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  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  Next

Comments 74501 to 74550:

  1. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Other than a quote by McKitrick, I haven't seen much discussion of Dr. Pielke's overemphasis on land use. Some critiques of his claims. Bizarre Rewriting of History Klotzbach ad Nauseam Pielkes all the way down, Revisited Perhaps there could be an expansion of the land use category. Roger's Ruses? As Albatross indicates, expect some long-winded and convoluted dancing to the questions posed. Possibly related, his colleague Anthony Watts posted a Fox News interview with Dr. Pielke some time back. I say "possibly" because the video has been restricted for public viewing. Anthony Watts: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. to be on Fox Business News But we always have the astute commenters of the "excellent" (as Dr. Pielke calls it) WUWT blog to give an accurate representation of the interview. Some quotes: "In just a couple of minutes Dr. Pielke made the essential point that you cannot regulate the Earth’s climate by manipulating CO2. This point absolutely destroys the basic premise underlying so-called ‘climate’ legislation (and the EPA decision that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’)." "I think that Dr. Pielke gave a very politically astute interview. Any politician and any student of the vocabulary used by politicians will recognise a perfectly delivered slap-down of the appointment of Karl’s appointment. It was given in a measured, calm and rational manner making it even more devastating. Well said, Dr. Pielke. The opponents of CAGW need spokesman like you, the very antithesis of the hysterical pro-AGW propagandists." "His main message was that Tom Karl was the wrong man to lead Obama’s new climate centre, as he would stifle the freedom of the team to look at all aspects of the science. He also indicated that reducing CO2 was not the answer and that the money would be better spent identifying areas of risk of drought, for example and spending money to mitigate the effects."
  2. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Alb: "Additionally, the GCR theory would then just become part of a whole suite of climate drivers, it would not in any way shape or form refute the known radiative forcing properties of GHGs, and thus would not in any way refute the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW." That can't be said enough. It could turn out that GCRs are the primary driver of climate. As improbable as that is, it would still in no way prevent GHGs from warming the atmosphere relative to an atmosphere with no GHGs. This recognition should be named the Doug Cotton Test for being taken seriously.
  3. Hockey stick is broken
    Eric, Please follow this link. Note the date and time. Some of us prefer to live in the present, but to plan for the future, not just for ourselves but also for future generations. I'm disgusted that you chose to defend McIntyre's vitriolic and hateful comments-- and now seem to be trying to use them as a reason or "in" to challenge the dendro plaeo records. It seems to me that you agree with his propaganda on this file? Have you applied, as your moniker suggests, skepticism, or just one-sided skepticism like Pielke et al. do? Surely you aware of the multiple, paleo hockey sticks out there?
  4. Hockey stick is broken
    #93, CBDunkerson, we appear to be talking about two different things. In my post 91 I demonstrated that the analogy that the "Yamal 12" (referring to 12 cores post 1988) are analogous to crack cocaine by pointing out the other data sets that were available with 30 or more cores during the same period. Divergence is a discrete phenomenon that causes some trees in some places to show slow growth due to non-temperature factors. But it is certainly not valid to claim that trees that don't show divergence (i.e. are not overtly impacted by those unknown factors) are sufficient for reconstructions "because we all know it has gotten warmer". The last part in quotes is ture, but the first part does not follow. It is equally possible that those faster growing trees are impacted positively by another unknown factor. The crux of the problemn with Briffa 2000 is not divergence but inadequate numbers of cores.
  5. Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 21 September 2011
    Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
    I like Paul from VA's suggestions.
  6. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee, I am not sure whether or not you are issuing a plea or a challenge. And what you linked us to it is not a published science paper but an essay on a blog. Even if the CGR hypothesis were very real and shown to be a theory and that CGRs do in fact modulate the global climate, then the changes would be very small and infrequent. Additionally, the GCR theory would then just become part of a whole suite of climate drivers, it would not in any way shape or form refute the known radiative forcing properties of GHGs, and thus would not in any way refute the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW. Moreover, if the aforementioned happens to be true, then it does not explain the observed fingerprints that have been associated with warming on account from increased GHGs. So I do not understand your eagerness to join those who deny the theory of AGW based on a hypothesis or a blog essay, when we have all these data, science and facts demonstrating that CO2 is driving a significant portion of the warming that we have witnessed over the past 100 years. And I am not sure what predictions made by Landscheit are now allegedly coming to fruition you are referring to. One of them is ertainly not this one: "a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected." Besides, research has found that even if solar forcing were to decrease to a maunder-liek minimum for a long time, it would have a very minor impact on global temperatures. SkS has covered this here. Now none of this is to try and claim that the sun is not important for regulating the earth's climate, of course it is. The point is that solar changes cannot explain the warming of around +0.8 C observed the past 100 years or so, and even if we went into a maunder-like minimum, the current and future levels of GHG forcing from burning fossil fuels and land-use change by humans will more than offset any negative radiative forcing or cooling.
  7. Philippe Chantreau at 03:35 AM on 21 September 2011
    CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakesele, the link you provide does not lead to a paper but what appears to be some sort of presentation. I am not sure what exactly you think are the "predictions" that are coming true. Landscheidt cite 2030 through the following hundred years or so, so we are not there yet. It is interesting to note that 2005 is among the top 10 warmest years recorded, with 2010, and 2011 likely to be right up there too, while the Sun is in one of the most quiet period we have observed. I further notice that the Landscheidt presentation is dated and many of these graphs would benefit from adding the data of recent years, which will show quite a different picture. I am puzzled as to why Landscheidt would not want to examine statistical significance on the Vostok figures. Eyeballing leads to all sorts of misconceptions, why not establish whether the correlation is real and quantify it exactly? Furthermore, I recommend you to read through the thread, where Muoncounter, the well-named, counted how often exactly these Forbush events happen. It boils down to a few noticeabl events per year. Whatever effect on clouds these events have would have to be colossal (as in major weather event) in order to affect the climate. Colossal effects observable in the real world are all but absent. I am unimpressed by the Landscheidt presentation.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Landscheidt passed away in 2004.
  8. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee: The 'sharp decrease in cosmic rays' are Forbush Decreases; my comments on the Dragic paper suggest that the effect on climate of these short-term events is not robust. I've looked briefly at this Landscheidt site; it looks to me like Ptolemaic cycles and epicycles. Add enough loops and you can 'predict' anything. One of their main predictions is the coming Ice Age. Instead, we have the hottest decade on record. Of what value is a model that makes atmospheric/oceanic behavior predictions without any reference to the physics of either the atmosphere and/or the oceans?
  9. Skeptical Science now an Android app
    the qr-code is not working. i tried it with qr droid. if i try to open the url from the qr code i get a 404 error.
  10. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee, #64 Skeptical Science rightly doesn't take the opinions of avowed astrologers very seriously, especially when they have repeatedly made the kind of silly claims as he did in the paper you linked to. If anybody doubts he's an actual astrologer, look at his books Cosmic cybernetics: The foundations of a modern astrology and Sun, Earth, Man: A Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations - How Planets Regulate Solar Eruptions, Geomagnetic Storms, Conditions of Life and Economic Cycles.
  11. Observations of Climate Change from Indigenous Alaskans
    Modeator: Permission hereby given. Thank you for your interest.
  12. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee - firstly it doesn't appear that the "paper" you link has been published anywhere. Secondly, the quality is quite poor. For example, its Figure 4 shows the ridiculous solar cycle length vs. temperature graph from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, which conveniently stops in 1980, because after that date, the two lines diverge. See our post here on the subject. It's hard to take any "paper" seriously that would cite this long-debunked graph. The "paper" also doesn't address any of the problems in the galactic cosmic ray warming hypothesis that we've pointed out here.
  13. Hockey stick is broken
    Sphaerica, Over a longer time period, there are more areas. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3709.1 However, I do not think anyone would use just the data from the southern U.S. to from the conclusion that the globe has cooled. I echo your sentiments Chris about using a single site.
  14. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    I'm very disappointed that this blog seems to ignore my posts. I would be happy to see somebody comment on this 2002 paper by Landscheidt: http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm He seems to have made some amazing predictions based on the cosmic ray/cloud model which are coming true today. I am almost ready to join the deniers based on his work. This blog will not accomplish its purpose if you simply delete inconvenient questions. Please set me straight.
  15. Hockey stick is broken
    103, Jonathan, Oh, wait, if you go by Mann 2010 you're right. That teeny tiny little sliver of western South America has cooled fractionally, along with ocean off the coast of Antarctica. You're right. Any proxy would be a cherry pick if it doesn't include those two critical spots on the globe.
  16. Hockey stick is broken
    103, Jonathan,
    Portions of the globe have cooled during the twentieth century...
    Very, very false.
  17. Hockey stick is broken
    "I think you have highlighted one of the difficulties in using proxy data. Roh234 showed that even recent proxies can result in opposite conclusions." No I didn't Jonathon (@ 95). I've highlighted how easy it is for those that wish to misrepresent the science to do so by selecting individual proxies that support a particular preconceived interpretation. Happily proper scientists continue to make considerable efforts to include as many verified proxies as possible to maximise the spatial coverage to allow assessment of at least hemispheric paleotemperature evolution on the millenial timescale. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be dumb to try to infer something about global or hemispheric temperatures from a single site in the Sargasso sea, particulalry when we have some rather good information that this is rather senstive to changes in the Meridonal overturning circulation that have no necessary relationship to global scale temperatures....
  18. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    I am going to make a prediction here. Dr. Pielke is probably going to write long-winded posts (and not provide succinct answers like SkS has done above), he is likely going to obfuscate, focus and elevate uncertainty, he is probably going to focus on land use change and his favourite metric (OHC), and he may even decide to choose some interesting time periods on which to base his conclusions. In short, he is going to try and convince people of those things that he believes and thinks are important. What are those one might ask? See here for his list of conclusions about the climate system and policy. That is, he appears to have made up his mind already (i.e., uses the title "conclusions"), and appears to have the problem pretty much all figured out. I'll let readers come to their own conclusions. I am more than happy for Dr. Pielke Sr. to prove me wrong. In fact, I hope that he does.
  19. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathon, #106 "The Lundqvist paper covers the period up to 1999, so it includes the warmest year in the instrument record." In some instrumental data sets you mean. And it doesn't however include the warmest decade (the last ten years). Also, the paper states, "The proxy reconstruction itself does not show such an unprecedented warming but we must consider that only a few records used in the reconstruction extend into the 1990s." The proxy data for the last decades of the study are weaker than the for the rest of it. The instrumental data trumps the proxy data for that time frame. Again, they concluded (with qualifications) that the decades since 1990 seem to be warmer than at any time during the last 2,000 years for the NH. The "highest temperature in the reconstruction" does not mean the highest temperature in the last 2,000 years. They are quite clear about that.
  20. Hockey stick is broken
    KR, The Lundqvist paper covers the period up to 1999, so it includes the warmest year in the instrument record. You need to read the paper (and your quotes) carefully. You are stating that timing and variability agree. However, the paper shows similar proxy temperatures at both the end of the 10th and 20th centuries. You also seem to contradict yourself in your first sentence about the Lundqvist paper to which I presented.
  21. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    Jonathon @10, Of course they did, on interannual timescale in the tropics. You left that first part of the sentence out that specified "interannual" and "tropical". Nice cherry pick. We know that short-term oscillations in the climate system (like ENSO) cannot explain the amount of warming observed between 1954 and 2008. Oscillations modulate the underlying long-term trend, they cannot create it. Please stop trying to obfuscate. I'll remind you of what they said. "However, the decrease combined with observed increases in SST and the negative correlation between marine stratus and sea surface temperature suggests a positive cloud feedback to the warming sea surface." EOS.
  22. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    Albatross, The study also found a strong correlation between cloud cover and ENSO.
  23. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathan - There's a huge difference between single proxies (as you have presented) and looking at groups of proxies from multiple locations, as Ljungqvist and Mann have done. In the Ljungqvist paper he is speaking about the proxies, which don't extend directly to the present. So your argument about the last few decades amounts to claiming that proxy and instrumental data cannot be joined, despite overlap periods where they can be calibrated. I don't believe that's even remotely justifiable. Also note that, as stated in Ljungqvist 2010: "Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology." So - you're trying to use Ljungqvist, who agrees with Mann and Moberg, to argue against Mann and Moberg regarding the MWP??? That argument simply doesn't hold up.
  24. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathon, the proxies in the Lundqvist paper do not include the last few decades. That the highest temperatures in the reconstruction are found in the 10th century does not mean that those were the highest temperatures over the last 2,000 years.
  25. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    All, There is new paper in press by Eastman et al. (2011) that looks at variations in cloud cover and type over the oceans between 1954 and 2008. This is one of their conclusions: "In regions of persistent MSC [marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds], time series show decreasing MSC amount. This decrease could be due to further spurious variation within the data. However, the decrease combined with observed increases in SST and the negative correlation between marine stratus and sea surface temperature suggests a positive cloud feedback to the warming sea surface." So yet more mounting observational evidence of a positive cloud feedback. And we also know from Screen and Simmonds (2010) that there is a weak positive cloud feedback operating with Arctic amplification.
  26. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    It will be interesting to see if/how Pielke responds to our question about how low climate sensitivity can gel with the paleoclimate record. As for this particular paper, it's just unfortunate that Spencer keeps trying to subvert the serious peer-review process instead of learning from it and correcting his mistakes. Had he submitted to a standard climate journal, no doubt a reviewer would have caught his cherrypick and made him correct it before publication. Then we wouldn't have gotten all the misleading media stories about his paper, and Dessler and Trenberth et al. wouldn't have had to waste time writing papers correcting his errors.
  27. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    This is just yet another in a mountain of examples of WUWT spinning and misrepresenting the science to further their own ideological agenda. But of course Pielke Sr. says it is an excellent science site and that he thinks Watts is "devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness". This is what these guys does, they ignore or forget that a paper has been refuted and that the science has since moved on and simply keep rehashing the same old mantra. They seem to think that if one keeps repeating an error that it becomes truth. Well it doesn't. What is also lost on them is that why would anthropogenic forcing be the first external forcing to not result in a net positive feedback in the climate system (paraphrasing Dr. Nielsen-Gammon)? How does one explain the medieval warm anomaly of interglacial if a strong negative cloud feedback is operating? You don't. They do not get it because they do not wish to--- their ideological blinkers are obscuring their objectivity and their logic.
  28. Observations of Climate Change from Indigenous Alaskans
    For another chilling first-hand account of climate change's impact on the Arctic, check out: "Rare Arctic creatures in trouble" posted on CNN today (Sep 20, 2011).
  29. Hockey stick is broken
    KR, All proxies could be considered cherry-picks, as we do not have a uniform global coverage. I do not know how you could possible make that statment recarding the Lundqvist paper, as it clearly states, "The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century," and "The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself." Portions of the globe have cooled during the twentieth century, but that does not mean that global temperatures have decreased.
  30. Hockey stick is broken
    An error on my part in my last posting - the Oppo 2009 article states that SST's in the Indo-Pacific warm pool were similar to modern values. But please note that, as Rob Painting pointed out, the MWP was not uniform spatially: Portions of the world were fairly warm during the MWP, portions were much cooler. The global temperature was not as warm as present, and you are cherry-picking spot measurements.
  31. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathan - Not one of your references supports your assertions. The Ljungqvist data directly contradicts you, see the New temperature reconstruction thread. Current temperatures are higher than anything in the last millenium. From your second link, Oppo 2009, the abstract states - "Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about ad 1000 to ad 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period. SSTs during the Little Ice Age (approximately ad 1550–1850) were variable, and approx 0.5 to 1 °C colder than modern values during the coldest intervals." (emphasis added) The Greenland GISP2 data is interesting, and very limited. See the entire discussion at Crux of a Core, multiple parts. Primarily, that is not a global record. Please - read the works you link to. Currently you appear to just be making stuff up.
  32. Hockey stick is broken
    First, with one exception, the graphs show that recent temperatures are the warmest in ~500 years. I have no argument with that statement; and many scientific association seem to agree, as many of their statements claim that recent temperatures are higher than any time in the past four centuries. They have backed away from claims of the past millenium. The following are a few temperature reconstructions in peer reviewed literature that support my earlier statement. Also, see the Greenland ice core data in post #59. You seem to be selectively choosing that data which supports your position, while ignoring that which does not. This is similar to what you are saying about using proxies to misrepresent the data. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7259/abs/nature08233.html http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf Recent temperatures may very well be warmer than any tiem in the past millenium. However, there is sufficient data in the literature which shows otherwise.
  33. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    102, jpat, But you cannot accurately depict this system with such a simple differential equation, hence a graphical representation of such an equation is no more accurate or applicable than the equation itself. The last time I checked, using a hammer to propel a car forward was ineffective, even though the effort does not overturn belief in hammers as effective nail-driving instruments.
  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    207, Philippe, Thanks for the links. In particular, I've been looking for more history on "who knew what and when" in the MSU/UAH satellite temperature record debacle. It doesn't tell everything, but it at least fills in some of the blanks. It would be good to understand exactly how resistant Spencer and Christy were to correcting the problems in their data, and why it fell to others (Mears et al) to ultimately find the issue.
  35. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathan - "Because no significant difference has beenestablished between the NH temperatures then and today." That's not just wrong, that's blatantly wrong, and contradicted by the peer reviewed literature. As CB said, read above! I'm puzzled as to why you would make such an unsupportable statement.
  36. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    I'm done here but one final note. The toy model presented above is not an electrical circuit, its a graphical representation of a differential equation. Last time I checked Poincare and LaPlace had not been overturned.
  37. Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
    Memo to my fellow SkS authors: Let's change the damn "Christy Crocks" button and move on!
  38. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Dana69:"Therefore analysis in detail, leading to meaningful forecasts or projections, is fundamentally impossible in principle." Surely you can tell that's a patently absurd conclusion, generated from an improper application (or understanding) of chaotic systems. The climate where I live can be described very simply: hot and humid in the summer, cool and humid in the winter. The point is that climate is determined over a long-period; individual chaotic events average out.
  39. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathon wrote: "Because no significant difference has beenestablished between the NH temperatures then and today." That statement is simply false. As extensively documented in the post at the top of the thread.
  40. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    @2,3,4 I think commenter Bart Verheggen was quick to point out that Watts has misunderstood the paper, and none other than Roy Spencer confirmed it. Another commentator ('Fredb' - ??) referred to some of Watts’ language in the post: "... can be persuaded to commit professional suicide and resign?" "... all the wailing and gnashing of teeth ..." "... the stunt pulled ..." "... machinery that predict catastrophic levels of positive feedback ..." So Pielke sr. now famous statement that Watts "is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness" stands on firm ground – not. Now back to the Trenberth, Fasullo and Abraham?
  41. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    472, Dana69,
    Earth’s atmosphere is such a “complex system”. Therefore analysis in detail, leading to meaningful forecasts or projections, is fundamentally impossible in principle.
    This is wrong. The butterfly effect is applicable to weather, not climate. It is probably not possible to accurately predict weather beyond a few days in advance, but climate is a hundreds-years-long average. Your argument is equivalent to saying that the movements of water in the ocean are so complex that it is impossible to predict the timing and height of the tides.
    ...atmosphere does not drive “climate change”...
    This is false, or at best misleading. Atmosphere by itself does not drive climate change, but it is a major factor. Attempting to imply otherwise is a blatant act of denial.
    If you think I simply spout this in an attempt to deny the obvious...
    Actually, yes, I do, because while you include selected facts, they are a miniscule representation of the bigger picture. To imply that plate tectonics and only plate tectonics controls climate is utterly absurd, simplistic, and, yes, a clear effort to spout in an attempt to deny the obvious.
    Moderator Response: Everybody, please move this conversation to the thread "Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted." Thanks.
  42. Hockey stick is broken
    CB, By localized, do you mean NH only? Because no significant difference has beenestablished between the NH temperatures then and today. I agree that some proxies have been used to misrepresent the data.
  43. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    I conduct a study of a new cancer causing medicine. I have twelve subjects. I limit my report to the 3 least afflicted and the 3 most afflicted. The three least afflicted got better, but they were expected to do so anyway through normal treatment. The three worst afflicted all died, but they were so far gone that no drug would have saved them. The six middle patients were all greatly improved by the drug, but I don't report that. My analysis, limited to the three best and worst cases, clearly shows that the drug is ineffective and further research into it should be halted. That's good science for you.
  44. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Dana69, if what you were saying were true then we would have to conclude that it is absolutely impossible to predict that Winter will usually be colder than Summer. I don't think that really holds up.
  45. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    @Phil M: WUWT's problem there is that they just didn't understand the paper and got it completely wrong. Allan's paper doesn't say anything about modern day feedbacks. It doesn't support Spencer & Lindzen's assertions in the slightest and it looks like a decent paper. There are no errors found in it yet, unlike LC09 and SB11.
  46. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    No, Shub. Ad hominem has been well-explained above and on other threads. The case you point to would, if demonstrably unreasonable, simply be a form of non sequitur or post hoc ergo propter hoc.
  47. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    If you base your philosophy on that premise, that nothing can be meaningfully modeled, then I expect you to stick with it. Any further claim from you about the future will be taken as hypocritical. I'm joking. I don't think you meant to adhere strongly to L & M, but then why even mention it? Scientists know the climate is complex. They know that every actual system is complex and inter-related. Still, to the extent that physical laws are established, so too are established patterns of interaction. Vaunted? Do you really want to go down that road? I have made no assumptions about your attitudes toward anything, Dana69. Indeed, where I was unsure about your understanding, I asked questions. You have been given the chance to interact in a reasonable manner, whether to put forward your case against AGW and thereby, to some extent, establish your position (with all the attendant ideological implications) or to explore the science through open and objective (to the extent possible) dialogue. The use of "vaunted" suggests condescension, and condescension is the surest way to non-violently end a relationship. I'll accept evidence if you want to argue the basis of such condescension, but I won't descend into an insult-fest.
  48. Hockey stick is broken
    Jonathon, the issue Chris discussed was the misuse of a small area proxy to falsely claim a global trend. This does not suggest that proxies are unreliable... just that some people will misrepresent them. That said, the tree ring divergence problem of the past century does show an example of proxy results being unreliable. However, when you get matching temperature proxy results from glaciers, stalagmites, rock boreholes, tree rings, and many other sources it becomes very difficult to argue that they ALL experienced some effect OTHER than temperature which caused matching variations. Which is one of many reasons that the original Mann 1998 finding that the MWP was a localized effect with global temperatures significantly lower then current is now considered far more strongly established than it was then.
  49. Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    @Phil M The abstract for Richard P Allan's paper says, "The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system..." . Isn't that what we had always thought, as it's the basis of the long-standing proposal -- about to be tested -- that geo-engineered clouds will help cool the atmosphere. I'm struggling to understand why this should lead to anyone making exaggerated claims about 'nails in the coffin of AGW' and other such comments floating around the denialosphere.
  50. Hockey stick is broken
    Chris, I think you have highlighted one of the difficulties in using proxy data. Roh234 showed that even recent proxies can result in opposite conclusions. Consequently, some scientific organizations have backed away from claiming that recent temperatures are higher / lower than those during the MWP.
    Response:

    [DB] "some scientific organizations have backed away from claiming that recent temperatures are higher / lower than those during the MWP"

    Kindly please support that assertion with links; thanks!

Prev  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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