WUWT posts.
  17. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    Lassesson@2 What happened around 1865-1870 in figure 3 and where did the huge peak around 1880 come from? There were far fewer temperature stations in the mid 19th century and they were mostly concentrated in Europe and the eastern seaboard of N America. The higher global temperature variability observed at that time probably mostly arises from poor sampling.
  18. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Alex, thanks for that. Everybody should check out the preview on the Science Direct site, or the Look Inside feature on Elsevier's page. Shades of Pandas and People.
  19. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @Sphaerica #177 The best I can do is to provide a link to a news release about the study posted on Oct 5, 2011 by the University of Zurich.
  20. Philippe Chantreau at 05:05 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    I'm not sure where Bugai's assertion that terrestrial biomass is CO2 neutral comes from (it's not substantiated). Pretty much everything I have read indicates otherwise. The DOE is researching ways to enhance sequestration by terrestrial biomass. The very fact that trees add mass from year to year demonstrates the non neutral aspect. If terrestrial biomass production truly is carbon neutral how could such tremendous quantities of carbon been stored in the ground during the carboniferous period?
  21. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai#138: "rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 has dropped noticeably in years immediately following global recessions" USEIA provides emissions data; this report highlights emissions decrease in 2008 due to the recession. MLO reports annual increases in atmospheric CO2 in ppm: 2002-2005 all above +2ppm/yr; 2008 - +1.62, 2009 - +1.88. See also the 1991 drop in annual increase rate - the port Gulf War recession; 1981-1982 drop in rate following the Arab oil embargo. If we are not emitting this CO2, why does the atmospheric concentration follow economic activity? "diurnal changes are (i) local and (ii) too fast to equilibrate with anything. " So what? Atmospheric CO2 concentration, local or otherwise, increases with traffic density. Transportation is a significant percentage of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Where do you think that CO2 goes?
  22. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    This isn't strictly related, but I thought this would be of interest. Watts is now promoting Don Easterbrook's new academic textbook (!) on climate science: http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859563 As it turns out, Christopher Monckton is one of the contributors.
  23. Philippe Chantreau at 04:45 AM on 22 October 2011
    The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Another shining example of what R.P. Sr. calls Watts' "commitment to scientific robustness." There would be no significant difference if Muller used 30 years. If Watts thinks so, the data is right there to verify. Considering he took him years to even attempt the first data analysis to support his main premise, I'm not holding my breath. The paper will certainly pass peer-review because it is solid but will continue being attacked in the usual fashion. Hansen is most accurate describing these people as acting like lawyers, that's exactly what they do. There is hardly a minute spent on Watts' site that is not a complete waste of time.
  24. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    174, John Hartz, I can't find a free copy of the paper to download. Can you summarize the "environmental and biological controls" they reference?
  25. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To John: Sounds like a good research!
  26. Dikran Marsupial at 04:31 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai wrote: "Dirkan, as I said, no further discussion until you put all your seven (?) arguments. It's your call. " Sorry, bulgai, as I said, a truth-seeker would just co-operate in the discussion. All you are achieving with this pointless posturing is highlighting the fact that you do not think you can refute the argument if it is presented step by step. Yet again you are just spinning it out a bit more by responding in a way that does not allow progress, as I said if you are finding the discussion slow and tiring, the solution is simple; just stop impeding it.
  27. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    Is it really counter-intuitive that urban areas would show slightly less of a warming trend when compared to rural areas? Lots of urban areas have been urban for many hundreds of years, pre-dating the temperature records. As such they may have as their temperature record starting point a somewhat elevated temperature relative to rural areas. This would then tend to diminish the upward trend of temps slightly, because they start from a slightly elevated baseline.
  28. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Speaking of "terrestrial productivity," here's the summary of a new study that bears on this topic. Globally, soil organic matter (SOM) contains more than three times as much carbon as either the atmosphere or terrestrial vegetation. Yet it remains largely unknown why some SOM persists for millennia whereas other SOM decomposes readily—and this limits our ability to predict how soils will respond to climate change. Recent analytical and experimental advances have demonstrated that molecular structure alone does not control SOM stability: in fact, environmental and biological controls predominate. Here we propose ways to include this understanding in a new generation of experiments and soil carbon models, thereby improving predictions of the SOM response to global warming. Michael W. I. Schmidt, Margaret S. Torn, Samuel Abiven, Thorsten Dittmar, Georg Guggenberger, Ivan A. Janssens, Markus Kleber, Ingrid Kögel-Knabner, Johannes Lehmann, David A. C. Manning, Paolo Nannipieri, Daniel P. Rasse, Steve Weiner & Susan E. Trumbore: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property, in: Nature, 6 October, 2011, DOI: 10.1038/nature10386
  29. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Dirkan, as I said, no further discussion until you put all your seven (?) arguments. It's your call.
    Moderator Response: The proper spelling is "Dikran".  Please take note of that.
  30. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @ Dikran Perhaps, Dikran, perhaps. But then, given the proper usage of the colloquial express "Gosh" by bugai in 164 above, perhaps we have something else entirely.
  31. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Yesterday, in an update to the post, Watts was trying to head people off at the pass from declaring his reaction inconsistent by highlighting the clause where he said his acceptance depended on BEST following the proper scientific method. He's using the pre-publication media announcements as an excuse to back out on that, and unfortunately nobody who takes Watts seriously as a source of climate insight is going to look any further than that. Apparently it never occurred to Watts to take BEST's freely available data and apply the methods of his choosing to second-guess their results, instead focusing on how the research is being shown off. He's literally using style as an excuse to ignore substance. This is totally consistent with his reaction to Muller's testimony before Congress about the preliminary findings, but still inconsistent with his earlier declaration that hinged on methodology rather than publicity. While Watts continues to live down to my expectations, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at RPSr.'s response. Surely he can do better than that.
  32. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    I'm really glad the BEST team has turned out to be good scientists. It was conceivable (though unlikely) that their results could have shown something different than the other data sets. It would have been pretty earth-shaking if the data had turned out higher OR lower. That would have cemented their team in the annals of science. That's a pretty strong incentive to do the work and get it right. It's fascinating, though not unexpected, that they got nearly identical results. And not just identical results with the temperature series but identical results with regards to the UHI effect. Is this going to quell the debate at WUWT? Unlikely. But now they clearly are placing themselves in the arena of what can properly be termed "denial."
  33. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Well, saying you will accept the results of a scientific study is only an issue if you are unwilling to follow where the science leads. With Watts now fishing for any excuse to dismiss the results it is pretty clear he is not willing to do so. His sudden insistence that peer review is vitally important (though crooked!) is a fine example of this. I also find the skeptic reliance on HadCRU to prove the earth is not warming while simultaneously insisting that Climategate proved Hadley cooked the books to be delicious irony.
  34. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    7, Paul D, Yes! What is most important about this is not actually the confirmation of temperature rises (that was a shocker... hmph). What is most important is that skeptics now look foolish, and their reactions to events are making them look even more foolish. Their faux-credibility crumbles with every whine and sneer.
  35. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Indeed, it is interesting that Bugai bails at step 4... as acceptance of that "elementary math" combined with his own previous statements the natural sources and sinks are not in balance and that the increase in concentration can be no more than the human emissions would perforce lead to the conclusion that human emissions are entirely responsible for the increase in concentration.
  36. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Looking around the comments in the media outlets, a lot of skeptics are just ignoring Mullers output and continue with their own 'theories'. The more this goes on, the more that the loyal skeptics appear to be conspiracy nutters in really deep denial about the world around them.
  37. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Isn't this the height of irony? "They have all contacted me regarding the release of papers from BEST today. There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review. Nor has one has been published in a journal to my knowledge, nor is the one paper I’ve been asked to comment on in press at JGR, (where I was told it was submitted) yet BEST is making a “pre-peer review” media blitz." "Apparently, PR trumps the scientific process now, no need to do that pesky peer review, no need to address the errors with those you ask for comments prior to publication, just get it to press." Surely Watts adheres to the strict standard of waiting until his work is complete, peer-reviewed, and published before talking to the media... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/ I do agree that focusing on accurately covering published peer-reviewed work is a good idea. Where would that leave Watts?
  38. Dikran Marsupial at 03:49 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    I should just add, nobody would be more pleased that I if bugai were able to identify a flaw in the argument.
  39. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, Your withdrawal at this point will be viewed as a tacit admission that you have realized that your position is untenable, and that a very simple and painless, step by step walk through the mathematics that demonstrates this will force you to admit your error. Rather than do so, you bristle, obfuscate, and then retreat in a huff.
  40. Dikran Marsupial at 03:42 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, I presented the fourth step, had you behaved better it would have taken us a total of seven posts to get to that point, four from me, three from you. Now if you have found the discussion tiring, perhaps you should ask youself why there were more than seven posts and why you didn't simply write "I agree" each time if each step were merely "elementary maths". The fact that you have left the discussion at this point, when you were very nearly at the conclusion, speaks volumes.
  41. Dikran Marsupial at 03:39 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Daniel, I suspect it may be a second language issue, it is possible that bugai's comment was not quite what was intended. bugai, the difference is that I disagreed after you had stated your argument, where as you have stated that you will disagree before I have stated my argument. This is possibly not what you meant. However, I would suggest that you drop the abrasive tone, it doesn't tend to go down to well here, calm rational discussion is better appreciated.
  42. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Sorry, Dikran. Somehow I understand why other "skeptics" did not withstand you. Apparently, I went three steps further then they did, and I have enough. I have no time to discuss the elementary math with you. You have to put all the chain of your arguments at once if you wish any further discussion. Sorry for that!
  43. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:37 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, "terrestrial productivity is not really relevant, because it is CO2 neutral." Again do you have a reference for this? From my understanding terrestrial productivity can also act as a carbon sink.
  44. How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
    34, guinganbresil, See Trends in Observation and Research of Deep Ocean Circulation and Heat Transport for more details on currents. They act as an additional mechanism for transporting heat downward into the depths.
  45. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Gosh Daniel. Dikran disagreed with me in posting #130. You've missed that? Now we are just figuring out what is the reason for the disagreement. You want to participate [it] contructively [/it], or just snorking around?
  46. Dikran Marsupial at 03:33 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai sorry, experience tells me that step-by-step, with agreement at each point is the only way to differentiate between truth-seekers and trolls. As Sphaerica points out, if you want the discussion to proceed quickly and smoothly, then co-operate by simply replying "I agree" where you agree, rather than waste time obfuscating. I'm glad you agree with step #3 ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Step #4 is as follows, if the left hand side is negative, then we know the right hand side must also be negative, i.e. if E_a > ΔC then U_n > E_n Do you agree (if you state that you agree explicitly and unambiguously, and make no attempt to obfuscate or irritate, then I will have the confidence to proceed in larger steps).
  47. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    pbjamm - I noticed many WUWT commenters telling Watts "I told you not to say you'd accept the BEST results." Since he appears unwilling to accept results that contradict his pre-determined conclusions, saying he would accept their results regardless was indeed a mistake.
  48. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    The comments section of WUWT is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance and denialism. Muller didn't come to the predetermined conclusion so he has sold out. 'They' got to him. He changed the rules. Blah blah blah.
  49. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Perhaps Muller should replicate Manns hockey stick, which he continues to say was poorly done. When Muller actually produces some new data it will be more interesting.
  50. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @ bugai @ 161 "Then I will point, at which step I start to disagree with you." So you have already decided to disagree with Dikran without actually evaluating the full argument, but are merely looking for the proper point in the discussion to insert it? How "skeptical" of you.

Prev  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  1447  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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