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. Philippe Chantreau at 08:13 AM on 22 September 2011
    CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Thank you for finally providing some real references. However, no connection has been proven yet. One needs to look at more than one paper when assessing the state of knowledge about a particular issue. IF the effect is real, which is a big if, since there is still no physical mechanism for particle growth, it is minute, at best. That's according to Laken et al (2010), the very paper you linked. I note that an earlier Laken paper still couldn't find a correlation. Kulmala et al (2010) looked at various data over an entire solar cycle and failed to detect anything meaningful: "Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII)." Nothing is proven in the GCR/cloud "relationship." At best, it is controversial and if an effect does exists, it is very small. Laken et al (2010) concludes: "The climatic forcings resulting from such solar – terrestrial links may have had a significant impact on climate prior to the onset of anthropogenic warming." I find a strong discrepancy between this language and your interpretation.
  2. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross - I keep answering your questions. Also, with this kind of discourteous response "Please so not play word games with me, and please do not misrepresent and distort what I said, as well as ignore the reasons provided for my concerns. I suggest that you read my post again carefully and reflect.' I am finished responding to you.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] A casual observer might conclude that you are purposely ducking the issues posed by Albatorss in a very straightforward, non-confrontational manner in #115.
  3. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Sorry John Hartz, I was composing my most recent post and only saw your note after I posted. OK, moving on :) Besides, I have to take care of some stuff.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Thank you. I know from expereince that "model-heads" can get into passionate and lengthy discussions about the subject.
  4. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke @113, "If you conclude that in order to be a "first-order" climate forcing it must significantly alter the global annual average radiative forcing, than this conflicts with the NRC (2005) report." OK, let me clarify. Maybe I missed it, but I did not see the report refer to land-use change as a primary or first-order of global climate. They do say that: "The strengths of the traditional radiative forcing concept warrant its continued use in scientific investigations, climate change assessments, and policy applications. At the same time, its limitations call for using additional metrics that account more fully for the nonradiative effects of forcing, the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of forcing, and nonlinearities." They also say that: "Regional variations in radiative forcing are likely important for understanding regional and global climate responses; however, the relationship between the two is not well understood. Regional climate responses can also be caused by global forcings, making it difficult to disentangle the effects of regional and global forcings." And they include this figure from TAR: The NRC report says: "The largest positive forcing (warming) in Figure ES-2 is from the increase of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) and amounted to 2.4 W m−2 (watts per square meter) between the years 1750 and 2000. Of the forcings shown in the figure, the radiative impact of aerosols is the greatest uncertainty." Land albedo does not rank very high and Myhre and Myhre (2003) found that the albedo affect is probably <+/- 0.5 W m-2. They do not that: "The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing." Note they say inadequate, not inappropriate or unacceptable. They recommend: "The net radiative forcing of the atmosphere can be deduced from the difference between TOA and surface radiative forcing and may be able to provide information on expected changes in precipitation and vertical mixing. " They note: "Regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climatic implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing." Note they say "may". That was 2005. If you object to spending money on decadel projections, fair enough you are entitled to your opinion, but then how do you reconcile that with urging governments to spend money investigating hypotheticals? You seem to be using this hypothesis to confuse policy makers in the USA into not mandating that prompt and meaningful action be taken on AGW. That may not be your intention, but that is certainly how they will perceive it if they are reluctant to move forward, you may be unwittingly (or not) providing them a convenient a sophisticated sounding excuse. It does not have to be an either or, we can address both, while also taking prompt action on reducing GHGs.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Excellent post!
  5. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    The Forbrush event is like when a building collapses in a fire. It is part of the fire but not all of it. It is handy for proving the connection because it is abrupt. The activity of the sun varies with the predictable cycles and produces important but not as dramatic magnetic fields. Didn't you read the Laken paper?
  6. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke, My apologies if I misrepresented your position-- that was my honest take. Your (non) apology for misrepresenting me is accepted ;) So you are suggesting that we do not bother with improving forecasts (despite users, policy makers, governments and stake holders demanding them of scientists) because of the complexities of the climate system are just too great? But let us differentiate carefully between choosing our battles with models and their development and tossing them out with the bath water as some suggest (Lindzen in particular has no time for models, and Specner has little interest in those models with higher climate sensitivity). "What do we know today from these models that we did not know in 1992?" I sincerely hope that this question made in jest. Can you clarify, in your testimony you said "There is no way to test hypotheses with the multi-decadal global climate model forecasts for decades from now as step 2, as a verification of the skill of these forecasts, is not possible until the decades pass." Yet here you are arguing that the models cannot predict decadal climate but at the same time you are telling others that there is no way of testing whether or not they can do so. But your hang up seem to be the time frame, well yes, that is an issue, but we do not need to wait further before taking meaningful action on GHGs. It would be foolhardy to argue that we need complete understanding (and high confidence and low uncertainty) in order to move forward. Uncertainty cuts both ways, just just towards lucky breaks and low climate sensitivity. And again, other lines of evidence such as the paleo record a indicate that it would be wise to be prudent and taking this matter very seriously. The science and models are advancing, for example the climate sensitivity NASA's GISS model has reduced slightly over the years as they have implemented changes. Advances have been made in computer power (which is getting cheaper) that has allowed finer grid spacing to be used, both in the vertical and horizontal, and also allowed the implementation of fully coupled AOGCMS and more sophisticated land-surface schemes, including dynamic vegetation schemes. Surely you can recognize that an immense amount of change has taken place in the modeling world since Manabe et al.'s (1991,1992) seminal work. Do you wish for that to cease? Or is is just the decadal projections that you are opposed to?
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Please try to wrap up your dialogue with Dr. Pielke on climate models. We need to move on to other items of discussion such as the appropriate metrics for measuring climate change.
  7. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee#85: "Forbush events ... useful for proving the connection to cloud formation." Except that connection is not proven. Once again, Dragic finds very few FDs have any measurable effect. As proof, you offer a Svensmark paper. Not impressed. But then, in the same paragraph, you state "important driver of cloud cover is not the Forbush events but the predictable cycles driven by planetary positions." Which is it? You can't play it both ways: either FDs have an effect or they do not. If planetary cycles are the drivers, what does that have to do with any possible cosmic ray induced cloud formation?
  8. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross - On #102 You write Thank you. I think I know how we can come to terms on your position about land use and land cover change. I'm going to make a suggestion to you comment: "Land use-land cover change is a first order forcing for regional climate as it can alter regional climate more than that caused by the radiative forcing of added CO2; in contrast, the role Land use-land cover change in driving global climate change is still uncertain and as shown by Forster et al., is unlikely to be significant relative to forcing from GHGs and aerosols." On that I can agree. And I'm not sure how you can continue to argue that something which has (near) zero net global radiative forcing can be considered a first-order radiative forcing." If you conclude that in order to be a "first-order" climate forcing it must significantly alter the global annual average radiative forcing, than this conflicts with the NRC (2005) report.
  9. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross You write "Your proposed method of dealing with AGW sounds like it involved a lot of delay and even more research money over and above what is already being spent." This is completely contrary to my view. We are wasting vast amount of money on multi-decadal global climate predictions. I much prefer those funds be spent for technology development for more efficient energy sources including non-fossil fuel sources, and adaptation. We already know CO2 is a first order climate forcing. Everything else being done to provide more detailed forecasts on decadal time scales is a waste as we keep learning more of the complexity of the climate system and the challenges of skillful forecasts. What do we know today from these models that we did not know in 1992? On #103, I already answered John Hartz question in two comments.
  10. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke @106, "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" [inflammatory text snipped] Please do not misrepresent and distort what I said, as well as ignore the reasons provided for my concerns. I suggest that you read my post again carefully and reflect. I obviously did not say that one should not permitted the peer-reviewed literature, in fact what you say is the opposite of my point. I very clearly spelled out why on must in fact DO that (i.e., consult the body of knowledge, understanding and science). People reading your comments on this thread would think that there are very few people working on land surface processes, and land-atmosphere feedbacks, and that you are one of those few. That is most certainly not the case. Or do you disagree with that fact?
    Moderator Response: Comment edited as requested.
  11. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross - Re #95, I posted on their paper. See http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/new-paper-observed-changes-in-surface-atmospheric-energy-over-land-by-peterson-et-al-2011/ Their study found the same larger values as we did, as I dicuss in my post.
  12. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Hartz - If the readers are not familiar with the common acronyms, they will not likely be familiar with what they mean.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] If acronyms are defined, the average person will have a better chance of understanding a statement. The golden rule of effective communication is, "Know thy audience."
  13. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Hartz - If I have to define diabatic heating, [-snipped offensive comment-] Diabatic heating is a change of heat of a "parcel of air" in Joules/meter cubed that are distinct from changes in Joules per meter cubed due to expansion and compression (adiabatic heating) such as from ascent or decent.
    Moderator Response: Please do not make offensive statements about SkS or its readers, you were encouraged to post here and the Comments Policy applies to you too.
  14. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Memo to all persons posting comments: The target audience for SkS articles and comment threads is the average person. Please define the acronyms that you use in your posts.
  15. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Hart, Sorry. Hope this helps. WRF is a regional numerical weather prediction model (NWP)used by the US National Weather Service and by researchers. AOGCMs are coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models. I'll note the "if" in Dr. Pielke's post @100-- this is an interesting hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis (versus the theory of AGW) and Dr. Pielke admits that it is his "view". So again, Occam's razor applies, we ought to be far more concerned about dealing with GHGs, aerosols and black carbon (I hope that you advocate moving away from coal rapidly). In fact research has looked into where we can get the biggest bang for our buck, and this matter has been discussed at RealClimate. Addressing land use change and CO2 emissions are not mutually exclusive, I know that you are familiar with REDD", you have made reference it in one of your papers. Your proposed method of dealing with AGW sounds like it involved a lot of delay and even more research money over and above what is already being spent. How would Roy Spencer feel about that?
  16. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross 'And I speak for my (and your) colleagues too when I say that it is considered poor form and inappropriate to repeatedly quote/cite one's own work as you seem to have a propensity to do." 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. :-)
  17. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    83 Forbush events are rare but useful for proving the connection to cloud formation. Here are two papers that confirmed the connection. Laken http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml The important driver of cloud cover is not the Forbush events but the predictable cycles driven by planetary positions. The ENSO has a pattern that is related to these planetary positions. It is described by the Landscheidt paper whose link I posted. The paper was also published in 2003 in Energy and Environment. I referenced the blog version for your convenience.
  18. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    It appears that progress can be made on narrow and specific issues, but those are fairly benign such as reducing GHGs. What is more important IMO is determining exactly where there are disagreements and spelling out those disagreements with as much precision as possible. A link may work in some cases, but trying to wade through a long blog post about why some paper is wrong makes it difficult to determine points of agreement and disagreement especially when that blog posting addresses many different points, comments on politics, etc. I would rather see the points of agreement or especially disagreement summarized here in concise bullet form. As just one example, could we have an estimate from Dr. Pielke of how much of the increase in nighttime minimum temperatures is due to station bias and how much is due to CO2 plus increased water vapor. I don't see a quantity, at least not in the 2009 paper. OTOH, I don't believe all biases are eliminated from the surface records particularly regarding impediments to radiational cooling in urban areas.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] You are correct. A linear comment thread like this does have its drawbacks. Having said that, let's complete the process of reviewing all the scientific issues raised in Dana's article.
  19. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke could you please answer John Hartz's question posed to you @90 and again @95. Thank you.
  20. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke @96, Thank you. I think I know how we can come to terms on your position about land use and land cover change. I'm going to make a suggestion to you comment: "Land use-land cover change is a first order forcing for regional climate as it can alter regional climate more than that caused by the radiative forcing of added CO2; in contrast, the role Land use-land cover change in driving global climate change is still uncertain and as shown by Forster et al., is unlikely to be significant relative to forcing from GHGs and aerosols." On that I can agree. And I'm not sure how you can continue to argue that something which has (near) zero net global radiative forcing can be considered a first-order radiative forcing. The forcing from CO2 is going to continue to escalate of course and the resulting changes will also impose feedbacks, included but not limited to land cover change... Re EOS, if someone were to contact them and ask whether or not your 2009 manuscript underwent official "peer-review", with peer-review as understood in terms scientific papers. What would they say? Also, do you honestly think that the government official to who you presented your 'paper' understand these nuances? "Also the alterations in spatial diabatic heating from this heterogenous forcing may alter large scale circulation features such as Asian monsoon, the NAO etc. " Earlier you referred to Takata as a example of regional change. Now you are using it as an example of large-scale circulation changes, while technically correct (the monsoon and AO is a large-scale phenomenon), that language may confuse readers. Also, the science has shown that oscillations (i.e., internal variability, do not account for the observed increase in global temperatures). See here, for example. And yes I have given your paper a cursory read-- iI have quoted from it above remember Have you watched Dr. Alley's talk yet? No models required to understand that we need to reduce GHGs aggressively and promptly ;)
  21. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    82 "Cosmic rays don't care where they land" but cloud formation can occur without cosmic rays when dust particles are present. There are clouds of dust over parts of the ocean but the oceans cover 2/3rds of the earth. Vast areas are dust free. Yes we have satellites to monitor fields but the standard idea of the sun as a fusion reactor ignores the electrical basis. The reference I gave clearly explains the flaws in the present sun theories. 81 Are you saying that the ocean temperature should change instantly as insolation changes? It is obvious that the ocean temperature changes slowly. Please read my citation if you think the sun is well understood.
  22. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dikran Marsupial - It would be much more effective if you would directly contact David Douglass and ask your question about his analysis. This would be another example of reaching out to seek to work together on the climate issue. I have respect for David and he will clarify or correct if their is an error. However, you need to reach out to ask him.
  23. Philippe Chantreau at 05:28 AM on 22 September 2011
    CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Tblakeslee you're making extraordinary claims. These require extraordinary evidence. You're also dismissing the work, dedication and accumulated knowledge of thousands of experts. You're saying that someone who was not a physicist understood the Sun better than solar physicists. But you have no real evidence of all this and no peer-reviewed science to support it. You can not just say stuff is true because you feel like it should be. The name for that is wishful thinking. There is no credible scientific evidence at this time that cosmic rays modulate cloud cover. There is not even a physical mechanism for ionized particles to grow to the size at which they can act as CCN. If you know of one, post a link. The correlation found by Svensmark between Forbush events and cloud cover changes is spurious at best. It's not only Lockwood but other teams that have looked at that supposed correlation and found it all but lacking. As Muoncounter pointed, Forbush events of any notable magnitude happen a few times a year. As I said earlier, the resulting cloud events must be massive in order to modulate climate. You eluded that question before, I'm asking again: Where is the evidence of that happening? Massive events are noticeable. A link would be appreciated. Sicentists don't understand the magnetic nature of the Sun eh? Right, that's why they thought it would be good to have the MDI imager on SOHO. I'm sorry but your demeaning remarks on solar scientists while you show limited knowledge and understanding yourself is rather damaging to your credibility. You should first prove (for real, in an objective way) that you understand things better before equating them to idiots (which is in essence what you did). The 11 years cycle, wich is the only true cyclic variation identified so far in the Sun is known exactly as a magnetic phenomenon by the way. ENSO does not show any true cyclical behavior. It is a quasiperiodic oscillation. What scientific work (not blog posts) can you refer to that links a fairly well established 11 year cycle with a quasiperiodic oscillation? One would have to go fetch some exotic harmonics to establish a link, I guess it might be feasible if you try hard enough. For now, I'll go by NOAA's take: "External forcing from volcanic eruptions (submarine or terrestial) have no connnection with El Niño. Nor do sunspots as far as we know." You've said how you "feel". Reality does not care one bit how we feel, how about bringing some substance?
  24. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Hyperactive Hydrologist - re #66 As we write in Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-312.pdf 'This paper evaluates the mean and spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing in comparison with that of the well-mixed GHG. The appropriate metric to assess the importance of the gradient of diabatic heating is the resulting gradients in the horizontal pressure field that fundamentally drives the atmospheric circulation [Gill, 1982]." Diabatic heating from land use/land cover change, if of a similar magnitude as with aerososl, would alter atmospheric circulations. These include the PDO, ENSO, NAO etc which, in my view, are hemispheric atmospheric-ocean circulation features. This is what land use/land cover change could also have a larger scale effect on the climate system than the very well documented regional effects where land use/land cover has occurred.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Pleass define tha acronyms that you have used and the term, "diabatic heating."
  25. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke @94, "3) Climate models are certainly not perfect, but are useful tools which have made fairly accurate climate projections thus far. No, they models have not shown skill at predicting changes in regional climate statistics." With respect, you are shifting the goal posts and arguing strawmen. Dana was very likely referring to 'global climate', and you insist on focusing on regional impacts. Yes, those are of course important, and you seem to be dismissing out of hand the wealth of work that has been done on downscaling. Additionally, you know as well as I do that because NWP models (e.g., WRF) accurately or perfectly simulating certain mesoscale features/processes does not render them useless or of no value. Besides, we know that despite their imperfections and limitations NWP models are very useful, as are AOGCMs; you also ignore the fact that they continue to improve. I find it odd that AOGCMs are good enough to support your view that regional and local land use change is a first-order global climate driver (e.g., you citing Takata et al.) and by extension that we should place less focus on Carbon, but you then turn around and say that those same models are no use for guiding climate policy. Regardless, paleo climate shows us that we best take the most prudent path and significantly reduce our emissions to avoid some major changes. Models are but one of several tools that we can use for guidance. "I also have concluded that the computationally expensive climate models, when used for multi-decadal predictions, have not told us anything of demonstrated added value beyond what can be achieved with just global energy balance models." I respectfully disagree, and so do many of your colleagues. I also note that this is a logical fallacy on your part. You are at the same time arguing that simple models are good at today's sophisticated AOGCMs while also arguing that the models are not complex enough and do not account adequately for land cover and land use changes or adequately simulate the surface processes. You seem to want to have it both ways. And no, simple energy balance models do not cut it, just as Roy's simple one-box model does not cut it (see Trenberth et al. 2011). Those type of models are useful for teaching students the basic concepts and for conducting simple experiments.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Please add a key defining the acronyms that you have used in this post.
  26. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Tom Curtis re: #76 see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-role-of-soot-in-the-climate-system-an-excellent-article-in-the-economist/ and other links on soot that I included there. Soot appears to be a major factor also in the Arctic sea ice. In terms of glaciers in the Himalayas, several years ago Lonnie Thompson showed me ice core data from several glaciers there. The appearance of soot in recent years was obvious, and I remarked to him than that this needs to be factored in in terms of melt.
  27. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Rob Honeycutt - Thanks for your comments. When I decided to engage with Skeptical Science, it was to reach out for a dialog. There is too much "tribalism" in weblogs, and they often wind up so partisan that only those in conformity with the views of the weblog host so there. I hope I encourage others on all sides to contribute and debate on all of the climate weblogs. I am disappointed to see the snide (snarky) comments from some and hope they realize that a positive interaction, even when we disagree, is not only more pleasant but also permits the development of consensus on at least some of the issues.
  28. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Albatross - You write 'Dr. Pielke asserts quite confidently here and elsewhere that land use and land cover change are first-order global climate driver. As I mentioned before, he is reluctant to place a figure on that in terms of global radiative forcing." Lets assume it is zero as regions of positive and negative radiative forcing average out. Land use/land cover change, however, is still a first order climate forcing as it can alter regional climate more than that caused by the radiative forcing of added CO2. Also the alterations in spatial diabatic heating from this heterogenous forcing may alter large scale circulation features such as Asian monsoon, the NAO etc. I do recommend you read our paper..... Also, you write "Regardless, nowhere in your book, that I can see, (even in Chapter 12 "Model Evaluation") do you entertain the notion that models are "hypotheses".' you will see this in the 3rd Edition which is due to the publisher later this Fall. Finally, on EOS, since I have actually reviewed Forum articles, I know they are reviewed. A paper does not have to be an original contribution to be reviewed.
  29. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee#80: "clearly ignored the electrical plasma and magnetic effects " Really? So the satellites (ACE, SOHO, Orion and so on) continuously monitoring solar electrical and magnetic fields are ignored? The impact of solar mag variations and storms on communications, military hardware and spaceflight isn't important enough to be studied in detail? Here is a good, if somewhat dated review of what we've 'completely ignored'. "distrust of Svensmark is probably based on the attack on his work by Lockwood" No, my skepticism of Svensmark is based on the fact that no physical mechanism is proven to support his hypothesis and there is considerable evidence to the contrary. I am skeptical because this question is not settled; many self-proclaimed 'skeptics' turn a blind eye to that situation when it challenges their own beliefs. That phenomenon has been called 'one-sided skepticism.' "Cloud formation over oceans is where the cosmic rays have the strongest effect because over land there are plenty of dust particles to aid in cloud formation. " You seem to be unaware that dust moves from over land to over oceans quite freely and aerosols with impunity. Google 'Asian brown cloud' or have a look at this image (from earthobservatory) taken off the coast of Africa. As far as cosmic ray induced ionization leading to cloud formation, the effect is not substantiated any better or worse over ocean or land. Cosmic rays don't seem to care where they land.
  30. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Piellke @ 93, You did not responded properly (to at least clearly) to John's question-- we do not really care whose idea it might have been (also the idea of moist-static energy and its role in say convection, has been around for a long time). John asked: "Do you agree with the findings of the paper summarized below?" I am also rather perplexed that you insist on keep touting Klotzbach et al. (2009) when that paper is known to have issues (some would argue serious issues). That fact was pointed out in the second post of this thread, but I'll post links here. Link 1, Link 2. Dr. Annan concludes: "Funny how this inconvenient result is now relegated to a "time period and location examined" when it was previously hypothesised to be representative of the global picture. There were no fewer than three other places where L07 was originally cited as being consistent with the K09/PM05 hypothesis, but it would obviously have been too painful for them to mention that their own observations of boundary layer lapse rates contradict their theory. Therefore, these statements have just been deleted." And I speak for my (and your) colleagues too when I say that it is considered poor form and inappropriate to repeatedly quote/cite one's own work as you seem to have a propensity to do. The reason being is that it limits the scope of the discussion and subject at hand, suggests the person is not open to alternative ideas beyond their own and also indicates that they are reluctant to consider the body of scientific evidence, and for these reasons it does not facilitate the advancement of science.
  31. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    dana1981 See my answers to your questions below. Dr. Pielke, we would like to do a post summarizing where we agree and disagree. Do you concur or have any comments on the following summary of agreements? We Agree on: 1) The need to reduce human GHG emissions As I wrote in my earlier answer "I am very much in favor of energy sources which minimize the input off gases and aerosols into the atmosphere. Much of my career has been involved with reducing air pollution (both in research and in policy). What we should move towards is an economy with as small a footprint on the natural environment as possible." 2) That while CO2 is the largest single contributor to global warming, there are other factors which we must also address No; I am not convinced that CO2 is the largest annual global averaged positive radiative forcing [and I am interpreting that you mean human climate forcings and the global annual average). Sott, and a variety of other aerosols have quite substantial positive radiative forcings in the atmosphere, and for soot,at the surface on snow and ice also. These other positive radiative forcings arr discussed in some depth in National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/ 3) Climate models are certainly not perfect, but are useful tools which have made fairly accurate climate projections thus far. No, they models have not shown skill at predicting changes in regional climate statistics. They are not ready to be used for accurate regional impact assessments as we discuss in Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairuku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding, 2011: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective. AGU Monograph on Complexity and Extreme Events in Geosciences, in press. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/r-365.pdf In terms of significant failings in the global climate models, as just two examples, see Stephens, G. L., T. L’Ecuyer, R. Forbes, A. Gettlemen, J.‐C. Golaz, A. Bodas‐Salcedo, K. Suzuki, P. Gabriel, and J. Haynes (2010), Dreary state of precipitation in global models, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D24211, doi:10.1029/2010JD014532. http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/jd1024/2010JD014532/2010JD014532.xml&t=jd,2010,stephens Insightful Interview In EOS Of Dr. De-Zheng Sun “Climate Dynamics: Why Does Climate Vary?” http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/insightful-interview-in-eos-of-dr-de-zheng-sun-climate-dynamics-why-does-climate-vary/ I also have concluded that the computationally expensive climate models, when used for multi-decadal predictions, have not told us anything of demonstrated added value beyond what can be achieved with just global energy balance models. By so closely linking policy to these models, we are doing more harm than good in developing effective climate and energy policies.
  32. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    John Hartz - Peterson et al based there analysis on our proposal to calculate surface moist enthalpy; see, for example, Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, and J. Morgan, 2004: Assessing "global warming" with surface heat content. Eos, 85, No. 21, 210-211. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-290.pdf Davey, C.A., R.A. Pielke Sr., and K.P. Gallo, 2006: Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the eastern United States - Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure of heat content. Global and Planetary Change, 54, 19–32. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-268.pdf Fall, S., N. Diffenbaugh, D. Niyogi, R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Rochon, 2010: Temperature and equivalent temperature over the United States (1979 – 2005). Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.2094.http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2010/02/r-346.pdf In the last paper, we also found that "Even though most of the magnitude of TE is explained by T , the moisture component nduces larger trends and variability of TE relative to T." [note" TE is the measure of the moist enthalpy and T is the dry bulb temperature]. There remains the issue, however, as to how spatially representative are the surface land observations used in their study (and ours). Unless similar amount of water (per kg) went into the lower troposphere, however, the difference between surface air and lwer tropospheric heat content trends will be even larger than we found for the dry bulb temperatures; see Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/11/r-345.pdf Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Correction to: "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841", J. Geophys. Res., 115, D1, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2010/03/r-345a.pdf
  33. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Moderator: Is there a place where I can take MPaul to task for the no-such thing as any settled science Meme? As someone who IS a working scientist, albeit not a climate scientist, I have great objections to non-scientists making such context-free statements. I run into this all the time in the real world...it reflects, if mpaul is American the long-running anti-intellectual streak that equates one person's willing ignorance with another perons's years of experimental research. Gravity is settled. The germ-theory of disease is settled. DNA as the stuff of heredity is settled. And given mpaul's last statement, I think he's a AGW proponent unable to confront the fact that he's in denial about it. Presumably there are elements that stick in his craw, but the weight of evidence is smothering him.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] How about The science isn't settled?
  34. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    80, tblakeslee,
    Cosmic ray assisted clouds over the ocean modulate the amount of solar heating of the ocean but with a large flywheel effect.
    I find it odd that you can so definitively make such a declaration with no evidence whatsoever, and you in another breath have said:
    The physicists are far from understanding the sun.
    Citations please. Support your assertions with hard evidence.
  35. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Landscheidt was vague because he is not a physicist and was mainly observing interactions driven by planetary movement that had a profound effect on the sun through gravity. The physicists are far from understanding the sun. They have clearly ignored the electrical plasma and magnetic effects which are important here. Here is a link to a minority view which I feel is more on track with the true electric/magnetic nature of the sun: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm Your distrust of Svensmark is probably based on the attack on his work by Lockwood in 2007. This attack was based on many errors which are covered well in this rebuttal: http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey Lockwood tried incorrectly to smooth the 11-year solar cycle and thus destroyed most of the data. In reality, the la nina and el nino cycles result from solar cycles and profoundly affect temperatures. They must not be averaged out. Cloud formation over oceans is where the cosmic rays have the strongest effect because over land there are plenty of dust particles to aid in cloud formation. Most of the world is ocean. Cosmic ray assisted clouds over the ocean modulate the amount of solar heating of the ocean but with a large flywheel effect.
  36. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    @Dana1981 "Dr. Pielke, we would like to do a post summarizing where we agree and disagree. Do you concur or have any comments on the following summary of agreements?" As a skeptic, I will never, ever agree with the statement that "the science is settled and the data is incontrovertible". [accusation of dishonesty deleted] No branch of science can make such a claim and its foolish to promote such an idea as it relates to a branch a science as nascent as climate science. By insisting on such "absolutism", the proponents of the AGW are missing an opportunity to find common ground with their critics. This community should give some thought as to what they want from the skeptics. If you simply want to win an argument, then I have no time for that. If, on the other hand, you want to influence public policy, I would suggest that you can find a lot of common ground in the view that "the science is not settled but we are making great advances in our understanding. There is enough evidence today to support the view that releasing the byproducts of fossil fuels into the atmosphere at large scale is harmful and that changes in public policy should be undertaken" then I could get on-board with that.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The science is settled that the force of gravity causes apples to fall, the data are incontravertable. ;o)

    Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

    I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

    Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

    Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

    Please read the comments policy, accusations of dishonesty are not acceptable, please also avoid inflamatory statements, the beginning of your final paragraph is sailing very close to the wind.
  37. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke Do you agree with the findings of the paper summarized below? "Over recent decades, a scientific look at the temperature on the surface of the Earth has shown that surface temperatures are rising. But surface temperature is only one element of energy content in the lowest part of the atmosphere. Wind speed and humidity are two other types of energy on the Earth's surface that are factors when looking at what is going on with the climate on the ground. In a paper just published August 23, 2011 by the Geophysical Research Letters entitled "Observed Changes in Surface Atmospheric Energy over Land" (Peterson, et al., 2011), scientists at NOAA National Climatic Data Center, the U.K. Met Office, and the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites-North Carolina, determined that in addition to surface temperature, humidity levels have also been increasing since 1973 and providing approximately equal contribution to increases in the heat content of the Earth. Increases in both temperature and humidity are also consistent with what we expect to see in a warming world. The paper quantifies how much energy the air is gaining, concluding that the bottom two meters of the atmosphere over land is gaining 1.9 x 1017 Joules of energy per decade." Source: ‘New Paper on Surface Energy” posted on the National Climate Data Center’s “What’s New?” webpage on Aug 23, 2011.
  38. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Schmidt didn't bite either. Dr. Schmidt's response Dr. Pielke seems to retreat to the fact that he got 18 AGU members to agree with him. That does seem remarkable, but Rob Honeycutt might beg to differ. This can be combined with my last post if mods prefer.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] You have made your point. Let's move the discussion forward to the other scientific matters still on the table.
  39. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke, we would like to do a post summarizing where we agree and disagree. Do you concur or have any comments on the following summary of agreements? We Agree on: 1) The need to reduce human GHG emissions 2) That while CO2 is the largest single contributor to global warming, there are other factors which we must also address 3) Climate models are certainly not perfect, but are useful tools which have made fairly accurate climate projections thus far
  40. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke asserts quite confidently here and elsewhere that land use and land cover change are first-order global climate driver. As I mentioned before, he is reluctant to place a figure on that in terms of global radiative forcing. He then suggests that we read his paper. OK. Some quotes: "In terms of an effect on the global average radiative imbalance, Forster et al. suggest that this direct biogeophysical radiative impact of LULCC [Land use and land cover change] since pre-industrial times is a reduction in the global average radiative forcing of 0.2 W m-2 ±0.2 W m-2 which is small relative to other global climate forcings. Reasoning of this kind has led to the role of LULCC being mostly omitted from the climate models used in previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments of climate projections and historical reconstructions (although deforestation is included via emission scenarios of CO2)." More work is being done in this area. "The role of LULCC is not limited to radiative forcing of climate and is not adequately assessed as a globally averaged forcing. LULCC is a highly regionalized phenomenon with regional-scale climate impacts that can vary in the sign of the change." Mostly in agreement, although when it comes to driving global climate the globally-averaged radiative forcing is what counts, and you seem to be reluctant to provide a number in that regard. "We still do not know if global-scale teleconnections may result from LULCC. We hypothesize from models that they are possible but LUCID showed that models did not agree on such remote impacts. Moreover, the assessments by the IPCC shows considerable regional divergence from a given forcing so it is premature to conclude that LULCC does [or does not]trigger remote effects". Indeed. Yet you appear to be continuing to assert quite adamantly and confidently (especially in public) that LULCC is a first-order affect the global climate, and inflate the associated uncertainty to distract from taking prompt action on reducing our emissions. Your book chapter seems to raise more questions than answers though. I think occam's razor applies here. Dr. Richard Alley agrees, "The biggest control knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's climate history".
  41. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    On framing and trapping, Dr. Pielke tried the same thing over at RC. Dr. Steig didn't bite. Response 1 Response 2
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Any more comments about Dr. Pielke's framing and/or debating tactics will be summarily deleted. The focus of this discussion thread is climate science.
  42. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr. Pielke, Thank you for your responses. Just wish to deal with some outstanding issues: "But nowhere, at least where I can find does he indicate the magnitude of this forcing in W m-2 (with error bars) or in terms of his preferred units, Joules. He appears to be stating a fact without providing a quantifier to justify his assertion." Dr. Pielke has still not provide a number (or range) as requested, instead referring us to yet another roof his papers. Dr. Pielke has not commented on the paper by Sitch et al. (2005)? I'm sorry, but I am still not clear on exactly what transpired in the publication of your EOS manuscript. I find it hard to believe that EOS would have subjected the opinion piece to peer review when they state that "Eos does not publish original research results". How many people reviewed your manuscript? The header says nothing about when it was submitted or accepted for publication. I demonstrated that the the IPCC and are not ignoring or laying down land use and land cover, and that this issue needs more attention, and it is receiving attention with some AOGCMs now including dynamic vegetation. That has not acknowledged by Dr. Pielke. Dr. Pielke also seems to be operating under the sadly correct presumption that most of he government representatives have not read the IPCC assessment reports. I showed that his position on the urgency on taking action is not shared by the AGU to whose authority he tried to appeal and that he did not communicate his urgency on taking action when he addressed the House of Representatives. Re models, I am very familiar with models and validating and verifying models thanks, have read the literature extensively on verification and validation have even published papers speaking to model verification. But I must insist that telling the public and government representatives that models are hypotheses is factually wrong and misleading. One can use various metrics and methods to validate and evaluate models-- in fact, in Chapter 12 of your book you discuss several options for evaluating models, and I did not see the term "hypothesis". Of course, one can use t-test to determine whether a newer model configuration is superior to an older one using t-tests, for example. Regardless, nowhere in your book, that I can see, (even in Chapter 12 "Model Evaluation") do you entertain the notion that models are "hypotheses". So I find the epature from wha you right in your text and what you tell policy makers and government officials unfortunate.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Please edit the typos in your original post.
  43. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    If I may make an observation on points 1 and 2... alan_marshall (#43): "It is likely that Pielke thinks he can entrap Sks, cherry-picking words or phrases in Sks’s response in an effort to discredit it, outside of the context of Sks’ well structured and comprehensive analysis of the evidence." I think that's right. For example, when I wrote "At any rate, I don't see how anyone could state the IPCC is at odds with Hypothesis 2a" Dr. Pielke responded with "I am pleased, however, that you see the need to move towards hypothesis 2a. " Dr. Pielke was eager to frame my position, although I made no statement to that effect. It's an easy observation to note that both 2a and 2b are compatible with the evidence (see the radiative forcing chart SPM.2) and are not mutually exclusive, an observation he seems to have a hard time conceding, perhaps because it's critical to his argument.
  44. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass (@ 213); re:
    "DM #199 and you make some good points - but I find it hard to explain why a scientist like Dr Lindzen gets it right in over 100 papers and then goes off the rails in the critical area of climate sensitivity and then refuses to retract or acknowledge what others claim as errors."
    Yes, it might seem difficult to explain, as Dikran says, that does seem to happen occasionally. Notice that others don't "claim" that some of Dr Lindzen's assertions are "errors". Some of Dr. Linden's assertions are objectively errors. So when Dr. Lindzen asserted that a response to global warming will be a "drying" of the upper troposphere such that the water vapour feedback is negative, we know categorically that this assertion is incorrect in the light of uncontroversial direct measurements. When Dr Lindzen uses (as a basis for another claim for low climate sensitivity), an astonishingly flawed selection of time periods for comparison with top of the atmosphere radiative flux measurements, the error is not a matter of opinion, but an extant and blatant fact. Why do a tiny number of scientists assert that they have priviliged insight into the workings of the climate system in contradiction to the evidence, and attempt to support this with astonishingly flawed analyses? In my opinion matters of scientific ethics can be summed up in consideration of "good" and "bad faith". The vast majority of scientists wish to find out about the natural world, and do their utmost to ensure that their work is correct and interpretations consistent with the evidence. A tiny number of scientists seem to have other motivations. In fact there is lots of information about some of these individuals that can help us to understand motivations, but it can be rather difficult to state this without appearing to categorise according to non-scientific criteria (even if the relevant information is also uncontroversial and objective fact!).
  45. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    VTG...you forgot 6) Preemptively framing the debate using false dichotomies. This tactic can bog down the discussion in fruitless discussions of semantics or terms of debate, making it seem hopeless (apparent draw = "skeptic" win). Or it can trap those who are unwary in apparent self contradictions if they accept said false dichotomies as the terms of the debate.
  46. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    And my last word on this (promise), John Hartz @78 "Although Dr. Pilke's relationship with Anthony Watts is a bur under many of our saddles, let's confine this discussion thread to the science of climate change." This is exactly why personalising the science with "Christy Crocks" etc was a mistake. It implies that certain scientists paper are favoured over others because of who they are. The inevitable result has been a focus on personalities and politics rather than the science. Christie, Pielke et al have little to offer on the science, and the debate is now where they want it.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] I will hold your feet to the fire.
  47. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Dr Pielke... Just as a side note here, I don't want you feel like everyone is just piling on here. We have a very vibrant community of people who are very enthusiastic about the climate debate and they all have questions. It's just the nature of a comments forum like this that everyone is going to post their question. You just happen to be the subject of this post and so all that enthusiasm is getting directed at you. We all greatly appreciate you taking the time to read our questions and comments and responding as you can. Just bear in mind that it's an internet forum and even with heavy moderation can get somewhat cacophonous at times.
  48. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    75, VeryTallGuy, While I find your tone a little abrasive, and I'm not sure how I would feel if I were Dr. Pielke, I think you make very valid points. It relates somewhat to my concerns, which I will broach once things reach the last three SkS questions and Dr. Pielke's answers to them. At that time your points will, I think, be more applicable. For now, however, I think the discussion should proceed as it is, without reference (yet) to your points. When your points do arise again, I (personally) would like it to be in terms of an honest and fruitful discussion with Dr. Pielke, rather than being perceived as an assault. That will require a modified, less caustic and direct approach.
  49. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Stig @77 Yes, spot on - "The fallacy of balance" is another common tactic. Pielke has IMHO very carefully chosen which questions to answer and which not to. DSL @78 Indeed - although Pielke's (and Curry's) stated admiration for WUWT is probably primarily intended as a wind up to other academics. In which it is highly effective, another masterclass from RPSr.
  50. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    VTG, you might also have mentioned "hypocrisy," argued by the open question on the One-Sided Skepticism thread and reiterated through Pielke's "Of course" response in answering dana1981's question set--a response that is in direct opposition to the project of WUWT (a site that Pielke has shown admiration for, or at least for its moderator).
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Although Dr. Pilke's relationship with Anthony Watts is a bur under many of our saddles, let's confine this discussion thread to the science of climate change.

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