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  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  Next

Comments 74851 to 74900:

  1. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    The rounded figures are much more comforting. 0.9 of a watt per square meter imbalance does not sound much, yet that tiny imbalance is going to give us so much grief.
  2. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke @104, "I will wait to see what the responses are to the science questions I have asked. As I have written, this is where the discussion should be focused." Actually, you initially chose to focus on making false accusations against SkS that were not scientific in nature. I concur that the discussion should be focussed on science, but regrettably Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer often times make a point of not focusing on science. Regardless, SkS has addressed the claims made by Christy and Spencer by discussing the science, so please do not try and suggest that we are not interested in discussing the science here at SkS. We are really trying to accommodate you here, and do appreciate you posting here, but we need your cooperation to make this work, and frankly your reluctance to speak to the subject of this thread and the subject initially raised by you, is not being constructive or helpful. The fact remains that you made some accusations and claims that need to be dealt with before we can move this forward, and you have been informed a couple of times now that we do intend to deal with your questions and are working on that. But please remember that we did ask you questions first, and that that issue has still not been resolved because of you continually evading questions. A lot of questions have been directed at you here, so I was wondering if it would be helpful if someone condensed them into a few key questions (many of them are quite similar)? Please let me know, and I will gladly do that if you wish. All the best.
  3. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Perhaps "Spencer Speculations" and "Christy Curios"?
  4. Climate's changed before
    scaddenp, Thanks. I can grasp what you're saying. Also, thanks for the links. I'm gradually getting the picture.
  5. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Glen Tamblyn #106 A very good summary. In other words the debate over CO2 induced global warming will be decided in the oceans. Dr Pielke is saying much the same thing. The real issue is whether or not planet Earth is gaining heat energy (Joules) over time. This is where the current disagreement between Drs Trenberth and Hansen about the last 5-10 years OHC changes is most relevant. Dr Hansen suggests that Asian aerosols and other effects have reduced the heat gain by accepting the current OHC measurement as accurate. Dr Trenberth does not believe that 'for a minute' and thinks that the 'missing ocean heat' will be found by more accurate measurement over time. Given the complex nature of the time lags in surface temperature measurement and heat exchanges with the oceans, it is hard to say who is right here. That temperature 'stasis' and reduced increase or flattening in OHC over the last 5-10 years has occurred together, points to Dr Hansen being right in accepting the reduced OHC numbers. In that case the underlying CO2 and other GHG warming signals might be simply offset by underestimated cooling forcings (Aerosols etc) or poorly understood feedbacks. If Dr Trenberth does not find the missing heat in the oceans and does not accept the Dr Hansen's enhanced aerosol cooling effects, then the only explanation is that the CO2 and other positive forcings have been overestimated (or Solar cyclical effects underestimated). If the planet configures itself to gain little or no heat for a 5-10 period whether by ENSO-La Nina, aerosol or other effects, when CO2 forcing and related water vapour feedbacks are at post industrial peaks; - the challenge is to explain how the expected heat gain is being lost to space.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] This thread is about Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. FYI.

    Trenberth's and Hansen's points and positions are still being discussed in the literature (and Trenberth has a paper in press detailing his case).

  6. Climate's changed before
    "Please let me know if I missed something." No, I think I'm beginning to get a better grasp of the climate picture. We'd be headed for another glaciation. Instead, I think we're gonna be headed in the other direction. I'm a truck driver. I drive an 18 wheeler all over the continental USA. I see rush hour in every major city. For a long time I've thought, "This must be gonna have a big effect...on something...one way or another."
    Response:

    [DB] And this, then, the most telling graphic of all:

    CO2

  7. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, as soon as you entered the arena of climate science communication to the public at large, you became an explicitly political entity in addition to a scientist, whatever the integrity of your expressed desire for everyone to stick with the science. Most people tend to assume that an ad hominem attack is simply an attack on the person rather than the ideas expressed by that person. This is not strictly true. Ad hominem is an attack that uses as evidence personal characteristics and beliefs that are unrelated to the theses being presented (and the fallacy lies in the relational disconnect). However, if the thesis claims a connection between personal characteristics/beliefs and an idea, then there is no ad hominem--as long as the case is well-evidenced. What you see as an ad hominem attack on Spencer, Christy, et al. is explicitly an attack on their scientific production. The buttons may be the only evidence for the charge of ad hominem, but if so it is implicit. The buttons are the result of the recognition of repeated errors and unsound theory combined with the influence of the individuals in the arena climate science communication. Each of the individuals has either made non-scientific statements about the integrity of climate scientists that have currency within the arena of climate science communication or has stood by without comment while such comments have been made. You've attacked SkS using a weak ad hominem claim. At the same time, you, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, and others highly critical of established climate science have stood by without comment and allowed the most ridiculous claims to be trumpeted in every comment stream. The internet is no longer the realm of geeks, Roger. The opinions of hundreds of millions of people are shaped every day through its content, and the rapidly changing climate--yes, I currently support the IPCC outlook--is arguably the greatest challenge for the whole of humanity in the last 30-40k years or more. Surely you understand that keeping a clean lab allows science to progress much more quickly and confidently. You probably do understand that, but why not point it out to Watts? I can only assume that Watts, based on the way his blog is moderated, is not interested in progress. As for the tone of the buttons, that may be regrettable, but as I recall it started with Monckton, and if there's any adult who deserves to be publicly treated like a child, it's "Lord" Monckton. I would be satisfied with "Spencer's Arguments" or "Christy's Claims." Dikran, I disagree re Spencer and his beliefs affecting his science. I argue that it could happen. If the man believes that the Earth is less than 6000 years old, then he is forced to view the paleo record and the very idea of natural cycles with some doubt. If the man says that his job is to defend the free market, then I have doubts about his scientific integrity. If the man is shown his errors repeatedly and in great detail and he gets petulant and bitter about it, then I have doubts about his ability to produce relatively bias-free science. Bickmore has done more than enough to call into question the man in addition to his science.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] In science in order to reject an hypothesis you need to show that the assumptions on which it is based are unreasonable or demonstrate that the chain of logic used to obtain the conclusion is flawed. The religious beliefs of the originator of the theory, or his past history of scientific errors is entirely irrelevant. Now you may feel that (for instance) a history of making mistakes is reason to be skeptical of their current and future work; I'd say that is common sense. However whether their current and future work is valid depends on the assumptions and internal consistancy of that work, and the personal chracteristics of the originator are irrelevant, and so at best are a distraction from the substantive issue. That is why scientists (rather than rhetoricians) try to keep the discussion impersonal and avoid ad-hominems, whether they think they are justifiable or not.

    Ad-hominems are also a slippery slope. Like Christy and Spencer, I too am a Christian (although I am comfortable with the mainstream scientific position on evolution and the age of the Earth). There are those who would reject my scientific arguments because I have an "invisible friend" (I have seen it happen before). The difference between their position and yours is only a matter of degree, rather than substance, where should the line be drawn? I'd say that drawing the line such that there were no such ad-hominems is the best policy, and indeed it is the policy that science has adopted, becuase it has proved effective.

    I won't moderate the final paragraph as it would be a conflict of interest, seeing that I am a participant in the discussion. However I would strongly reccomend that there be no further discussion of the religious beliefs of the scientists, or any other such ad-hominems.
  8. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke I must say, I'm very disappointed in your attitude towards this "discussion". You seem to think it should be on your terms and only your terms. That's not how a discussion works. You started this discussion with an inaccurate, unsubstantiated criticism of our site. Now that we've proven it was unwarranted, you suddenly want to change the subject to what you deem is "where the discussion should be focused". I disagree with your opinion. I think that when your colleague John Christy grossly misinforms the American public and Congress about climate science, that is one area where the discussion should be focused. Especially since you seem to have nothing but glowing comments about your colleagues despite their long history of misinforming the public and policymakers on climate issues. You claim that your goal is to accurately inform our policymakers about climate issues, and yet you tacitly endorse their disinformation by your colleagues. I think that's one place you need to focus some discussion.
  9. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Insisting on something that we don't have a long enough record for being useful is simple sophistry. It reminds Eli of two things, one is Roger's very long insistence that the UAH MSU record was THE preferred diagnostic, at least until it was corrected and showed an increase, rather than a decrease, and the other was from Thomas Knutson ------------------------- Michaels et al. (2005, hereafter MKL) recall the question of Ellsaesser: “Should we trust models or observations?” In reply we note that if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time. ---------------------------- In this case we don't have reliable ocean heat content measurements from the past, and it is unlikely we will get them from the Argo floats
  10. Climate's changed before
    Stonefly - the change in the solar forcing from 6000 years is small especially compared to the anthropogenic forcing. Even without these forcings another iceage would not have happened for around 50,000 years. Berger & Loutre. The increase is CO2 that goes with the Millankovich forcing is a slow feedback and at any time is close to equilibrium. Once you are at peak, then as the solar forcing wanes, the feedbacks work in reverse, removing CH4 and CO2 and amplifying the cooling. If you are asking why not working at the moment with solar in decline over last 6000 year, then you need to look at the magnitude of the respective forcings. Milankovitch is very slow - at least 10 times slower than present rate of CO2 forcing - and small by comparison to CO2 from FF burning. Note also that Milankovitch cycles still happened in pre-Quaternary times but only have much affect on climate when CO2 is low enough for NH snow pack to form. When the earth was last at 450ppm, we didnt have the glacial cycle. You might also find the article at Are we heading into an ice age helpful.
  11. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr Pielke Thank you for taking the to discuss issues with us here at SkS. Let me assure you that we at SkS are motivated by a deep concern for the wellbeing of our societies and future generations. Although we try to keep the discourse polite this is an extremely serious subject so the critical views we sometimes express of some individuals is motivated by that seriousness. To the questions you have posed and comments you have made, let me give a composite answer. In principle Total Heat Content of the climate system, predominantly the oceans IS the metric we would use to assess whether climate warming is occuring. However our capacity to measure the various sinks that make up this is varied, with measurement of the oceans being, historically the weakest link. With the deployment of the Argo array this situation is improving, extending area and depth coverage. We still have very limited data on the abyssal depths and thus are still poorly equipped to assess heat fluxes to the ocean bottoms, particularly in regions of significant downwelling are not adequate. Certainly the common use of the surface & satellite temperature records as a metric for climate change as a whole is inadequate. That said, the surface temperature record is what constitutes 'climate' for 7 billion of us here on Earth so for the purposes of broad communication with the general public the surface record is still a reasonable metric for Communications Purposes! However the common phenomena of many people trying to slice and dice the surface record to prove some point - 'It hasn't warmed since 1998', 'It was the Great Climate Shift of 1976' etc based solely on the surface record is invalid. The appropriate metric for Analysis of climate (as distinct from illustrative communication about it) is THC. So to time scales for significance. The IPCC has adopted 25 years as the appropriate timescale for measuring climate change, the WMO standard is 30 years. This reflects the fact that the metric's we have had available to measure climate have only very recently included ocean heat content. Certainly I would disagree that any timescale less than 25 years or so is particularly meaningful for assessing climate change based just on the surface record. If we are using Total Heat Content then in principle we may be able to use a shorter timeframe for assessing it since by looking at the total we are factoring out so called 'internal variability' that really constitutes varying fluxes between the separate sinks that make up the whole. If you want to figure out the dog by just looking at its tail you need to look at the tail for longer. However, how much shorter the appropriate timescale is when assessing THC depends very much on the quality of the data available. THC may in principle substantially remove 'internal variability' from our analysis. But in its place there is now much higher measurement uncertainty - we are measuring the right thing but the quailty of our data isn't as good. So the appropriate timescale for use with THC needs to be studied very seriously using the best statistical techniques, having regard to the character of the measurement uncertainties. Until such time as we can get a sound answer to this, my view is that we should continue with the use of 25-30 years timescales, even when assessing THC until such time as we have a robust statistical basis to guide us on how far we can dial those numbers down. To Hulme's 2 Hypotheses, firstly I can only assume that his use of the word 'climate' in this context refers to surface measurements. He appears to be differentiating between a focus on GH gases alone, or considering all the climate forcing, including GH gases. Of course in the sense in which he has framed the options, his 2b is the MORE correct. However it is still not an adequate hypothesis. Say rather that there are a range of human induced forcings and then there are a range of feedbacks that follow as a consequence. However the various human forcings need to be given some relative ranking. Both of their current climate impact and also of there future impact. These main forcings are CO2, Other major GH Gases (Methane. Nitrous Oxide), truly minor GH gases (CFC's etc), Aerosols, Various land use changes. CO2 is a major component currently with the other GH gases less so. Aerosols are also quite significant although it has been harder to quantify this (we NEED that satellite aerosol data). And land use changes have been signifiant as well. When we look to the future (assuming no action by society) CO2's impaact just keeps growing. We can perhaps manage Nitrous Oxide to some extent but this is difficult without devastating world foor production. We may be able to manage human methane emissions but increases in natural emissions such as from permafrost and clathrates are a wild card here. Unless we intend to repeal all the worlds Clean Air ACts, aerosols are unlikely to increase too much. And if we take action on CO2, CO2 levels may stabilise but that does not mean fall. But the actions we would take will hugely lower aerosols. Land use could continue to contribute but eventually will drop as we simply run out of land to 'change'. In the long run, CO2 levels unaddressed will become the dominant driver where as currently it is just first among many. To Hulme's two perspectives, I would say neither is completely correct and would reword the proposition thus: “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes and aerosol pollution are resulting in climate change (defined as a change to the THC of the Earth) that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, it is happening right now, and will certainly get worse in the future if current human practices continue.”
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Glenn, Dr. Pielke is exercising a ploy to divert this thread from its central focus:  Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  Which he still fails to own and address.

  12. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I will wait to see what the responses are to the science questions I have asked. As I have written, this is where the discussion should be focused. To respond one more (and last time)to the comments on this weblog post on the ad hominem issue, I object to personal attacks by anyone on any side of this issue. If you want to see an example, look at my defense of Andy Revkin in 2005 where I wrote [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2005/08/26/response-to-andy-revkin/] "It is clear now that the misrepresentation of my views on climate change in the NY times article were entirely inadvertent. There was no political or other motive, which needs to be recognized by everyone. The politicizing of the disagreement on other blogs and in the media that has occurred is completely inappropriate and any derogatory personal characterizations by others from this event are abhorrent and have no place in this issue or associated with my blog in any way."
    Moderator Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] I must perforce remind you of KR's previous summary comment:

    "I'll remind you of the sequence of events. You initiated this particular discussion by accusing the SkS site of ad hominem attacks on Dr.s Spencer and Christy. (which I am not alone in considering an unjustified accusation). This particular thread was written in response, noting that (a) the posts you criticized actually address the science (and shortcomings) of various works, and are not ad hominem, and (b) your criticisms don't appear to apply to those you agree with, such as Watts and in fact Spencer himself.

    In my view you have neither addressed that apparent double standard, nor supported your original accusations re: SkS, and are now refusing to discuss those issues any further. I consider that unfortunate."

    This summary you are now further cementing with your reticence to rectify.

  13. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    @Rob102 - Then say that, don't pass it off as if he seriously thought those things. Plus the excerpt purposefully misquotes him in order to fit the crackpot meme. He did not predict that jogging would be outlawed, he (jokingly) advocated it!
  14. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    villabolo: "tidal forces causes temperatures to rise." Since the moon is gradually receding from the earth, tidal forces are growing weaker. That means that the heat from tidal friction is diminishing, leading to an inevitable cooling. With that mechanism, a glacial advance cannot be far off. Global warming? Problem solved!
  15. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Jpat - obviously this is riding straight over the top of your head. Roy Spencer is one of only a handful of skeptical climate scientists, and silly statements such as the 'jogging will be outlawed' are misconstrued to be fact by the general population - who don't understand the short-term carbon cycle. And who can blame them? They're getting the idea from a climate scientist no less. Considering the likely consequences of global warming, it's about as funny as making jokes about the atrocities of the 2nd World War.
  16. Climate's changed before
    Another question: When the Earth is reaching the optimum in a Milankovitch cycle, when Co2 is high, the creation of an ice cap through the warmer and therefore wetter winter is enough to offset the greenhouse effect of high Co2 levels, and in spite of those levels nudge a cooling cycle?
    Response:

    [DB] "when Co2 is high"

    See the label on the graph below:

    CO2

    [Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg]

    The last time CO2 levels were as high as now (the Pliocene) the world was a dramatically different place, with much higher sea levels:

    Pliocene

    [Archer 2006]

    I am not aware of any plausible mechanism that would allow formation of an Arctic ice cap during a period of high Milankovich orbital forcings and elevated CO2 levels such as at present.

  17. Climate's changed before
    If we are on a slide back to a glaciation, perhaps similar the the last one, and we left peak temperature 6000 years ago, then we should not be seeing continuing glacial retreat or the continual loss of Arctic ice, should we? I know there may be inertia, for lack of a better word, which may carry past the optimum temperature, but 6000 years later, to the extent we are seeing? Are there any other likely reasons for the loss of ice we are seeing other than anthropogenic?
    Response:

    [DB] "Are there any other likely reasons for the loss of ice we are seeing other than anthropogenic?"

    Absent near-mythological musings such as massive volcanic eruptions along the Arctic Ocean seafloor (no evidence), increased submarine patrols under the ice causing turbidity which then causes the ice to break up & melt (huh?) or magical as-yet-undetected cycles...none that I'm aware of.  Please let me know if I missed something.

  18. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    "As another example, do you agree with Roy Spencer when he said that as a result of addressing climate change, "Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem"? I don't have a dog in this hunt but I do think you diminish your own credibility on the subject when you try and pass off what was clearly a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek essay as a legitimate representation of his scientific view. One hopes this is a slip up somewhere and not an indication of your journalistic integrity.
  19. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    To continue #105 regarding the D'Aleo and Watts document, Dr. Pielke, what do you think of the phrases "tampered with the data" and "fiddling with the old data"? Would you support such phrases do describe the numerous adjustments and corrections UAH has made? I personally would not.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] I would request that, for the moment, all present give Dr. Pielke a chance to first retract his contentions and allegations of ad hominem towards Skeptical Science.

    Or, failing that, for Dr. Pielke to continue in those assertions and then support them with concrete examples.

  20. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Not to overburden you, Dr. Pielke, as I believe you have your hands full here in addressing the topics at hand, but what do you think of your colleague's work here? You are quoted in this document and I'm curious if you believe the conclusions on both the science and on the motivations of the scientists who manage this data are warranted. Do you believe this is constructive? Did your colleague send this to you for your review and what changes (if any) did you suggest? Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception? by Josepth D'Aleo and Anthony Watts SPPI summary: "Authors veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”. That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century." The document's Summary for Policy Makers: "1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. 2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. 3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. 4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses." After the summary, the opening line begins "Recent revelations from the Climategate whistleblower emails" some other quotes: "These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for over-estimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making." "Satellite data centers over recent years have not confirmed the persistent warmth of the surface networks in their assessments of monthly and yearly global temperature" "US STATE HEAT RECORDS SUGGEST RECENT DECADES ARE NOT THE WARMEST The 1930s were, by far, the hottest period for the timeframe." "NASA also constantly tampers with the data. John Goetz showed that 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the 2½ years ending in 2007. 1998 and 1934 ping pong regularly between first and second warmest year as the fiddling with old data continues." Do you find the above claims both robust and constructive? And as of now, you have not been able to support your contention of "ad hominen" statements by SkepticalScience on the topic of the UAH MSU temperature record. I therefore request that you retract it.
  21. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, since you seem unwilling to defend your unsupported assertion that SkS has engaged in "ad hominem presentations" against Drs. Spencer and Christy, perhaps you would take this opportunity to retract that accusation, and then we can move on? As others have noted, the discussion began with this assertion, which you seem unwilling to discuss now that we have demonstrated it's unfounded. It's like a hit and run, with the driver at fault fleeing the scene so as not to take responsibility for his error, then later coming back and trying to discuss a baseball game. We'd like some closure on the hit and run first.
  22. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    The last graph in #24 shows an interesting bit about how the volume decline has progressed... up through 2006 there was a fairly steady 'slow' decline. Then in 2007 the volume dropped more sharply than it had in any of the previous years. 2008 and 2009 had slightly higher volumes, but still far below all previous years. Then in 2010 the volume dropped sharply again. This year is slightly lower, but overall very close to 2010. To me this suggests that we've entered a phase where, in addition to the slower ongoing decline, the ice is now thin and broken up enough that weather conditions in individual years can cause much more significant drops... which then become 'permanent'. Essentially, while the ice volume of 2007 was shockingly low at the time, the subsequent drop in 2010 has now made 2007 levels a high volume which will not be seen again. The implication of the second graph, that ice volume could be nearly zero from July through November by 2020, is truly shocking. However, if we continue to see sharp drops without recovery like 2007 & 2010 it is entirely plausible. It'd take decades to get to zero volume at the rate of decline seen through 2006, or the change between 2010 and 2011... or just two more years like 2007 & 2010.
  23. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Not so, Chas--read more carefully. Where does the carbon that we exhale come from? How far away in time from the atmosphere is any given atom of carbon exhaled by a human? The carbon released in FF has been out of the atmosphere for a very, very long time. Now in a matter of a couple of centuries, we're dumping gigatons of CO2 that took millions of years to lock away in the Earth.
  24. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke I'll remind you of the sequence of events. You initiated this particular discussion by accusing the SkS site of ad hominem attacks on Dr.s Spencer and Christy. (which I am not alone in considering an unjustified accusation). This particular thread was written in response, noting that (a) the posts you criticized actually address the science (and shortcomings) of various works, and are not ad hominem, and (b) your criticisms don't appear to apply to those you agree with, such as Watts and in fact Spencer himself. In my view you have neither addressed that apparent double standard, nor supported your original accusations re: SkS, and are now refusing to discuss those issues any further. I consider that unfortunate.
  25. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I'm looking forward to the 'official' response to Dr. Pielke's questions in #85 from the SkS authors as it will surely address the issues in more detail than I could alone. However, I was particularly struck by the question; "3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming?" To me, trying to pick out any one metric seems flawed conceptually. Given the realities of measurement uncertainty, internal variability, equilibrium lag, and other factors it would seem counter productive to 'prefer' any particular method of 'measuring' global warming. Indeed, apparent disparities amongst different metrics have been and likely will continue to be a primary driver in identifying errors and additional factors for consideration. Surely, it is only by examining ALL of the available metrics and continuing to improve them that we can hope to get an accurate understanding of the ongoing changes. On the primary point of the thread, the (seeming) implication that you do not criticize WUWT and other such sites because they do not direct ad hominem attacks against scientists you have worked with is rather the basis of the claim that your criticisms are "one-sided" Dr. Pielke. Essentially such a position belies any claims of concern about the 'tone' of the discussion. You can't very well criticize one 'side' while consistently ignoring far more egregious behaviour by the other. Well, you can... just not with any actual 'moral authority'.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Valid points, but the first one is off-topic I'm afraid. Please give Dr. Pielke an opportunity to respond to questions directed to him about "one-sided" skepticism.
  26. Dikran Marsupial at 09:48 AM on 17 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Prof. Pielke, perhaps a more constructive way for you to defend your colleagues is to post a specific comment on each "Christy Crock" and "Spencer Slip-up" article, in each case stating what you see as the errors in that particlar article. For the purpose of this thread, for me your comment earlier that you defend your colleagues against what you see as ad-hominems, rather than criticising all ad-hominems that crop up in the debate is a tacit admission of tribalism and one-sidedness. Now if you see that as a reasonable position, then just say so, if you think this does not represent your position, then we are keen to hear your explanation. I would agree that it seems inconsistent that you complain about perceived ad-hominems at SkS and yet support WUWT where ad-hominems are very common.
  27. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    This article containsd the immortal lines: "Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with." This is meaningless nonsense. It is no more or less valid or true than this: "Therefore, when we burn fossil fuel, all the carbon dioxide produced has already been accounted for. By burning fossil fuel, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with." Humans produce carbon dioxide in exactly the same way as burning oil produces carbon dioxide. If you are so worried about carbon dioxide levels, stop breathing.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The difference is that the carbon in our exhalation was taken out of the atmosphere very recently, so it doesn't contribute to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuel on the other hand hasn't been in the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years (when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now). So burning fossil fuels is moving carbon from the lithosphere into the atmosphere, which does cause levels in the atmosphere to increase.
  28. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Except for constructive comments by Rob Painting and Albatross [I am puzzled why commenters on a science weblog do not want to use your real names), statements such as "Given your admonition to me in pielke #83, why should Skeptical Science respond to your second question? By your own words, it's off topic." and "I would propose that once that central issue is dealt with and once Dr. Pielke has had an opportunity to answer the questions asked of him on that key issue (we understand that he is busy), then we can move the discussion onto other matters. So the ball right now is in Dr. Pielke's court in that regard, and I for one look forward to his responses to the pertinent questions put to him in this forum concerning "one-sided skepticism". are not going to move the discussion forward. There is no "central issue" that need to be settled. I have presented my perpsective on Spencer and Christy, and others have presented their views. Lets move on. I remain waiting for answers to my questions and request this be in a weblog post with answers to each one. i cna then follow up in the comments, but also on my weblog.
    Moderator Response:

    [Albatross] Dr. Pielke. Given the intimidation of and threats made against climate scientists, I ask that you please respect the choice by some here (and elsewhere) to not use their real names. But who I am is not relevant, what is relevant are the facts and science. As for moving the discussion forward, you answering people's questions which pertain to the subject of this thread would aid greatly in achieving that goal. Thank you in advance.

    [Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, I use my real name.  Please cease in avoiding the central focus of this thread, which is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  Now can you finally please begin to address those.

    Your recalcitrance in dealing with the large pink elephant in the room becomes obvious.

  29. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dikran, I know that the discussion in question pertains to one of the questions that Dr. Pielke asked. But that is not the subject of this particular thread. I think that we should try and focus on dealing with the subject of the thread (one-sided skepticism) for now, and when SkS answers his questions (which I am confident they will do and thoroughly too), then we can discuss the implications of his questions at that point in time. Right now the thread is at risk of getting derailed and I'm simply urging everyone to focus the topic of this thread, which is not Dr. Pielke's questions. As I said earlier, the ball is in Dr. Pielke's court, so hopefully he will address the questions and concerns raised by posters here and by SkS about "one-sided skepticism".
    Moderator Response:

    [Dikran Marsupial] I agree. The proper place to discuss it would probably be on Prof. Pielke's blog, where the question was posed.

  30. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Rob Painting - A constructive comment. I suggest you convert the figure to watts per meter squared and compare with Jim Hansen's predictions of the radiative imbalance at the end of the 1990s - http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf I suppose we could debate what is "significant warming" but lets focus on the global annual averaged radiative imbalance resulting diagnosed from the plot. It is much less than indicated from the GISS model as reported by Jim Hansen in the communication to John Christy and myself that I have provide the link for above.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Hello Dr. Pielke. As tempting as it is to respond to people's questions and comments about your questions to SkS, could you please limit your discussion on this thread to "one-sided skepticism". There remain numerous relevant questions posed to you on that subject that you have not yet answered. We will be happy to continue discussing your set of questions when SkS posts a response on a separate thread. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. [Rob Painting] - duly noted. I'll save my questions on OHC for another day.
  31. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Philippe @89, "The subject at hand is one-sided skepticism, and some accusations of ad-hom made by Mr Pielke against SkS." It certainly appears that Dr. Pielke is trying to reframe the discussion. But that particular issue quoted above is central to the original post and the questions that SkS posed to Dr. Pielke. Yet, those have not been adequately addressed by Dr. Pielke, nor have subsequent questions along those lines concerning his association with Mr. Watts and why he has not condemned the repeated attacks by Watts (and those on his site) on scientists. So it would help if we could all please stay focused and deal with one issue at a time? And right now that issue is "one-sided skepticism". I would propose that once that central issue is dealt with and once Dr. Pielke has had an opportunity to answer the questions asked of him on that key issue (we understand that he is busy), then we can move the discussion onto other matters. So the ball right now is in Dr. Pielke's court in that regard, and I for one look forward to his responses to the pertinent questions put to him in this forum concerning "one-sided skepticism".
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 08:32 AM on 17 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Mr Pielke is asking that we don't "wander off." The subject at hand is one-sided skepticism, and some accusations of ad-hom made by Mr Pielke against SkS. I still see nowhere in the SkS articles an attack on these individuals' persons or motives. Their statements, however, are certainly given scrutiny in true skeptic fashion. The adjective "egregious" about some of these statements appears entirely justified. It could easily be construed that Mr Pielke is diverting attention onto technical points, possibly to evade the defense of his own accusations against SkS and his own double standards. I am waiting for Mr Pielke to describe exactly where and how SkS attempts to attack the robustness of the UAH temperature data by using ad-hom. If this specific accusation can not be substantiated, perhaps withdrawing it would be appropriate. It would be helpful if Mr Pielke could link to a defense of other scientists' by him when these persons or their motives were attacked, especially on WUWT, where it happens routinely. That would certainly help to decrease the perception of a double standard.
    Moderator Response: Phillipe please address him as Dr. Pielke.
  33. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dikran, "Rankexploits" is not run by a statistician, I'm surprised that Dr. Pielke cannot provide us with some peer-reviewed references on that subject other than a blog post. Santer et al. (2011) have looked into the signal-to-noise issue. They note that the signal-to-noise ratio for 10 year window is ~1, which means that drawing conclusions from data on time spans of near 10 years is pointless. That is why I am surprised that Dr. Pielke confidently cites no warming for 13 years on his blog (ignoring the curious choice of 1998 as a starting point for now) as being indicative of something important afoot, when that that is obviously too short a period to be of any statistical significance. Regardless, Dr. Pielke agrees with Santer et al. on one important point, he says on his blog that: "I agree with Santer et al that “[m]inimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal." So I'm not sure why we are discussing this on a thread about "one sided skepticism". But I will look for some published citations that speak to the time frame required to extract statistically significant trends from surface-air temperature data, for example.
    Moderator Response:

    [Dikran Marsupial] It relates to one of Prof. Pielkes questions latest post: he asks: "3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming? ... What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years?". If statistical tests on those trends have little power then it is a pretty pointless exercise.

  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I noticed a sniff from Lubos Motl about SS, calling John Cook a former physics student. I wonder if some of Dr. Pielke's pique comes from a sense of lese majesty . The section headings are a bit of cheek no doubt, even if they are not ad homenims by any definition I understand.
  35. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr Pielke... Also take note that John Cook is in Australia and will just be waking up about now to see what has transpired while he's been busy sawing logs.
  36. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr Pielke @ 83... There is a group of authors who are addressing each of these questions. It takes a little bit of time since this site is a collaborative effort from many individuals. Please indulge us with a little patience. Dikran seems to bringing up some very valid points that are well worth consideration in this comments section. And BTW we all greatly appreciate you taking time from what is certainly a busy schedule to engage SkS on these issues.
  37. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke - To return to the subject of this thread, rather than wander off into the hinterlands of temperatures vs. the value of climate sensitivity, modelling, etc.: Do you understand why your criticisms of perceived ad hominem statements on SkS, and your lack of criticisms of people like Watts, are perceived as a double standard?
  38. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    We seem to be stuck in developing a discussion. KR in #76 has a constructive science comment. KR, however, misses that both of these papers highlight the importance of ocean heat content changes as the metric to diagnose global warming. This eliminates the need to focus on the so-called "climate sensitivity". Nonetheless, this is a good start. However, the other commenters are mostly missing the central science issues I have rasied. I will repeat my questions here: 1.Of the two hypotheses below, which one do you conclude is correct? Hypothesis 2a: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades. Hypothesis 2b: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades. 2. Of the two perspectives below [from Mike Hulme], which one do you agree with? i) “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.” ii) “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes and aerosol pollution are all contributing to regional and global climate changes, which exacerbate the changes and variability in climates brought about by natural causes. Because humans are contributing to climate change, it is happening now and in the future for a much more complex set of reasons than in previous human history.” As Mike Hulme writes ”….these two different provocations – two different framings of climate change – open up the possibility of very different forms of public and policy engagement with the issue. They shape the response. The latter framing, for example, emphasises that human influences on climate are not just about greenhouse gas emissions (and hence that climate change is not just about fossil energy use), but also result from land use changes (emissions and albedo effects) and from aerosols (dust, sulphates and soot). It emphasises that these human effects on climate are as much regional as they are global. And it emphasises that the interplay between human and natural effects on climate are complex and that this complexity is novel.” What are your comments on Mike Hulme’s two perspectives with respect to climate policy? 3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming? The options include, for example, (i) the global annual average surface temperature anomaly in degrees Celsius; ii) the global annual average ocean heat anomaly in Joules; or iii) the global annual average radiative imbalance at the top-of-the atmosphere in Watts per meter squared. What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years? 4. What do the models’ predict should be the current value of these metrics. 5. What are your preferred diagnostics to monitor climate change? 6. Is global warming (and cooling) a subset of climate change or does it dominate climate change? If Skeptical Science is serious regarding a constructive debate, lets start with these on your weblog.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Actually, Dr. Pielke, it is you who continues to miss the point.  This thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  A continuation of your policy of avoiding the tough questions casts you in a very poor light.

  39. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    “Underground temperatures control climate”. Next myth: Lunar rotation causes tides therefore, it stands to reason, it pulls up on the Earth's crust. Thus the friction caused by the crust being raised by tidal forces causes temperatures to rise.
  40. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dikran Marsupial - In answer to your question 'With all due respect, you have not answered the question I asked. Can you present a statistical analysis that shows reasonable statistical power over decadal trends, yes or no? Pick any climate metric you like.' look at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/gistemp-up-during-august/ and earlier posts.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, this thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  Now please begin to address those.  Sir.

    Off-topic struck out.

  41. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Badgersouth - The six points are •climate change as market failure, •as technological risk, •as global injustice, •as over consumption, •as mostly natural, •as planetary “tipping points”. Except for the 5th one from the top, they are policy issues. My expertise is in the WG1 focus (climate science). Mike Hulme writes that these are "broadly consistent with the scientific knowledge assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" but the other 5 (and perhaps the last one although this requirements a quantitification of vulnerabilties) are not science issues, although people are using "science" claims to advocate for particular policies (e.g. see http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/somebody-send-paul-nurse-copy-of-honest.html). Let's focus on the science questions themselves in our discussions.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, this thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  Now please begin to address those.

  42. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    KR @76, As per Knutti and Hegerl (2008), and others, there are multiple, independent lines of evidence (not including models) that point towards an equilibrium climate sensitivity of +3 C for a doubling of CO2. Unfortunately, under BAU, we will easily double CO2, more likely triple or treble it.
  43. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    To reiterate one of KR's points (#75), and Albatross (#78), in a recent WUWT post reproducing Pielke's criticism of Trenberth, Abraham, and Gleick, Watts makes the following statements: "Apparently, it is impossible for them to consider observational evidence supporting a lower climate sensitivity, and thus they’ve scuttled the scientific process of correcting and building on new knowledge in favor of a tabloid style attack." "Clearly, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth share none of the humble virtue demonstrated by Einstein." "Like Spencer and Braswell, Einstein too got his share of public drubbing for his work. Hitler commissioned a group of 100 top scientists in Germany write a book called “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” (Hundred authors against Einstein)." Seems pretty ad hom to me, questioning their sincerity and motives, eluding to Hitler, claiming personal arrogance, but it's standard practice at WUWT. Those who read SkepticalScience regularly will note that nothing approaches this level from the contributors, and articles here that might be perceived to drift into personal territory (there is some fair debate about that) are the clear exception to what is a site that focuses on science. But Dr. Pielke indicates in #67 his interest is in attacking perceived ad hominens against those he has worked with, which is a bit of the tribal stuff that I believe he has decried. I also argue that his claims of ad hominen noted in #41 are dubious.
  44. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    KR @75 , I too find it rather odd (a double standard perhaps) that Dr. Pielke has chosen to publish with Anthony Watts, given the long history Mr. Watts has of ridiculing, belittling and defaming climate scientists. My questions to Dr. Pielke are: 1) Why do you not condemn (or disapprove) of the above mentioned actions that your colleague, Anthony Watts, is routinely engaging in? 2) Why is it OK for Watts (and Spencer) to engage in highly combative and antagonistic behaviour towards scientists, but for to you take exception to SkS critiquing the science of Christy and Spencer and Lindzen, for example?
  45. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Re: my previous post - all of those works also support the need for more data. I don't believe any of them indicate that we are deeply incorrect about ocean heating given the data that we do have, within the limits of measurement uncertainty.
  46. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke - WRT to the three references in your most recent post: Knox, Douglass 2010 - This paper does not include many of the available estimates of ocean heat content, and I would consider it less authoritative for that reason. Lyman 2010 examine a more complete set of data, and find "Robust warming of the global upper ocean". Katsman, van Oldenborgh, 2011 - "The analysis reveals that an 8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional. ... Recently-observed changes in these two large-scale modes of climate variability point to an up-coming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat content" Palmer et al 2011 - "All three models show substantial decadal variability in SST, which could easily mask the long-term warming associated with anthropogenic climate change over a decade. ... Our model results suggest that there is potential for substantial improvement in our ability to monitor Earth's radiation balance by more comprehensive observation of the global ocean. " --- Lyman, Katsman, and Palmer all seem to indicate that short term jogs (up or down) in warming are to be expected, and that the models work. I simply do not see any support there for your thesis that the models are failing, or that there are major misunderstandings in climate.
  47. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke - Defending close colleagues is a reasonable prioritization. However, you have worked with Anthony Watts (on the surface stations project, and with multiple cross-postings), and I must regard WUWT as one of the worst offenders in terms of pejorative rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. Hence you seem to be criticizing SkS for something that some of your close associates do on a regular basis. That appears a bit unbalanced. Personally I consider anyone presenting reasoned discussion in my field to be a colleague, regardless of whether or not I agree with them on particulars. "What amount of heating over what time period would have to occur before you would reject the IPCC models as having skill at predicting global warming (that is the scientific method; i.e. to seek to reject hypotheses)?" Perhaps you could comment on Kaufmann 2011, which examines the recent apparent 'pause' in warming, particularly with regard to aerosol influences, La Nina, and low insolation? I see room for improvements in dealing with and modeling aerosols, but I do not see any reason to reject the models included in the IPCC reports outright, as you appear to suggest.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] KR, this thread is about Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  Let us not enable his avoidance of responsibility in dealing with that.

  48. Dikran Marsupial at 06:07 AM on 17 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Prof. Pielke wrote: "If the WUWT or other weblog would similarly make ad hominem comments with respect to colleagues I have worked with, I would similarly defend them. This is exactly the point, why do you not critcise the use of ad-hominems against those you haven't worked with? An ad-hominem is an ad-hominem is an ad-hominem. I am a moderator here and have deleted several ad-hominems against noted skeptics based on their religious views (which have no bearing whatsoever on their position on climatology). Should I only moderate ad-hominems against those on my "side" of the debate (not that I have a side other than the side of the science)?
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] And I have (and will again) deleted many comments belonging to other SkS authors (apologies to all in advance).

  49. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke: "I have published with John Christy and have interatced with Roy Spencer on science issues. They are both outstanding colleagues and do not deserve the personal comments made against them. Certainly question their science but to question their sincerity and motives is inappropriate. If the WUWT or other weblog would similarly make ad hominem comments with respect to colleagues I have worked with, I would similarly defend them." Seems rather tribal. I'm still waiting for evidence for "The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science" (are you willing to retract that?) and the questions posed in #41.
  50. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, "If the WUWT or other weblog would similarly make ad hominem comments with respect to colleagues I have worked with, I would similarly defend them." Could you please direct us to where you have publicly spoken out against the ridicule and ad hominem attacks and even threats that have been made against respected scientists like Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth (and others) at WUWT, or where you have publicly defended their honor? Why add the caveat "I have worked with"? You do not have to have worked with Hansen, for example, to know that the the abuse directed at his is wrong, or the questioning of his motives is wrong. Thank you.

Prev  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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