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  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  Next

Comments 74201 to 74250:

  1. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    "My mistake. I meant to say 120 months, and the number is correct in degrees / decade." Well, I just looked at Wood For Trees, put in 2000-2010 (which is what was discussed, not the last 120 months, btw), and the linear trend came up as 0.0128317 per year, which comes to about .13*C/decade. I'm not sure of what I need to do to get the .15*C, but it certainly isn't close to .015*C/decade. Edit: 2000 thru the end of 2010 comes to .15*C/decade, so that might be what was implied (though that is 11 years, not ten). "Even a cursory look at figure 3 above will tell someone that the first decade experienced much greater warmer than the second." And yet adding the last ten years of data actually raises the linear trend; 1990-2000 has a linear trend of 0.0167924*C per year while 1990-2010 has a linear trend of 0.0189468*C per year. The eyecrometer doesn't always tell the truth.
  2. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Robert, My mistake. I meant to say 120 months, and the number is correct in degrees / decade. The value of 0.15 / decade is not supported by the GISS data. Even a cursory look at figure 3 above will tell someone that the first decade experienced much greater warmer than the second.
  3. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Jonathon, so... you are disputing the claim that the observed temperature trend over the period from 2000 to 2010 was 0.15 C by citing the past 60 months. You really can't see the flaw in your reasoning there?
  4. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Jonathon #8, The GISS trend from 1990-2000 (about .17*C/decade) is actually smaller than the trend for 1990-2010 (.19*C/decade). The warming did not stop in 2000. "Calculations using GISS monthly data yield a linear slope of +0.015C / decade for the past 60 months." That's only the last 5 years. And the number given is trend per year, not decade. That comes to about .15*C per decade.
  5. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @149 Perhaps the real problem was not the number of posters, but the relative weights of the scientific data supporting one 'side' or the other. If one party refuses to acknowledge the weight of the data held by the those who differ from that party, things are bound to get acrimonius - even at a scientific conference (and yes I have seen that plenty of times). If you have a large majority of climate scientists producing data that support an hypothesis over many years, and yet a few hold out (without offering much in the way of data supporting alternative hypotheses), rational discussions with the latter become very difficult.
  6. Dikran Marsupial at 22:05 PM on 22 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Chris I don't think anyone would expect Prof. Pielke to respond to everybodys questions. However one would expect that where he did respond he would actually attempt to answer the question. See the responses (here and here) he made to the direct question I posed (here), and you will see that it would have taken him far less time to simply answer the question (a simply "yes" or "no" would be a good start) than to avoid giving a direct answer in the way that he did. This suggests that the large bandwidth of the discussion was not a key factor preventing the exchange of scientific information.
  7. Climate sensitivity is low
    In the Pielke Sr thread, dana1981 says: "I think I'm most disappointed that we never got an answer regarding the discontinuity between low climate sensitivity arguments and the paleoclimate record. I've never seen any low sensitivity proponent answer this question, and unfortunately it seems Dr. Pielke was unable to answer it as well." Also a long time ago I promised scaddenp I would address low sensitivity, and this is a start. The portion of Knutti and Hegerl (2008) that goes with "Advanced" figure 4 (click on Advanced tab above) (Various Estimates of Climate Sensitivity) is shown to the left.

    I labeled the 3 paleo sensitivity estimates in question. The problem arises from the red squares in the first column "similar climate to base state". The key question is how well can the dissimilarity be accounted for in the models. Specifically, the 8C rise from the last glacial came from combination of Milankovitch forcing, dust feedback, CO2 feedback, and other feedbacks that are modeled and equate to a 3C (best estimate) for 3.7 W/m2 of forcing. However, the leftmost red square is red because there are lots of unknowns compared to the present. There are many complications for modeling. In http://www.rem.sfu.ca/COPElab/Claquinetal2003_CD_glacialdustRF.pdf Claquin et al posit one of the factors in ice age transitions have an added factor, namely dust, that adds long term positive feedback. Less dust means higher SST but also less fertilization so less algae and more CO2 all adding to the warming. In short, there is a higher sensitivity for glacial to interglacial compared to today. Here is a general complication. A large sensitivity difference also arises from ice and snow albedo changes. During the ice age the ice and snow reflect a lot more sunlight and as it melts the surface albedo decreases as a positive feedback. The feedback is obviously higher than for the present climate which has a lot less snow and ice. The problem in determining the difference comes from highly nonlinear responses to Milankovitch forcing compared to today's CO2 forcing. Here's just one example: http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~broccoli/reprints/Jackson+Broccoli_ClimDyn_2003.pdf The modeling attempts to account for numerous differences from the modern climate including THC and sea ice, poleward heat transport and temperature gradient, precipitation changes, etc. All of these will be radically different with 3.7 W/m2 of CO2 forcing. Most point to a much larger feedback from Milankovitch forcing due to seasonal, geographic, and ice age climate differences.

  8. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    This has been an interesting exercise and I have a couple of comments. As a working scientist I have lots of interactions with other scientists - we discuss things informally, at meetings, by phone/Skype/email and so on. One of the things that characterises these discussions is that people say what they mean, answer questions in the spirt these were asked (i.e. genuine attempts to seek and convey information) and so on. Attempts at beating around the bush, obfuscation, redirecting the question with inappropriate response are extremely obvious and create a very poor impression. If anyone reading the comments here think that what they've read accords with common scientific discourse they are quite wrong. On the other hand this is a blog comment board! Dr. Pielke is in a difficult situation here, and this leads to a possible way of addressing these sorts of discussions should they arise in future. Dr. Pielke was inundated with comments, and it's not fair that he should be expected to address everyone's comments. A possibility for doing this in future would be for the "visitor" to interact with only one or two posters, and some scheme set up (a "dummy thread" say or simply using email) whereby comments to any another Dr. Pielke that takes the opportunity to present his/her point of view are channeled through one or two members of this site. This would have the advantage in making for a much more coherent interaction, with far fewer posts for the visitor to address, and rather more time to think in between posting. In my experience the latter is hugely important in posting properly sensible comments blog boards.
  9. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #278 When you write "The paragpraph about what happens if I die is irrelevant (and another example of over-extending an analogy)." you illustrates the matter in hand exactly. This is further exemplified by the perhaps more relevant comparison I made with the Sun when I wrote:- "But they are not relevant to the Earth which, at the most, sources 0.1W/m^2 in comparison with the Sun (6.3x10^7 W/m^2)." Do you not agree that the 0.1W/m^2 produced by the Earth, mainly by U238 and K40 has almost no affect on its surface temperature? With this 0.1W/m^2 the Earth would have a temperature of about 50K, whereas your stars are producing somwhere about 6.3x10^7 W/m^2. Think of it this way: it doesn't matter where a particular star is found, it produces it own heat which determines its temperature; whereas a planet's temperature is strictly related to is distance from the star; an extreme example is a comet which has a very variable temperature, only warming up for a short period while close to the Sun. The Earth would have a similar temperature cycle if it shared a comet's orbit whether it had a CO2 atmosphere or not. The relevance of this is the star's temperature is independent of its position in the same way the temperature of your body, wrapped in insulation, is substantially independent of its position; but strongly dependent on the amount of (internal) heat (150W) it generates and the amount of insulation surrounding it. I am bothered that you do not appear to see the comparison between the temperature of a body (or a star) generating internal heat and a planet (or a dead body) that does not generate any internal heat. This is not playing games like trolling, as you seem to think, but it is serious science, the point I am making between heat generated internally (or not, as the case may be) is quite serious and is at the heart of a discussion, while you only see as me attempting to disrupt the discussion. I am very sorry if you feel I am just [trying] :- "to waste the time of others by engaging them in conversations that lead nowhere". This is certainly not the case and I am sorry if anything I have written gives that impression but I stand by the facts I have recounted, heat originating inside a body, any body, has a quite different effect than heat arriving from outside it.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I'm sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere. Nobody disputes that the ultimate source of the heat in the atmosphere is the Sun and that the heat generated from within the Earth by e.g. radioactive decay is insignificant. Nobody is disputing either of these facts, and neither has any relevance whatsoever to a discussion of the application of the second law of thermodynamics to the greenhouse effect. Hence you are deflecting the discussion of the substantivie issue with digressions of issues that are not contested and which have no relevance. That is indistinguishable from trolling.

    You are incorrect if you think that a planets temperature is strictly related to its distance from its star and that the presence of CO2 makes no difference. This is directly refuted by the observation that the surface of Venus is warmer than the surface of Mercury.

  10. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    I am a little puzzled by the stated observed value also. From where are you getting your temperature data? Calculations using GISS monthly data yield a linear slope of +0.015C / decade for the past 60 months. Perhaps there was a decimal error. Averaging over a tweny-year period to obtain a value for the previous decade seems questionable, especially when the warming occurred in the first decade.
  11. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Thanks, Dana Maybe I'm slow, but how was the observed 0.15°C per this decade calculated? What's the trend with more datasets, using same calculation? Perhaps a link in the post could help.
  12. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    [inflamatory/ad-hominem snipped] Has Pielke Sr. written a review paper on regional land use change and its effects on climate? I haven't looked... but it is only there that I would expect editorial tradition to require a comprehensive view of his and other people's contributions. On a up note, several of the statements that Dr. Pielke made here would surely not be greeted with enthusiasm at sites like WUWT, being too ready to act on reducing CO2, and someone with a puckish sense of humour might have a good time poking the denier sites with those quotes.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please limit the discussion to Prof. Pielkes arguments and avoid criticism of the person.
  13. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #277 "Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You are incorrect and would benefit from considering the advice you are given in more detail. Consider a binary star, one a blue giant, the other a normal main sequence star, much like our own Sun. Clearly the blue giant is the hotter and will have a warming effect on the other star because the NET transfer of heat will be from the blue giant to the main sequence star." I would agree with you if the Earth was a significant source of energy like either the red or the blue stars you refer to. But they are not relevant to the Earth which, at the most, sources 0.1W/m^2 in comparison with the Sun (6.3x10^7 W/m^2). The temperature of the stars you refer to are surely determined by the energy they source from (local) internal nuclear reactions (do you agree about this?) whereas the temperature of Earth is decided by the temperature and distance of the Sun. Further you write "If I put on an extra blanket at night I warm up, but there has not been a net transfer of heat from the blanket to my body " Like the red and blue stars your body is a heat source (about 150W in total for a live but resting body). Blankets slow the rate this internal heat escapes to the surroundings, meaning your body is, due its internal heat, at a temperature above that of the surroundings. If you die, your 150W comes to an end and your body temperature will fall to that of the surroundings, slowly if it is well insulated by blankets, quickly if uninsulated. Thereafter your body temperature, insulated or not, will follow the environmental temperature. I have mentioned this before, do you think it is incorrect? I'd be very interested to hear another explanation. Sorry, I do not understand cryptic expressions like 'DNFTT'.
    Moderator Response:

    [Dikran Marsupial] The Earth is a significant source of heat with respect to the atmosphere, which was the point. Solar radiation (mostly visible) heats the surface, which then emits IR that heats the atmosphere. However the atmosphere does emit IR downwards to the surface and hence there is a transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface, but it is smaller than the transfer from the surface to the atmosphere (hence it the laws of thermodynamics are not violated).

    The example of a binary star was to demosntrate that there is a bidirectional transfer of heat between any two objects above zero degrees Kelvin, but the net flow is from warmer to cooler. Over-extending an analogy beyond what it was intended to show is a common rhetorical tactic to avoid taking on board the substantive point. Please go back and think about the analogy in the light of what I have just written.

    Yes, the heat source for the blanket example is the body, which is very apposite to a discussion of the greenhouse effect. The sun does not substantially warm the atmosphere (which is largely transparent to visible light). It warms the surface, which then emits IR which does warm the atmosphere. From the point of view of the atmosphere, it is not being warmed from above by the sun, but from below by the Earth. The fact that the Sun is the source of the Earths heat is irrelevant; the sun is ultimately the source of the heat from my body under the blanket as well.

    The paragpraph about what happens if I die is irrelevant (and another example of over-extending an analogy).

    DNFTT means "do not feed the troll". Repeatedly bringing up the same points again and again that have been answered already many times, is indistinguishable from trolling. If you want to dispell the appearance of trolling, you need to engage with the explanations you are given, rather than just seeking to over-extend analogies etc.

    [DB] As for "DNFTT" that is an acronym for "Do Not Feed The Trolls". It is a suggestion given to the regular participants in an online forum when a newcomer has clearly established 2 things: 1. That they have no interest in actually learning about the topic and 2. Their continued participation in the forum is an exercise designed to waste the time of others by engaging them in conversations that lead nowhere. Similar to Napolean's efforts in Russia or the Soviet's efforts in Afghanistan.

  14. Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
    I was going to suggest adding an apostrophe and an s after each person's name and, before posting, realised that Rob Honeycutt at comment 30 is suggesting this already. It would make very slightly more explicitly the point that it is the statements that are the problem not the person - which is of course the point of the SkS posts about misinformers and indeed all the SkS posts. It's also noticeable that some commenters think the apostrophe is already there. It so happens that you have followed this practice already with the title of this article about the Goodyear Blimp. Cynicus's suggestion at 32 is another way of depersonalising. I think that the comments which suggest only using the person's name take this in the opposite and therefore too personalised direction. I have no problem with slip ups, but maybe crocks is raising connotations in some readers' minds (the many readers who come here for genuine education and enlightenment) that SkS authors do not intend. Let's make minor changes and move on.
  15. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    On his weblog, Dr Pielke wrote: "While there have a few constructive interactions, many of the comments are not only not constructive, but demeaning. I also spend considerable time repeating myself in answering their questions. I am disappointed as I was hoping that Skeptical Science was a weblog where a diversity of views can be discussed constructively. However, the moderators on that weblog failed to adequately police the comments." Dr. Pielke, your full comment from post 105 above is "So one is not permitted to refer to their peer reviewed papers to answer a question that the person would have known if they had read it. Very unusual. :-)" I assume from the smiley at the end that you made the comment partly in jest. Can you see that the comment implies that someone has not read your papers? The alternative, which seems a lot more likely to me, is that they read your papers, but disagree. After you made that comment one of the responses was, unfortunately, partly inflammatory and the commenter later asked to have that part snipped. Your response was to take that comment personally and the thread deteriorated from there. IMO the moderator could have done a better job, but that is obviously easy for me to say. Since you do not allow comments on many threads on your site, it appears that you may also believe that moderation is a lot of work. Those that volunteer for that job will undoubtedly have their own strong opinions on these topics, otherwise they wouldn't commit large amounts of their time to it. On the whole, IMO your comment from your weblog is incorrect. There were many constructive interactions. Points of disagreement needed to be spelled out better, not just referred to by a paper or a rebuttal to that paper. Having to repeat yourself also adds the burden of having to explain in more detail. I don't see how it is possible to come to any agreement to disagree without repetition that leads to more and more specificity. It is not only necessary but worth putting in the effort.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Yup, I could have done a better job. I made some rookie mistakes and will do better next time -- assuming that I'm not sent back to minors for more seasoning.
  16. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #275 "Moderator Response: (DB) The law says NET heat cannot flow from cold to hot, so your comment is self-refuted." There is no other kind of heat tranfer than 'NET' heat transfer. It should be obvious that there is only 'direction of transfer'. Heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is 'positive' in the direction away from the surface, the surface is thus cooled by the 'NET' transfer of heat from the surface to the troposphere. Were there to be any surface warming effect it would require a 'NET' (!) tranfer of heat to the surface, which in unusual circumstances actually can happen in the troposphere (with temperature inversion). At the very low pressure in the stratosphere there is a permanent temperature inversion from lat.-55 to lat.+55 caused by O2 absorbing energy from the UV part of the solar spectrum and making O3, this solar energy causes a temperature inversion that defines the stratosphere. This inversion suppresses convection locally, which is the reason turbulance is very much reduced in the stratosphere. The heat absored from UV is small (5%?) compared with the rest of the Sun's energy, and the absorption, by O2 (and O3) takes place at stratospheric altitudes, it is also complete; so it (the UV heat) has little or no effect on the surface.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You are incorrect and would benefit from considering the advice you are given in more detail. Consider a binary star, one a blue giant, the other a normal main sequence star, much like our own Sun. Clearly the blue giant is the hotter and will have a warming effect on the other star because the NET transfer of heat will be from the blue giant to the main sequence star. However this does not mean that there is no transfer of heat in the other direction. The main sequence star emits photons in all directions, including in the direction of the blue giant. Each of those photons transfers heat energy from the cooler star to the hotter star. Howeve this does not violate any law of thermodynamics as the blue giant transfers more energy back to the main sequence star. This there is another kind of transfer other than "NET" and there is not only one direction of transfer, it is bidirectional, and the laws of thermodynamics only constrain the net statistical behaviour of the transfer of heat. This has been explained repeatedly on these threads already.

    Secondly, surface warming does not require a net transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface. If I put on an extra blanket at night I warm up, but there has not been a net transfer of heat from the blanket to my body (we know this as the blanket warms as well). This is another canard that has been refuted repeatedly on these threads.

    I suggest DNFTT, if damorbel still cant understand this after having it explained so many times, one more try is unlikely to work (yes I know there is some irony there, given I have just pointed it out again ;o)
  17. Dikran Marsupial at 17:06 PM on 22 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Prof. Pielke wrote: "It would be much more effective if you would directly contact David Douglass and ask your question about his analysis." I did so shortly after the first seeing paper, pointing out the error, and recieved no reply. Likewise I emailed Prof. Salby (twice) to discuss the potential problem with his forthcoming paper, without meaningful response. Sometimes you contact an author to discuss a problem with their paper and they are happy to discuss it with you, sometimes they are not. Now the Douglass et al. paper is cited, without mention of the flaws, in a paper of which you are a co-author and which you have said is representative of your view on tropical trophospheric trends. It is therefore not unreasonable for me to ask you for your view of that paper. The new paper Christy et al (2010), of which you are a co-author appears to make a similar mistake, so it is directly relevant to your work. Surely as a co-author you have read and understood a paper that is cited in one of yours? In which case, I don't understand your reticence in commenting on it.
  18. Philippe Chantreau at 15:40 PM on 22 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr Pielke proved one thing beyond doubt: he has a very thin skin. I wish him to never go voice a contrary opinion on WUWT, he might be badly traumatized. I have personally endured much worse than what he complained about.
  19. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Completely agreed Dana - Pielke's conscious attempt to label discussions of climate sensitivity as irrelevant is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from these uncomfortable truths. If climate sensitivity is high, how can a skeptic downplay the role of CO2, especially with reference to Alley's lecture or to Knutti and Hegerl. As I've seen low climate sensitivity described as the last refuge for respectable 'skeptics', it says little for the science of climate skeptics. And of course it's rather hard to imagine how one would devise policy for local and regional adaptation (as Pielke seemed to be interested in) if you have no idea how much warming is happening...
  20. actually thoughtful at 15:08 PM on 22 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Hartz @139 - With the understanding that everyone critiques the moderator - I would suggest to you that less is more. Specifically, I suggest you refrain from value judgments (Great post; perhaps he was tired.; que sera, sera..). Also, I suspect the thread would still be strong with about 50% fewer moderator comments (specifics are provided in the hopes of being helpful) I just read the entire post (original + all comments) and that was what struck me the most (at the meta level). Thank you for the work and being willing to take the flack from the peanut gallery.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Thsnks for the feedback. Your points are well taken. BTW, this was my maiden voyage as Moderator. (All of the vetran moderators were busy in the boiler-room trying to decipher some of Dr. Pielke's more obtuse posts.) I will state for the record that I had to bite my tongue many times as the discourse unfolded.
  21. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    precisely, pbjamm Back on topic, I think I'm most disappointed that we never got an answer regarding the discontinuity between low climate sensitivity arguments and the paleoclimate record. I've never seen any low sensitivity proponent answer this question, and unfortunately it seems Dr. Pielke was unable to answer it as well. Though it's not surprising, because frankly I think the only plausible answer is that the low climate sensitivity crowd is wrong.
  22. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    dana1981@137 I just read through most the comments there and found the experience discouraging. All insults and conspiracy, no actual content.
  23. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John @139, You have a point, but I would still encourage people to openly discuss the science (i.e., the metrics that one should consider when monitoring climate change), with or without Dr. Pielke's input.
  24. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Indeed it is muoncounter, because it's multiple decades! I suspect the 2000-2020 global surface temperature trend will be very close to the expected 0.2°C per decade trend as well. Oh and for the record, the AR4 Scenario A2 projection for 2000 and 2020 is indeed just about 0.2°C per decade, as stated in the report. It just happens to be lower from 2000 to 2010 in the model mean.
  25. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    As the principle Moderator of this thread, I thank the commentors for being civil and for staying on topic -- after some prodding.
  26. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Because the discourse we had embarked on has been short-circuted by Dr. Pielke's abrupt departure, I move that Dr. Pielke's response to the questions that Dana posed to him be post as a new SkS article. We can then proceed to analyze those answers on fresh comment thread. Right now, Dr. Pielke's responses are buried from plain sight in ths comment thread. He has posted the answers on his blog, but no comments are allowed.
  27. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    A bit off topic, but a few of us SkSers had some interaction on the comments at the Bishop Hill "skeptic" blog the past couple of days. Every single comment on that site was more offensive than every single comment on SkS. Basically nonstop insults and personal attacks. Really, climate blog comments don't get much more civil than at SkS. If Dr. Pielke can't handle comments here, it's certainly a good thing he doesn't allow comments on his own blog.
  28. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    This looks very close to the stated 0.19 per decade.
  29. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross, it was as ever instructive to learn from your posts. I've just read Dr pielke's post on his site. I take it he has never tried to voice a contrary opinion at Watts' blog? It beggars belief that he believes he's been poorly treated here.
  30. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Yes, I appreciate Dr. Pielke's responses, and I'm glad he gave a few position statements. The wrestling over the science had the feel of a speed round; everyone was trying to get in their questions as quickly as possible. I suspect that if Dr. Pielke had hung around a while (or will hang around a while), he'll find that he and others don't need to risk the boiling point. A good cooking temperature can be achieved by focusing on one component at a time. I think that's where things were headed. Only dialogue without the threat of categorical dismissal will achieve anything.
  31. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    We have another blog post summarizing the agreements, disagreements, and open questions in the works, although Dr. Pielke's decision to pull out of the discussion throws a small wrench into the works. I'm rather disappointed in the decision, and moreso in the way he did it, but do appreciate that he took the time to discuss some science with us and clarify is positions on some key issues. More on this in the forthcoming blog post. As for global warming and climate change metrics, I think it's clear that no single diagnostic can be sufficient on its own. Ocean heat content (Dr. Pielke's chosen metric) is an important one, but does not tell the whole story, especially given our limitations in OHC data. More on this in the forthcoming blog post as well.
  32. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Charlie, please read the post more carefully. It's not 0.12°C per decade, it's 0.12°C for one single decade (2000 to 2010). The data is shown quite clearly in Figure 3. It's not 2020 yet. That's the point, and why I've repeatedly said it's too early to draw any major conclusions from this assessment.
  33. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    I project the 0.12C/decade out to 2100 simply to be able to compare the slope with the projections of Figure 2. I do not see how it is possible that the slope from 2000 to 2010 is 0.12C/decade. I see a slope of 0.2C/decade, not the 0.12C that you see. IPCC AR4 Synthesis report says "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios." AR5 SPM Chap 3 and 3.2 I note that the only line in Figure 2not having a 0.2C/decade trend in 2000 to 2020 is the "year 2000 constant concentrations" scenario, which is described by the IPCC as "Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected." In your Figure 3, you claim that the blue line is a depiction of the AR4 projection for Scenario A2. I say that it is not correct. Others reading this post can read your claims, look at the figures, can look at what the IPCC and I say vs what you claim, and make their own judgements.
  34. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Before I forget again, Michael @126. A very sincere thank you.
  35. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Now with that all said, our moderator asked politely that "We need to move on to other items of discussion such as the appropriate metrics for measuring climate change." So let us get back to discussing the science. Do we elect to focus on one metric (like OHC) or do we consider the body of evidence?
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Unless Dr. Pielke returns to continue the discourse, this comment thread has pretty much run its course.
  36. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    DSL and others, In my post @111 I do try and clarify the situation by reiterating a key point. Readers will note that that post has also been edited. With that said, it is very unfortunate that Dr. Pielke Sr. elected to bow out of the discussion here, and while he may not share my sentiment, I for one do appreciate him coming here. Yes, discussion was heated at times, but as anyone who has undergone peer-review or has been in academia, that is how these matters are for often discussed and debated. I want to acknowledge that for Dr. Pielke to post here must have been difficult him at times, not in terms of material of course, but because not many people share his beliefs and opinions. I am glad that Dr. Pielke agrees that reducing GHG levels is a primary concern. So it was not all bad and some common ground was achieved on key issues-- at least that is my impression (Dr. Pielke seems to disagree, see link to his blog post below). Where the conflict arises is how Dr, Pielke chooses to convey his position to policy makers, the public and the House of Representatives. Rather than making unequivocal and reasonable statements as he did here, "The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. We do not need to agree on the magnitude of its global average radiative forcing to see a need to limit this accumulation. The biogeochemical effect of added CO2 by itself is a concern as we do not know its consequences. At the very least, ecosystem function will change resulting in biodiversity changes as different species react differently to higher CO2. The prudent path, therefore, is to limit how much we change our atmosphere." Dr. Pielke instead presented politicians in March 2011 with hypotheses that they have very little hope in grasping and which appear, to them at least, to focus on uncertainty and focus on issues secondary to GHGs. This is what he chose to say to them, the very people who are in a position to take prompt and meaningful action on AGW: "1. Research has shown that a focus on just carbon dioxide and a few other greenhouse gases as the dominant human influence on climate is too narrow, and misses other important human influences. 2. The phrases “global warming” and “climate change” are not the same. Global warming is a subset of climate change. 3. The prediction (or projection) of regional weather, including extremes, decades into the future is far more difficult than commonly assumed. As well, the attribution of extreme events to a particular subset of climate forcings is scientifically incomplete, if the research ignores other relevant human and natural causes of extreme weather events. 4. The climate science assessments of the IPCC and CCSP, as well as the various statements issued by the AGU, AMS and NRC, are completed by a small subset of climate scientists who are often the same individuals in each case." Quite different from his statement made here, and hardly conducive to elucidating the pertinent issues for people who are not familiar with the science, or alerting them to the urgency at hand. Why would he do that? What troubles me very much, and what should perhaps concern other people following this, is that within hours of bowing out here, Dr. Pielke made this post on his blog. If people here make assertions or challenge the content of a blog post are (within the limits of the "Comments Policy") free to do so. Many diverse views and opinions are voiced daily here at SkepticalScience. Some regular skeptics who post here have been discussing the same issue for months now. In contrast, no-one except Dr. Pielke has that freedom or privilege at Dr. Pielke's blog. Him airing that post is not acting in good faith in my opinion, rather it is very much trying to spin the situation in his favour by making unsubstantiated and demonstrably false allegations that cannot be challenged on his site. Consequently, his opinion and understanding of the situation become fact to his audience.
  37. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Charlie, the climate model projections are quite clearly not linear (see Figure 2), so I don't know why you're projecting a linear trend out to 2100. As the post states, we digitized the IPCC's multi-model average for scenario A2 (the red line), and the short-term trend was simply calculated in Excel. As the post notes, it's too short of a timeframe to say anything meaningful.
  38. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    To all participants - Personal opinion here, all caveats accepted. I would like to thank Dr. Pielke for participating - I wish he would have continued. While I strongly disagree with his viewpoints on any number of topics, I find that a conversation is the only way to understand where differing opinions come from, and the only way in many cases to move forward is equipped with that knowledge. While the conversation here occasionally became more heated than productive, I would have to say that I have learned quite a bit from all participants. But please - can we get back to discussing the science, rather than rhetorical "position statements"? And I most definitely include Dr. Pielke in that sentence!
  39. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Eric, discussion is impossible when one party misrepresents another. It is in effect a strawman. Misrepresentation must be clarified.
  40. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Eric (skeptic) - "Misrepresented is a false accusation. Dishonorable is an insult. Not worthy of this site." If (as has happened to me upon occasion) my statements are reworded to twist the meaning, that's definitely "misrepresentation". And I will continue to call folks on it when it occurs. I would, however, agree about the word "dishonorable". Discussions may be quite frustrating, and everyone will certainly form their opinions about the participants. While it is reasonable (if quite rude) to say that something 'seems like xxxx to me', it's quite unreasonable to assign such motives to another person.
  41. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    #125, unfortunately getting into arguments about whether one is being misrepresented or not is almost always off topic and unproductive. It is far better to return to the original topic and repeat the question (clarify if possible) or repeat the answer and clarify that.
  42. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross, I rarely comment anymore because I have noticed that you and several other commenters do a better job than I do. I did not previously understand how detailed your knowledge of the state of the literature was until I saw this discussion. It is too bad that Dr. Pielke decided to dodge so many of your points. I can certainly make up my mind about the points that were made. I am especially stunned that Dr. Pielke would present his paper with 18 coauthors as peer reviewed and then provide no evidence of peer review when you quoted the journal as saying the item was not peer reviewed. That alone speaks volumes. If the paper was peer reviewed, why is the evidence not promptly provided? Your point that Dr Pielkes' attempt to argue from authority is countered by the position paper of the Union itself was perfect! Thank you for your succinct discussion of the detailed points that only an exceptionally informed person could make. Dr Pielke would have fooled me on many points without your clear refutation of his claims.
    Response:

    [DB] Albie is a big-leaguer and we at SkS are very fortunate to have him here as a Forum member and participant.

  43. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    When Person A asserts that Person B is misrepresenting Person A's argument or ignoring a question, and Person A provides evidence for that, Person B should either 1. Concede/retract (apology or not) or 2. Challenge Person A This is one way that debate moves forward and learning is accomplished. Sometimes it's an honest mistake or miscommunication on either/both persons involved. Taking a sincere interest in what someone else's argument helps, and there's no shame in conceding you might be wrong. By my observations, Dr. Pielke has chosen less constructive approaches here. However, I for one appreciate him taking the time to stray beyond the usual comfort zone blogs, many of which contain a level of uncivility far surpassing the worst seen here.
  44. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    "Perhaps he's had a long day and is just tired" I actually thought this a benign comment, providing him with a clear out. I often lose a little patience late in the day. Not everyone is made for this kind of give and take. Too bad...I was starting to get a real impression of what his position was, which I've never quite understood before. Didn't quite get there though. I also thank him for coming on.
  45. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Misrepresented is a false accusation. Dishonorable is an insult. Not worthy of this site.
  46. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr Pielke, you seem to take offence rather too easily when somebody disagrees with your position. If all you ever refer to are your own papers (largely true in these exchanges), you very easily fall into the trap of "one-sided skepticism" by not considering the full body of literature. Perhaps you're just looking for a reason not to answer the many questions you have so far ducked in the various exchanges. I would note you've done exactly what VeryTallGuy suggested in #75, among his pertinet points in that comment. I remain absolutely astounded that somebody so interested in regional climate change seems not to think that CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the strongest positive global radiative forcing element (#94). You also appear to think that the warming forced by greenhouse gases cannot have a significant effect on a regional scale through influencing and changing weather patterns. Much of this is no longer in the model realm, as these changes are now observed. How on earth do you mitigate sea ice reduction (albedo), ocean acidification, sea level rise, or globally-forced weather pattern changes on a regional scale?
  47. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    You say "The model projections actually begin in 2000. The trends over that period are 0.12°C (projected) vs. 0.15°C (observed) per decade." Are we to understand that 0.12C/decade is the trend for the projection for A2 scenario from 2000 to 2010 ?? 0.12C/decade is obviously 1.2C/century, so it is easy to draw a straight line from the year 2000 point on the graph to a point at year 2100 that is 1.2C higher. That line falls well below the red A2 slope for 2000 to 2010. Your claim that the AR4 A2 projection is 0.12C/decade also disagrees with the text statement in AR4 that said there is little difference between the different scenarios for the first 20 years or so, and that the slope of all projections is about 0.2C/decade. Please clarify how you came up with 0.12C/decade.
  48. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    "These types of non-constructive comments are a major reason I stopped accepting comments on my weblog." A willingness to apologize when one has misrepresented another's position is one of the most fundamental attributes of an honorable person. " Readers on your weblog who have not commented can make up their own minds on the exchange of views that have already occurred." I, for one, would like to thank RPSr for having confirmed my previous impression of him from years of having occasionally read his blog.
  49. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Hartz - "Perhaps he's had a long day and is just tired" "Please let me remind you that it was you who chose to misrepresent my position and my statement on citations in your post @105, and at the same time belittle it. Now you are trying to take offense to the fact that I was annoyed/offended by you misrepresenting me and are trying to accuse me of being discourteous?" This type of exchange occurs too much on your weblog. These types of non-constructive comments are a major reason I stopped accepting comments on my weblog. Therefore, I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to express my views. Readers on your weblog who have not commented can make up their own minds on the exchange of views that have already occurred. However, I require a courteous exchange of viewpoints, even when there is disagreement, and, unfortunately, except for several excellent open-minded and cordial comments by your readers, a large fraction of the comments are not of that type. Much of my effort is going in circles and repeating myself. Thus, this is my last comment on your weblog.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Que sera, sera.
  50. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John @118, Me neither John. That post @ 117 by Dr. Pielke came out of left field.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Perhaps he's had a long day and is just tired.

Prev  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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