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  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  Next

Comments 74701 to 74750:

  1. Philippe Chantreau at 09:44 AM on 19 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, this thread is about Dr Pielke's accusations of ad-hominem and one sided skepticism. His own blog post was not about the science but about those accusations, including a ridiculous assertion that SkS tried to undermine the UAH data set through the use of ad-hom. He was repeatedly asked to substantiate that accusation and was unable to do so. You made accusations of ad-hom yourself. You were then asked several times to cite exactly what "name" was Spencer or Christy called and have been equally unable to substantiate. If you want to talk about anything else go do it on the appropriate thread. You were asked to provide an example of real ad-hom committed by SkS and you have so far failed to respond. If you can't substantiate, you should refrain from further comments. You are not going to distract anyone by trying to change the subject, we are part of the reality based crowd here. Don't be surprised if your further off-topic posts on this thread are deleted, Dr Pielke was given unusual latitude in this matter and it won't happen again to him or anyone else. Muon thank you for the graphs, but they are also off-topic. They would be welcome and more useful on the appropriate thread, where Shub's comments on the same topic should be moved.
  2. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub#173: "Measurements don't exist to support models." You might want to qualify that a bit: measurements don't exist to support some models. Looks pretty clear that measurements do indeed support some of those models; the rest didn't get it right. Did you ever wonder why?
  3. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    michaeld#115: "Would it be possible to quantify all these effects?" Done. See Tracking Earths Energy and any of the many sensitivity threads, for example here. But average temperature (actually temperature anomaly, in comparison to a standard base period) is important because it is a directly observable change. But more important than the year-to-year, month-to-month anomalies is the temperature trend. Since the mid-70's that trend is up.
  4. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    scaddenp, it is appropriate for SkS to respond, but I think it is an exception to the rule that articles should be a useful reference. This article is taking exception to one specific "ad hom" and guilt by association accusation. The original Spencer and Christy posts are imperfect IMO (personally I would use the material but not link to it), but they are a lot more useful than this posting. I guess responding to accusations is never a desirable situation. On the one hand, you have to respond. On the other, it fragments the topics and can lead to a reactionary mode of operation.
  5. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Brian Angliss Thanks for that red herring. The 'models' that you are referring to, are not the GCMs that simulate climatic changes, are they?
  6. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, the satellites don't measure temperature at all, they measure microwaves. Models (weighting functions, conversion factors, satellite orbit vatiations, and so on) are required to convert the microwaves into temperature estimates.
  7. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Eric - do you think Sks should not have responded to inaccuracies in Pielke's post? The original posts (on Spenser and Christy) seem to fufill the sites ambition as a place to go to find out what the published science has to say on topic raised by deniers and misinformers. Shub = "Measurements don't exist to support models." They are generally made to test models. Models are efforts to understand nature, especially so that we can predict the future.
  8. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    173, Shub, If you want to discuss Christy's Crocks, do so on that thread.
  9. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    les, first, this thread is not an "invitation" by any stretch of the imagination. Now the Christy crocks issues are in two places. But for dana1981's decision to pick on Christy above, Spencer slip ups would be in two places as well. Unless I am mistaken, the discussion of Pielke's topic, the satellite data, is nowhere. Specifically how is the integrity of SkS being defended?
  10. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    michaeld - average temperature possibly isnt the best because oceans introduce a lot of internal variability- but its what we have. The Argo network should eventually provide a better measure (see Von Schuckmann and La Traon 2011). See the Ocean Cooling corrected again for more discussion.
  11. CO2 lags temperature
    there is no physical evidence in earth's history to support your theory
    Wrong. There are reams of evidence. Do some research. Just go to scholar.google.com, type in "interglacial CO2". You will get 17,900 papers. Try "CO2 climate" and you will get 640,000 papers. The fact that you do not understand or accept the evidence is irrelevant. I suggest that rather than throwing around derogatory comments and dismissing what you do not understand that you go read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. When you are done with that you will be able to intelligently use this site to learn how very thin the "skeptical" arguments are, how serious the problem is, and what all of the science that you dismiss and do not understand actually means. P.S. The climate models are a small (but very useful) part of the vast base of knowledge behind the issues. You will understand that when you've finished with a serious effort to learn the science.
  12. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Stephen Baines: You say: "[Christy's] statements deserve criticism in this instance." So, Christy's Congressional testimony in 2010 should be "measured", as in, take into account Santer's paper published in 2011? Additionally, you state: "After all, analyzing satellite output requires complex models, too! It's not that straightforward. That's why [Christy's] contribution is noteworthy, afterall." Satellites measure temperature. Models produce estimates of temperature. It is pretty straightforward. Measurements don't exist to support models. Christy's note is confined to the latest decade. Santer's analysis extends over a longer period. The two are not even necessarily contradictory. Christy's discrepancy figure is 3; Santer's 1.73. 1.73 is ok, but 3 is a 'crock'? Not much of a 'crock', is there?
  13. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    185, Steve Case,
    What I'm doing is painting a picture...
    Yes, exactly. You're using fingerpaints when what you need to understand science. You've already been caught in a ridiculous misrepresentation of the data, and it has been explained to you that you cannot compute a sea level trend with just a few years of data.
    So let's add it up. The 2004 - 2008...
    And yet, there you go again.
    Do you agree with that assessment?
    No, because your time period is far, far to short to be arguing about.
  14. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Rob No, It isn't that I haven't ever e-mailed big names in the "Global Warming" debate, but I don't do it to argue or open some sort of a dialog with them, although it did happen once. I figure that a website like Skeptical Science ought to be able to make a good argument regarding the questions I bring up.
  15. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    166 Eiric - that is disingenuous. The blog of Pielke offers no possibility of reply as comments are disabled. "Inviting" him here, to a specific thread (so as not to mess up other threads) is a reasonable way to discuss issues around the integrity of the site. It's true it dies the science no favours any more than Pielke scurrying back to his little blog to whinge does him any favours. but at least the issues are all in one place.
  16. CO2 lags temperature
    "Show me any time in last 600 million years where co2 caused temperature rise." Well you can always try the Middle Eocene Climate Optimum or the more dramatic Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. CO2 has repeatedly changed slowly over geological time because of mismatches between volcanism, weathering, etc. But other factors that affect climate also change on these time scales (ocean circulation, albedo, solar input), so it can be hard to disentangle the influences. That doesn't mean they aren't there. As others will attest, the physical attributes of CO2 are what indicate that it must have an effect. Nothing about the rock record disagrees with that, as far as I know.
  17. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Yes - Pielke is fine with criticizing SkS, but he refuses to apply his criticism to anything floating through the sites of Watts and others. As Dana says above,
    Not only does Pielke refuse to criticize his fellow "skeptics" for misinforming the public and policymakers, but he then denounces SkS for doing just that. In the process, Pielke is effectively endorsing the myths and misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy, documented in the very series that he criticizes.
    The post itself is what I'm talking about (and what I thought you were talking about). The comment stream circles around the post (widely at times), but thus is the nature of the community dialogue.
  18. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    DSL, the thread draw my attention to Dr. Pielke Sr. and examples of goal post shifting (namely his original blog post did not address Christy crocks allegations). The Christy crocks thread is a much better example of what you describe, an example of bias.
  19. CO2 lags temperature
    Uhh . . . where did I treat you like a child, Meghaljani? Show me the evidence. I asked you a simple question--simple as in basic/fundamental, not as in "simple-minded". You have yet to answer it. I'll ask it again: "does atmospheric CO2 absorb and emit radiation at particular, pressure-broadened frequencies?"
  20. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub @163 I don't find any merit in your criticisms. First, I don't see Christy being called anything in that thread. As for the post you cited, it made two simple points. 1) Christy made a comparison of apples to oranges by comparing trends in UAH data with effects of ENSO volcanoes removed vs trends for models without those things removed. That's a pretty elementary error. Santer et al showed that when you compared apples to apples actually the models were only 45% higher than the UAH trend (not 300%) the model trends were not staitistically different from the UAH trend. 2) Christy also erred in logic by assuming that the difference had to mean the model predictions of warming could not be trusted. It could be as well that UAH data has problems, and he knows it(or should). After all, analyzing satellite output requires complex models, too! It's not that straightforward. That's why his contribution is noteworthy, afterall. Christy is talking to congress. He needs to be measured in his appraisals of the science so congress can base legislation on reality - presuming that exists. Instead, he makes biased assessment of the state of climate models (the only tool we have for projecting forward) based on a exagerrated discrepancy that was the result of a demonstrably incorrect analysis. His statements deserve criticism in this instance.
  21. CO2 lags temperature
    to Sphaerica and to DSL: All you got is to tell me that I am childish, may be that's the best you can do when there is no physical evidence in earth's history to support your theory. If your theory is correct, where in the history of the earth did you find co2 causing temperature rise? They are not interlocked based on the 600 million years history of earth's climate which can be measured by rock analysis. Show me any time in last 600 million years where co2 caused temperature rise. If you cannot show that, you can take your "climate models" and "deep research" and run around like chicken little and ask for carbon taxes.
    Response:

    [DB] "If you cannot show that, you can take your "climate models" and "deep research" and run around like chicken little and ask for carbon taxes."

    Now you are acting childish.  And churlish.  If you don't understand the explanation than ask for a simplified version.

  22. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I should have continued. This thread functions to allow people to become aware of possible bias in the expert testimony regarding climate science, testimony that is widespread across the internet. Awareness of such bias arguably leads to more informed decision-making.
  23. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Yes, Eric. Do you agree that people might be influenced in their actions re climate based on information on the internet? Do you agree that the non-scientist public seeks expert opinion so that they might make more informed choices? If those who have been used as experts in the presentation of science to the public are demonstrably biased in the application of their analysis, then should they be considered as 'experts' where the communication of science to the public is concerned? This thread draws attention to an alleged case of bias (well, several actually).
  24. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Steve, I don't have time at the moment, but have you addressed your concerns to the guys and gals at the University of Colorado? If not, why not?
  25. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    The primary use of the site outside of the relatively small group of contributors and regular readers is to provide a one-stop shop for links to debunk climate myths on non-climate sites or sites with climate topics but a more general audience. Articles on volcanoes, CO2 and GHG for non-scientists, warming has not stopped, etc are very effective for those types of links. Threads on alternative energy and related topics are very informative and worth distributing to a broader audience. Here's the description of the well-deserved award this site received "The NSW Government Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge is awarded to an Australian individual, group or organisation for communication that motivates action to reduce the impacts of climate change." Can someone explain how this thread furthers that purpose? If the answer is that it doesn't, that is acceptable since it is the exception rather than the rule.
  26. CO2 lags temperature
    Meghaljani--a simple question so I know a little bit more about the physical model you work from: does atmospheric CO2 absorb and emit radiation at particular, pressure-broadened frequencies? Yes? Then your actual question should be "how do we know the CO2 concentration before direct instrumental measurement of the atmosphere?" because you accept that an atmosphere with CO2 is warmer than an atmosphere without CO2, all other things being equal. No? You need to either provide evidence that contradicts decades of high-quality research and the engineering that has relied (and still relies) on that research, or you need to do a bit more studying on the physics of CO2, CH4, H20, etc. For a simple demonstration, see this video (just about a minute in). You seem to be saying that correlation is not causation, but there's a big "unless" involved here, and that is the physical connection. If there's a physical connection between CO2 and temperature, then it's reasonable to assume that the connection didn't just spring into existence of its own will. It's been around as long as CO2 has been around.
  27. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    # 184 Sphaerica at 03:54 AM on 19 September, 2011 Nice job on the graphic overlay, I was about to do that one myself. And what does it show? It shows that over that short time, and yes it is short, that sea level did not increase in rate. Yet over that very same short time CU did report in it's estimates, that it periodically updates and posts, that the rate did increase. By 0.5 mm/yr I might add. By the way, CU made a +0.1 mm/yr adjustment between 2011 Release #1 and Release #2 and they explained it: ..the rate increased slightly from 3.1 to 3.2 mm/yr due to the improvements to the TOPEX SSB model and replacement of the classical IB correction with the improved DAC correction... For the 2004 - 2008 time line there would have to have been a whole series of corrections like that. Much like the GIA 0.3 mm/yr correction they would have to have been applied to the entire time series. So let's add it up. The 2004 - 2008 time frame doesn't show a rate increase, but the reported rate increased by 0.5m/yr. The May 2011 GIA correction is 0.3 mm/yr and the most recent correction is 0.1 mm/yr. That adds up to a 0.9 mm/yr increase due to corrections and improvements in methodology of one kind or another since 2004. Do you agree with that assessment? What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change.
    Response:

    [DB] "What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change."

    Then paint that picture to those at UCAR.  I'm very certain that they will be able to explain things to "skeptics".

  28. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    jpat - I strongly suggest you take a look at the CO2 lags temperature thread in this regard.
  29. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    jpat - The Milankovitch forcings last for millenia, which allows time for various feedbacks to take effect. Just the Milankovitch forcings alone should change the average temperature of the Earth by a total of 1-2.5C; the 6-8C swings seen over the ice age cycles are due to the amplification of the forcing change by water vapor, CO2, ice retreat/advancement, etc. The Wiki on this is actually fairly reasonable. I would suggest caution in reasoning from electronics - that would be an analogy, and while providing an analogy is a useful way to explain something, you cannot reason from an analogy back to the original system, as analogies only resemble the original complex system in part. You will inevitably get tripped up on the differences - there is no substitute for actually studying the real thing. And the real thing includes multiple time lags, chaotic/non-linear variations, and lots of different forcing inputs
  30. Underground temperatures control climate

    Clearly, the heat from inside the earth does not have any effect on the weather or the climate in the sense that this article explores. However, the heat from the earth may possibly have a contributory effect on ending a glacial and nudging us into an interglacial. In that sense, it would have a major effect on the climate. See: http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/continental-glacier-meltdown.html William

  31. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    IMHO - having followed thus discussion - despite what folks are won't to say; this thread proves beyond doubt that SkS accepts open discussion from people who disagree with things posted here, within the guidelines. Often (e.g. On FB) people don't pist here claiming their posts are deleted, they get abused etc. Clearly this demonstrates that that doesn't happen. What also often happens is that folks complain that when they post here people "refuse to answer" their questions. Clearly here you see that what infect gies on us that the questions are either red-herrings or generally off topic. All in all, this thread shows SkS in a ber good light compared to many sites. Well done.
  32. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    163, Shub, Yes. And what name was Christy called? Nothing. His statements were described as crocks, because the slang definition of "a crock" is nonsense or foolish talk. The article that you site then goes on to itemize statements Christy made that have been proven to be false or contradictory. That's exactly what a "crock" is. There is nothing ad hominem about it. He and others like him are being taken to task for making false statements in public. What exactly is wrong with this? Sorry if you don't like the use of a slang term to create a catchy title, but that's hardly grounds for your position. At the same time, I'm sure you give a free pass to the venomous and unfounded assaults perpetrated by sites like WUWT and others. So, again... can you find evidence of name calling? Or does it merely bother you that "skeptical" scientists have been caught making clear falsehoods before the U.S. Congress, so all you can do is bluster that "that's not fair?"
  33. CO2 lags temperature
    326, meghalnai,
    ...show me the area where CO2 is causing the temperature rise on the chart given in the discussion.
    If you are not willing to look in detail at the subject, no one in the world can make it easy for you.
    You have just long lectures and "climate models".
    Um, no, actually we have a detailed understanding of the intricacies of the system. That you want this watered down to a single graph that a child could interpret is your problem, not ours. I will give you a hint, however. CO2 rises with temperature increases, and temperature rises with CO2 increases. They are interlocked. So an initial orbital forcing sparks a small temperature rise, which in turn sparks a CO2 rise, which raises temperatures further, which raises CO2 levels further. This cycle results in an ongoing upswing in temperature, up to a point where CO2 levels reach about 280 ppm. At that point things stall because the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. Unfortunately, mankind has found a way to pump well beyond 280 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere for the first time in millions of years. But the main point is that a small temperature increase starts a feedback cycle involving CO2 that results in a large temperature increase. Without accompanying increases in CO2 you would not see the temperature rise much beyond -8 ˚C.
  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Stephen
    But Shub...what names were they called?
    Take a look at this thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html skepticalscience characterizes Christy's views as 'crock'. The website may well be run by climate experts who are far advanced in their views that they may see John Christy's views as a 'crock'. But, the topic reads rather like a complex disagreement, with no definitive resolution of the question it considers. Hardly a 'crock'.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Providing a link with no supporting information is not constructive. By doing so you have demonstrated nothing. You can turn a blind eye to the games played by 'skeptics'and try and distract people from their misinformation, or you can stand up for what is right. Do you agree with Christy misleading Congress? It is a yes/no question.
  35. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    I have found a few references on the radioactive contribution to heat flow. This one, which describes how geoneutrinos are measured and how they may provide constraints on the quantity of radioactive heating in the solid Earth. That reference led to this recent paper on the same subject, which reports that "heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux". The original statement in the blog post "Most of the heat that flows to the surface comes from this source" therefore needs to be amended, which I will do. Lord Kelvin did some calculations in 1864 on the thermal age of the Earth that neglected entirely any contribution from radioactive decay, which had not been discovered at that time. The text of some of the paper and be seen here and images of the original article can be viewed here. Kelvin came up with an age of the Earth on the range of 20-400 million years, but he later leaned more to the low side of this range. These figures were disputed by contemporary geologists and by supporters of Charles Darwin, who believed that much more time was required to account for geological and biological evolution. Of course, the natural philosophers eventually won that particular dispute with the physicists.
  36. CO2 lags temperature
    @meghaljani "Show me. You have just long lectures and "climate models"." What is the point of showing you if you refuse to engage all reasonable attempts to show you? But this question reminded me that I often think people do not understand why the ice core CO2 temp relationship is such a compelling proof of the effect of CO2 on climate because they don't understand know the scientific story behind those ice core records. Sometimes, constructing a historical narrative, like Specncer Weart does, clarifies what can seem counterintuitive in hindsight. In the 70s we knew that glacial periods existed in the past, and we guessed that Milankovitch forcing provided the initial cue - the corrletaion was simply to amazing to be chance. But we could not explain the large deviations in global temp during glaciation cycles as a function of Milankovitch cycle forcing. Albedo effects helped related to northern hemisphere ice and snow cover helped, but were similarly too small to account for the change - even taking account of temp-water vapor feedbacks. - without using unreasonable assumptions about the physics. (Yes, we knew this based on models -although they were relatively simple at the time). It was a quandry for a decade or so. One solution posed to this quandry was that changes in temperature could alter the global carbon cycle, thereby causing changes in CO2. That change in CO2 could then result in enough forcing to cause the glacial cycles given a small initial input. The ice core data were collected partly to test this theory, and they indeed showed that CO2 increased with temp sufficiently to cause the forcing required. So the ice core records were a test of the idea that CO2 affects climate. But it was never part of anyones thinking that CO2 would lead the temperature change, quite the opposite in fact. Asking to see such a pattern just doesn't even make sense. It's also impossible to understand why it is so compelling unless you embrace the physics behind the greenhouse effects and global climate models - and the feedbacks being discussed now by KR and jpat. To understand that, you actually do need to roll up your sleeves and read lectures/textbooks and do calculations yourself. Luckily we do pay people to do what you seem too impatient to do. Good for you!
  37. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, I took a look at your webblog. You might have as well titled it "random crank turnings". SkS and RealClimate are where I go, (certainly not WUWT) for scientific references and data extracts. Looked in vain for a skeptical equivalent on yours. On the other hand saw plenty of political rambling. Could you explain why anyone here (since I'm relatively new) sees you or your blog as having any standing whatsoever?
  38. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    But Shub...what names were they called? And the "views" that were "characterized with cheap catchphrases" were demonstrable mistatements of fact, mistakes of logic, mischaracterizations of others views, etc. Some of those flase statements were repeated before congress! In my book, you could come up with a lot worse that cheap catchphrases to describe those actions. Pielke said nothing that changes the basic facts of the matter.
  39. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Where's the rhetoric, Shub? If you follow the links, you'll see Spencer's and Christy's misrepresentations of the science shown for what they are, with clear reference to the best available evidence, and explanations of where they went wrong. IMHO, calling Spencer and Christy's misrepresentations of the science 'slip-ups' or 'crocks' is actually being pretty kind. SkS has documented in detail some of the places where these respected scientists have departed from logic and reason. Skeptics concentrating on the title of the links (certainly not ad-hominem BTW) are merely trying to divert attention away from the content of the failings of Spencer and Christy. In fact, it smacks of desparation.
  40. CO2 lags temperature
    Again, show me where in the chart do you see CO2 affecting temperature? Show me. You have just long lectures and "climate models". When it comes to past data, you have nothing. For sphaerica, I asked to show me the area where CO2 is causing the temperature rise on the chart given in the discussion.
  41. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Steve Case, How did you come up with the trend line in your graph? Why is it above the actual from 2006 to mid year 2007, and then below the actual from mid year 2007 on? You stop at 2008. Here is a current, full data set: Here is that same image/data, with your "trend line" overlaid where it belongs. Can you see the problem here? And can you see the problem with using too short of a dataset to try to infer a trend? Or with paying too much attention to the tail in what is clearly very noisy data?
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] In addition, per Willis and Leuiette (2011):

    "Because of both uncertainties in the observational systems and interannual variations, it has been estimated that a minimum of 10 years is necessary to meaningfully interpret global trends in sea level rise and its components (Nerem et al., 1999)."

    "Despite efforts to maintain them, there are still limitations to the current observing systems. Coverage of the ice-covered and marginal seas is not possible with the current generation of Argo floats, and there is no systematic network for measuring steric changes in the deep ocean. Challenges also remain for altimeter measurements poleward of the 66° turning latitude of the reference missions and in regions covered by sea ice."

    Also from Hamlington et al. (2011, J.Climate):

    "However, from the 12-yr and full time series, we can see that the SNR patterns begin to converge, and an increase of areas with SNR greater than one occurs from 12 to 16 years."

    [Emphasis added to each.]

    Santer et al, DelSole et al and Hamilton et al. (and probably others) all point toward a minimum sample period of 16 years or so increase the SNR.  Anything less than 10 years is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

    H/T to the mighty Albatross...

  42. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    People are more likely to get a better idea on what happened if they read this thread themselves.
    True.
    Dr. Pielke was merely referred to address the scientific concerns in the threads that dealt with his scientific questions.
    Really? Pielke Sr's main point was that, whatever you might feel about Spencer and Christy's views they were respected climate scientists. Calling people names, categorizing their views with cheap catchphrases - there are not "scientific matters" are they? I have seen the SkepticalScience website evolve over time. The current brand of rhetoric smacks of desperation.
    Moderator Response: Yes, really. He didn't address the concerns that were involved in the posts in question. No one here is arguing for, or against, anyone as a respected climate scientist. Your opinion of SkS is noted.
  43. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    #181: But volume is the measure that is relevant to sea level rise, not mass. Concentrating on very short time periods (such as 5 years) will very often lead you to the wrong conclusions.
  44. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Steve, I'm not interested. If I was, I'd doublecheck my own methodology and then carefully read the CU pages on processing and steric effects. Then I'd go through their bib carefully. If I still didn't find an answer to my question, I'd ask CU. What you're effectively doing here is backing into an argument for the difficulty of measuring sea level rise, but I can't figure out what you want to do with this argument. Scientists who study sea level rise know that it's difficult. Are you attempting to use sea level rise as a proxy for measuring the energy in the Earth system? If so, why not use something more direct and less subject to gravitational shift, currents, cycling, sedimentation, local uplift/subsiding, crustal movement, incomplete historical coverage, and instrumental error? Or do you think you've found the Golden Hoax?
  45. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Isn't 'one sided skepticism' also known as bias? Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.
  46. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    The blogs linked by grypo in #156 clearly share Pielke's one-sided "skepticism".
  47. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    [DB] I missed your comment on measuring mass instead of volume as the best way to determine how much water is in the ocean. Measuring how much water there is is more a function of mass than volume since temperature affects volume. I stated the obvious, and you tell me I'm on dangerous ground. ????????
    Response:

    [DB] "I stated the obvious, and you tell me I'm on dangerous ground."

    Re-read my response to you above.  If you are again implying that fraud & conspiracy are obvious then we are done.

  48. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Yes, we are at an impasse, I would think that you or some one would be curious to find out what the reasons for those increases from 2.8 mm/yr to 3.3 mm/yr over that period of time are when graphically it looks like it didn't happen.
  49. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Word is getting around about this thread to other blogs. Shub Niggurath is calling SkS - "Kafka-esque" and Bishop Hill is forwarding Shub's misrepresentations and said the SkS post is "horrible stuff" . Shub's "SS" illusions are also a nice touch to really drive home his bizarre post. People are more likely to get a better idea on what happened if they read this thread themselves. Dr. Pielke was merely referred to address the scientific concerns in the threads that dealt with his scientific questions. I'm unsure as to why this was not mentioned in Shub's post. Deleting off-topic comments happens on blogs from all points of view. That's just the process here and everywhere. Usually off-topic comments are deleted completely. Pielke was actually given better treatment than most of the other commenters -- those arguing off-topic against Dr. Pielke. Also, there is a process by which SkS reviews it's posts, so addressing his scientific questions isn't as easy, or quick as he'd, or we'd like. SkS attempts to answer based on it's collective knowledge of the known science, not any one particular person or point of view. There are schedules and people have other interests and responsibilities, so everyone just take a deep breath. Better? And let's not pretend that Dr. Pielke is beyond reproach here. He made accusations and was responded to. He was also asked to comment on specifics in regard to the Christy/Spencer comments and decided not to. So what? That just means the case is closed, as far as anyone is really interested in how Pielke is accused of one-sided skepticism. People will need to figure that out for themselves now. No one is a King in this situation.
  50. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Link in @149 doesn't work. Fix? Also on Pielkes blog he admits "Al Gore is an idiot" is derogatory, and Watts says he will change it to "Al Gore". No longer derogatory, but content still maybe deGoratory.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed link.

Prev  1487  1488  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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