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  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  Next

Comments 74251 to 74300:

  1. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Dang-- No preview or edit function on comments. "is NOT 0.21 C/decade." should read "is not 0.12 C/decade".
    Response:

    [DB] "No preview or edit function on comments"

    A 'Preview' button may be found immediately to the right of the 'Submit' button.  The Previewed comment will then appear below the comment box.

  2. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Dana
    ucia - Charlie's comment was about the 2000 to 2020 trend. This post doesn't address the trend beyond mid-2011.
    Charlie specifically askes you about the trend from 2000-2010 and does so repeatedly. In comment 1:
    Are we to understand that 0.12C/decade is the trend for the projection for A2 scenario from 2000 to 2010 ??
    The correct answer should be "whoops. No. The trend for the projection for the A2 scenarios from 2000 to 2001 is NOT 0.21 C/decade. In his second comment (numbered 3 here) he writes
    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.
    Note the dates: 2000 to 2010. The correct response is that the slope from 2000 to 2010 -- the dates charlie mention quite specifically-- is not 0.12 C/dec. Charlie is correct to not "see" this slope. Charlie-- who, I should say appears to be being stupendously polite for a blog visitor even asks you to check the trend from 2010-2020 and you answer
    Charlie - yes, the AR4 Scenario A2 model mean trend between 2010 and 2020 is close to 0.28°C. Figure 3 includes the Figure 2 data between 1990 and 2000.
    Your answer is incorrect. The A2 trend from 2010-2020 is not close to 0.28C. You bungled this. You waved away charlie. I don't know where you went wrong, but you messed up. I should think your re-write should acknoweldge that charlie a) was correct b) was obviously asking about the trend from 2000-2010, specifically calling out these years. Or course, you are not required to do this. But, your notion that Charlie was only discussing 2000-2020 is absurd.
  3. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    lucia - Charlie's comment was about the 2000 to 2020 trend. This post doesn't address the trend beyond mid-2011. I got the data from Zeke's link, and have a new figure. Will post an update shortly.
  4. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Philippe and DB, that would be about as exciting as watching an iron ball rust, but the physical model that such a conversation would generate would be an all-time classic. Ok, ok -- I'm tempted, but DNFTT it shall be.
  5. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    dana-- Will your update acknowledge that Charlie A was correct and you were incorrect about the correct magnitude of the trends?
  6. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee#89: "long list of authors on that paper. Almost like a petition signed by many supporters." No. All high energy particle physics papers have a large number of authors. It is standard practice in that highly collaborative field, where experiments are designed by one team, run by another and interpreted by a third; a process that sometimes lasts many years. "Alfven won the Nobel prize ... so his work was ignored by the establishment." Interesting. Did you see this month's update from the ACE satellite team? It's about how quiet the sun was through 2010, concluding thus: We know of no dynamics that can accomplish this reduction other than magnetic reconnection below the Alfven critical point. So, multiple authors does not a petition make. Alfven? Not ignored. Let's stick to facts from this point forward.
  7. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    #20 - Paul, lovely chart! A very original way to demonstrate an important principle about cherry-picking trends. Some less- and more-experienced visitors to this site (including me) could learn a thing or two from it.
  8. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Adelady, I caught that Catalyst episode more by accident than intention and thought it was quite interesting for it's relevance to ocean mixing as much as wave impacts on coastlines. IIUC much of the acceleration of Antarctic ice loss is attributed to warmer ocean temperatures eating away at the edges and reducing how much glacial flows are held back at those edges; would this data indicate the Southern Ocean would have less sea surface warming during summer (warmer surface water mixed deeper) and greater transport of heat out of the ocean during winter (colder surface water mixed deeper)? Presumably bigger waves impacting the Antarctic coast could also change the rates of ice shelf and glacial terminal disintegration both directly by wave energy and indirectly by more rapid mixing and circulation of melt and ocean water near to the coast. In any case the length of time the study covers could be too short to be more than suggestive of a solid trend of such impacts. It will be interesting to hear some reactions to this study.
  9. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    89, tblakeslee, Do you have any actual evidence of this supposed conspiracy to squelch the advancement of science? [Which, by the way, is a clear violation of this site's comments policy?]
  10. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Thanks Zeke and lucia. If I have time, I'll try that approach and update the post.
  11. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    That kind of language is necessary to get a paper published in today's environment. The CERN paper also took years to negotiate and ended up worded in the weakest possible way. Notice the long list of authors on that paper. Almost like a petition signed by many supporters. You are right that much more work needs to be done to prove the whole theory but it is unfortunate that rational discussion has to be done in coded language to avoid being banished. The poor understanding of the sun's electrical nature is another example where the establishment has prevented progress to preserve their reputations. Alfven won the Nobel prize back in 1970 for his 1942 breakthrough in understanding of the true nature of the sun. He was an electrical engineer (as I am) so his work was ignored by the establishment. Now they will soon be forced to accept it. Please read this recent paper rediscovering his work: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110801094253.htm
    Response:

    [DB] Imputations of conspiracy betray a paucity of scientific basis for your position.  And are also a contravention of the Comments Policy; future such violations will result in comment deletion.  FYI.

  12. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Having followed this and other climate sites for a few years now, I began "counting down" to Dr Pielke's exit from this thread after Albatross' excellent post @ 115. The thing we must all remember is that the cultural norms of appropriate debate and discussion within scientific communities are not the same as among so called 'skeptic' communities. One continually sees participants in threads like these push towards evidence-based and rigorous debate (usually, to be sure, MUCH gentler than the way academics will argue over a dinner table)with 'skeptics' who are really in the business of simulated scientific critique which claims to engage with climate science, but is actually not directed to scientists at all. As a consequence, there is a point in every such debate when the 'skeptic' must find a reason to exit from the debate, from outside the true argument. John Hartz, naturally, as a first-time moderator you are concerned to keep discussion on topic and keep discussion fair and reasonable...both of which, for my part at least, I think you did well. I wouldn't be too concerned about what has been 'on topic' here -this particular thread has been very instructive in terms of what it reveals about how people with different agendas go about their rhetoric. That in itself is a critical part of our education about these debates.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Thanks for the pat on the back. This thread has morphed into an Open Thread much to my pleasant surprise. I'm enjoying the conversation and hope others are as well.
  13. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Lucia, You don't even need to average them; the IPCC provides the global multimodel mean average temps here Just use 20C3M data for 1990 to 1999 and A2 data from 2000 to 2010. Checking the slopes, I get 0.236 C per decade from 1990-2010 and 0.177 C per decade from 2000 to 2010. You might want to check your figure for the last decade Dana.
    Moderator Response: [grypo] Thank you. Fixed link.
  14. Climate sensitivity is low
    Just a quick comment - the question about glacial dust would certainly be something for carbon-cycle models to worry about but for a climate model, what matters is how much CO2 eventually ended up in the atmosphere. This is a known (from gas bubble) so model doesnt need to calculate it. Its tricky to see how uncertainties from glacial aerosols could lead to lower sensitivity given that the rise in CO2 is known. Albedo feedbacks would be different last glacial termination (they are so in the models), but can be reasonably estimated. (area covered by ice).
  15. Philippe Chantreau at 09:36 AM on 23 September 2011
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Agreed with #285. Doug Cotton's site is the venue of choice for you Damorbel.
    Response:

    [DB] Added link.

  16. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    The climate events described by Dr Powell are mild compared to what can - and should - be expected later this century.
  17. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Thanks. I'll pass that to the skeptic - I'm sure nothing will change his mind but it may be a small start.
  18. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel#283: "Venus behaves like a gassy planet rather than a rocky one." Venus' average density is 5.2 gm/cc; a rocky start for your point. But this thread is not about Venus. "the distinction I draw between a body with a an internal heat source (a star) and a body without an internal heat source" I'll bite. Stars and planets are not the same. A planet receives energy from its nearby star; heat is retained by the planet when it has a greenhouse atmosphere. What was your point? BTW, you might have a look at Doug Cotton's 'earth-climate' web site and set him straight over the question of internal heating.
  19. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    After Climategate I was directed to WUWT by a denier acquaintance of mine so I could learn what a dupe I had been to believe science. The low level of discourse there (and other sites he directed me to) led me to dismiss their conspiracy claims and to seek out more reasonable sources of scientific information. Thank you John Cook for creating this site and thanks to all the regular contributors/commenters who keep is stocked with science for anyone who is willing to learn it.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Thanks for the nice words. Like elephants in the circus, all SkS authors, including Dana, work for peanuts. Every so often, John Cook pops in to fill up our bowls and sweep up the shells.
  20. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel@283 "Why were glass jars necessary for the demonstration?" Seriously? How else would they let in light/radiation and hold in CO2?
  21. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    I just had a quick look at the comments thread on WUWT. I'm astonished that Dr Pielke would associate, at any level, with that site. It's simply amazing how tolerant people can be of abuse, provided the abuser is 'on the same side'; and how intolerant they can be of anything that seems to go against their mind set. The good thing, I think, is that anyone with even the slightest objectivity who visits the various sites should find it very easy to decide where the moral high ground lies. In common parlance they seem to have 'lost it'.
  22. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #281 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You write " If you want a concrete example, I pointed out that the fact that the mean surface temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury directly refutes an argument you made.... " Dikran, the distinctions between Venus and :Mercury are rather large - Mercury has no atmosphere and the dark side has a temperature of 100K (because it rotates in about 58.7 Earth days) By contrast Venus has an atmosphere about 90 times as dense as that on Earth, it rotates in about 224.7 Earth days. However its dark side temperature is the same as its sunlit side (as are the poles). This is because Venus behaves like a gassy planet rather than a rocky one. A gassy planet has a strong increase in temperature with depth in the atmosphere, it is the same with Jupiter. You refer to one of my posts as "a post deleted by another moderator" I was wondering about this. How do you expect me to make a discussion when this sort of thing happens? I would like to refer to that post, you have whycannot other people see it? So far Dikran, you have made no comment on the distinction I draw between a body with a an internal heat source (a star) and a body without an internal heat source a planet or a comet. Bodies with an internal heat source is heated in an entirely different way from one without an internal heat source. Re #281 DSL, I have looked at your video. As far as it goes (showing gases absorbing heat and rising temperature in consequence) but it falls down hoplessly in that, with a rising temperature, it is clearly out of equilibrium. Furthermore it doesn't show that Greenhouse Gases emit radiation equally as well as they absorb it when in equilibrium (steady temperature). For this reason the video does not represent the Earth and its atmosphere - Sorry! This was discovered by John Tyndall - it was mentioned in his 1862 paper. PS You also mentioned "Note that the right jar has the benefit of convective access to the room air." Does this make any difference? Why were glass jars necessary for the demonstration? The Earth has no glass jars. Surely glass jars have some effect in the demonstration, otherwise they wouldn't have been be used, would they.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I see that yet again you are unable to question your own position. Yes, mercury has no atmosphere, but it was you that was arguing that CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect on temperatures not me.

    Your post was deleted (not by me) because it was yet another example of one of your posts that made the same points yet again without taking on board any of the counter arguments that had been presented.

    I have commented on the distinction that you draw between a body with an internal heat source and one without, I pointed out that the distinction was (i) irrelevant to the discussion of whether heat flow is bidirectional or not (which depends only on their temperature) and (ii) it is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect because as far as the atmosphere is concerned it is heated from below by IR radiated from the surface, not from the Sun above. The fact that the IR radiated from the surface was caused by absorbtion of visible light from the Sun does not change that. This is why your posts are trolling; your arguments have been repeatedly addressed and you ignore the counters, as you have just done here yet again.
  23. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Dana-- Consider downloading the data from the IPCC's own site, averaging over all models to create the multi-model mean, and then recompute your projected trends for the A2 model projections. If all you need is annual averages, the IPCC's version of their data is here Links to monthly data are available on that page.
    Moderator Response: [grypo] Thank you. Fixed link.
  24. actually thoughtful at 07:45 AM on 23 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    I think the comments at 149 and 173 (that we should insulate the top-tier publishing skeptics from a SkS pile-on are valid). While it is also true that Pielke shied away from answering the excellent questions posed by knowledgeable folks in the field, I did feel that it was simply overwhelming (from Pielke's point of view). Given his expertise and work in the field, he deserves a different format (if we seek to truly understand his position). Perhaps if SkS offered Pielke a more moderated thread, Pielke would agree to actually answer the questions asked? Regardless, it is impressive that John Cook got Pielke onto this site, and Dr. Pielke deserves credit for diving in and trying to get his views out. I hope SkS will extend a heartfelt thanks to Dr. Pielke for the time and effort he devoted to sharing his views.
    Moderator Response:

    [John Hartz] A number of SkS authors and readers have already posted "thank you's" to Dr. Pielke on this comment thread.

    [Daniel Bailey] To elaborate upon your points (and on JH's fine moderation of this thread): 

    Dr. Pielke is free and welcome to participate in each and every thread here at SkS, under the same terms, standards and expectations inherent and implicit in all who post here:

    1. that all comments be constructed and formulated to comply with the Comments Policy and to also
    2. stay on-topic of the thread that they are posted on.

    Comments not adhering to both points, regardless of the individual or affiliation of the poster, are subject to moderation...with no exceptions or special treatment offered nor given.  Thus, regardless of the far and distant shore origination point of the person making the comment, all are welcome to participate here, free from the usual diatribes and invective inhabiting those other spheres.

    Dr. Pielke thus holds the power to continue the dialogue herein under those understood and requisite terms of behavior at any time of his choosing.

    It really is that simple.

  25. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Pure happenstance I know, but ABC's Catalyst program had a segment on increases in extreme wind and waves last night.
  26. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Paul from VA#20: I find that to be an extremely useful graph to visualize the trends based on start date and length of measure... Excellent!
  27. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    I'm glad that Dana (#176) and SkS authors are taking the high road, as I understand the temptation to jump into the gutter with certain characters, but they only offer troll-bait. At the same time, don't feel so reserved you have to feel guilty about using fairly innocuous categories like "Spencer's Slip Ups" as to avoid any chance of offending those who are part of Spencer's tribe. There is a danger of becoming too dry and boring. And if someone feels that Dr. Pielke or someone else has misrepresented his or her position, absolutely, don't feel shy in pointing that out. You cannot move debate forward if, for fear of scaring off the opposing party, you ignore that fact that someone is creating a strawman or allow someone to develop a caricature of your argument, such as Dr. Pielke did to my statements at the end of #18. There's only so much you can do to accomodate people.
  28. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    JC Leblond#175: And here we see the quality of the commenters: the time for serious dialogue has passed. It is time to move to ridicule, mockery and scorn. ... We should just point and laugh at them. the moderators on that site abuse their positions by not facilitating debate and promoting discussion, but using a Taliban like adherence to climate orthodoxy to stop any deviation from the holy flame How long did that 'Watts took down his Gore-is-an-idiot so he maybe he's not so bad' feeling last?
  29. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    "Threatened people lash out, and when they're clever they can do a lot of damage." Playing the victim card is a tactic. I'm certain that RPSr knew exactly what he was doing, and the fact that WUWT is now running with it - hint, I doubt very much that Anthony was following the discussion here - is more evidence of it.
  30. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Anthony Watts and Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. do make quite the tag team, eh?
  31. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Paul from VA#20: "15 year trends, however, are much pretty stable in IPCC compatible ranges." A very interesting display; I'd like to hear a little more about what you did. Is there a way to thicken the lines so they do not fade quite as fast? Perhaps a more detailed color bar, with a smaller range, would help.
  32. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Remarkable how those bobbing around in the Dead Sea of 'scepticism' are so sharp-eyed when it comes to others straying a few paces from the summit of the moral high-ground.
  33. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    JC @175 - yes, on Bishop Hill as well. It's quite ironic that some of the worst blogs in terms of civil discourse are criticizing SkS on this issue. I believe the term is 'psychological projection'. But we're going to take the high road and try to simply ignore these attacks.
  34. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Of course for previous IPCC report projections (particularly the FAR), there is much more data available, and they have turned out to be quite accurate.
  35. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    This attempt at dialogue has already been instrumentalised by WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/22/over-cooked-or-well-done/
  36. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    I was wondering a bit about this trend stuff myself, so I set up a bit of code that tries various different values for start year and trend time and calculates a linear regression slope in the gistemp or any other temperature data set. My resulting plot is displayed (hopefully) below: Although it's not a statistical test, it can inform one's intuition for how sensitive to trend the pick of a start date is. Sure enough, it's trivial to cherry pick a recent ten-year trend to give values as low as between -0.05 and zero or as high as 0.3 degrees per decade for ten year trends from 1998 and 2001. The 15 year trends, however, are much pretty stable in IPCC compatible ranges. I like to call this a "cherry checking chart."
  37. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @Grypo, Albatross. I should have gone on to say that I think if the aim is to attract sceptic scientists onto this site -- which would be really good -- you need to find ways whereby they don't feel quite so threatened. Threatened people lash out, and when they're clever they can do a lot of damage. The best way is always to remain calm yet very firm and confident. Relax them and they will hang themselves -- otherwise they'll leave long before you get the chance to be executioner. I really wanted to 'hear' Dr Pielke answer your questions. As it is I feel like I've had the main course put down in front of me and then snatched away.
  38. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    I think something like this has already been suggested above, but I'd have thought the best way to manage a discussion like this in the future would be to have two parallel threads. One which is open for anyone to comment on, so those who really know what they are talking about can post sensible comments and relevant links and the rest of us can throw all the peanuts we like. The other, where the real discussion would take place, would be closed to comments, except from the key players, but with the best and most constructive comments from the open thread being transferred into it as moderators see fit.
  39. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @Grypo, Albatross. Yes, fair points. I used the word 'attacked' as shorthand for a word I couldn't think of. It's an emotive word and I should be able to think of a simpler and shorter one -- but, with that proviso, you get my point.
  40. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @Dikran We'll have to just disagree about Prof Jones' answer, which we've discussed before. Really, I do sympathise with your point of view but -- and I'm laying myself open to charges of elitism here -- I think you over-estimate the lay person's ability to see through the games, particularly the lay person who comes to the answer with a 'denial mindset'. I find myself being led off-topic here so that's all I'm going to say.
  41. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Russell @161, "Having a group of people on one side who are generally autonomous, up against a single person -- whatever the merits of the respective arguments -- seems to any onlooker terribly like a pack of wolves attacking a bear." Thanks for your thoughts on this, I largely agree with you. But I think that one point needs clarification. It should be noted that, for the most part, only one person (me) had been actively "debating" with Dr. Pielke before he decided to get in a huff and leave. So there was not really a "pack mentality" at that point, and think that would be a very poor reason for anyone to provide for him electing to leave. He could have asked for a break, or could requested for the format to change, he did neither. Re your post @168, yes it was a technical discussion at times, but instead of using it as an opportunity to inform some readers, Dr. Pielke chose to berate/insult both the moderator asking him to elaborate and SkS as a whole.
  42. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @ John Russell I think we can use a phrase like, 'vehemently disagreed with' instead of 'attacked', but also recognize that the numbers were not in Pielke's favor, giving the 'gang up' impression that I'm sure some people came away with. But let's also recognize the flip-side of that. The person that Dr. Pielke complained about is another PhD level colleague in Pielke's field and probably the most knowledgeable person to counter argue on those specific points in this thread. Another example is Dikran whose very legitimate questions about a paper that Pielke himself cites as important work (in Pielke's own peer-reviewed paper, no-less!) went unanswered and Dikran was instead told to email the author. These aren't voices we really want to censor. The forum in which we are operating unfortunately lends itself to poor endings to these exercises. As well as giving critics lots of fodder to use.
  43. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @Former Skeptic I'm sure you will agree that it's very different when the person who is being 'attacked'-- for want of a better word -- (Pielke on this site, Schmidt on RC) is also the moderator (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming Gavin was both the poster and the moderator on the example you provide). That creates a structure -- partly visual -- that makes it clear and logical. There is also the point that the RC post was not a series of questions, which also created a mish-mash on this thread as the commenters went for different arguments. As I said, for the lay person it was difficult to follow. But I agree that Gavin did a good job.
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 04:31 AM on 23 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Former Skeptic@165 I just want to second what you wrote regarding Gavin Schmidt, an "exemplary job" is a very apt summary, it is hard to see how he could have done better. John Russell@166 I would hope that the lay-person can detect the rhetoric and evasion and not be impressed with it. My grasp of poltics is pretty weak, but I think I can still detect evasion in politicians and be unimpressed by it (and indeed when media types are just trying to trip them up rather than dealing with the substantive issues, I'm not impressed by that either). Scientists should always be willing to give a direct answer to a difficult question, c.f. Prof. Jones' absolutely straight answer to the question about the statistical significance of temperature trends. He did explain why the non-significance didn't mean much, but he didn't shrink from explicitly stating that the trend in question was not significant. I find it much easier to trust those willing to give direct answers to direct questions, especially difficult questions. Trust is irrelevant in science, but it is highly relevant to how the general public ought to form an opinion about the science.
  45. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @Dikran. Actually, I agree with you. I was not proposing a debate (see my previous comment at #161). I also think John's moderation was fine -- but he had a thankless task and nothing he could have done would have created structure to the exchange. Reading the thread is just hard work. Fine for those with insight and the motivation to mine the content, but off-putting for the lay person -- which after all is the target audience this site sets out to reach.
  46. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    I followed this discussion with some interest, and expected that Dr. Pielke would abruptly leave and go back to his weblog to (for want of a better word) sulk. It's no surprise, given his track record at other climate science blogs (here and here and here) when his contrary opinions are challenged by the massive weight of prevailing evidence. It's tiresome to deal with Dr. Pielke, especially when he demands civility and respect but his online behavior can be argued to be opposite of such genteel notions. This (and previous threads) was seen with his general evasiveness, his misrepresentation of Albatross, and his surly response over at his blog. Jorg Zimmerman has an apt description of such concern troll-ish behavior that should be read by all here. Lastly, I would like to thank the moderators here for their efforts in trying to host a discussion with Dr. Pielke. John - IMO you did a good job in keeping things civilized, and you shouldn't be sent down to AAA for it. :) PS: John Russell. Good point about the pack of wolves vs. a bear analogy. However, in the immediate fallout the CRU hack, Gavin Schmidt did a exemplary job dealing with accusations flung at climate scientists by commentators over at RC over several (very) long threads. The contrast between how patiently Gavin responded to the ignorant punters, vs. how Dr. Pielke left in a huff when (IMO) politely challenged is very telling.
  47. Dikran Marsupial at 04:09 AM on 23 September 2011
    Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    Robert Murphy wrote: "Our first intuitions can lead us astray." indeed, which is why we have statistical tests, which give us an indication as to whether out intuiutions have a solid evidential basis. Although frequentist hypothesis testing as it is actually used in science is arguably not fit for purpose!
  48. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4
    "I guess it depends on your start and end points." Of course; we're dealing with very short time scales. One year's temperature can make a huge difference with the trends when you are only looking at 10 years of data. That is why scientists look at longer timeframes. Linear trends for short timescales can be very deceptive; one would think that adding the ten years from 2000 to 2010 would lead to a smaller long term linear trend for 1990 to 2010 than for 1990 to 2000. It doesn't (for GISS anyway); the trend actually goes up. This despite the fact that the trend from 1990-2000(about .17*C/decade) is bigger than that from 2000-2010 (about .13*C/decade). Our first intuitions can lead us astray.
  49. Dikran Marsupial at 04:02 AM on 23 September 2011
    SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Russell In my view a "debate" is exaclty what we need to avoid, what we need is a scientific discussion, and science has found over the years that this is best conducted in written rather than spoken terms (which is why we have journals). "debates" lend themselves all to easily to rhetoric and sophistry and favour the quick witted rather than the correct. Written form also discourages evasion as the original question is still there on the page, so any evasion is obvious. One advantage of a written format is that hecklers are not a problem, you can just ignore them and engage with those who are actually making a substantive contribution. You can't be shouted down or interupted in writing! Sadly there is no format of discussion that is completely robust to rhetorical devices of various sorts. The best thing to do is simply to note the use of the rhetorical device and carry on (this is not IMHO heckling). BTW I think the moderation on this thread (by John) has been just fine. It is often difficult to strike a balance between allowing comment on the style of the discussion (which is appropriate) without comments being inflamatory or unreasonably hostile. If someone is being evasive in a scientific discussion it is perfectly legitimate to point it out.
  50. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @NewYorkJ: I think the problem is that a 'debate' is not really possible when carried out in written form like this. I felt for John Hatz. Being a moderator is not like being a chairman and it's not for nothing that a debate has a structure where one side speaks and then the other answers -- which is impossible in an open forum. The end result is difficult to follow, pulling in all directions. And then there are the hecklers who, due to the format, have as much prominence as the 'serious' questioners. Agreed, my suggestion is not as good as a well-structured open 'debate' but there is no way this would end up well-structured, is there? -- except by fluky accident.

Prev  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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