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  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  Next

Comments 75001 to 75050:

  1. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    Good debunking of yet another climate myth! MarkR in #6: You were faster than me with your comment about the 30% of reflected solar energy, the 102 Watts shown to the left in figure 6! Something that should put geothermal heat in the correct climate perspective: A couple of years ago I debated this issue with a denier on a Norwegian science website. My two central arguments were exactly what is mentioned here: The energy flow from the Earth’s interior is several thousand times smaller than that from the sun, and there are no reasons to believe is has changed much for millions of years. He then claimed that undersea volcanoes are a major heat source and that they can explain the recent warming. After some research on the heat capacity of water and the energy output from volcanoes measured from satellites, I came up with an interesting calculation: If 1000 undersea volcanoes, each with the same energy output as Etna in 1992 (12 gigawatts), had continuous eruptions, it would take them about 15,000 years to heat the oceans by 1 K if all that heat stayed in the oceans and wasn’t lost to the atmosphere and space. The heat added to each cubic metre of water every year would equal the body heat from a mouse swimming in that water for a few minutes!
  2. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Rob Honeycutt: It would be prudent for SkS to ask Dr. Pielke for a complete list of the other scientists that he has worked with during his career.
  3. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Feeback with a gain < |1.0| is always stable. Think of an operational amplifier with gain < 1.0 - stable. Yes of course but if the open-loop gain <1 the closed loop gain is also <1. We are I thought, only considering a system capable of amplifying the small forcing induced by the Milankovitch cycles.
  4. apiratelooksat50 at 07:14 AM on 18 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    My request was an honest attempt to allow the followers of this site to design a survey that my classes could disseminate and analyze results. Very, very few people offered anything constructive (with the exception of Jonathan, Muon, etc...), instead most of what was posted was kvetching. The idea has evolved, but I seriously would like a survey that I could present in a before/after context to the students, and eventually to the local public (science department, general faculty, etc...). You obviously know my stance and question anything coming from underneath my sphere of influence. I think it would be enlightning to all involved to post a survey from a pro-AGW person and compare the results. It is very difficult to create an unbiased survey. I welcome the opportunity from the truly learned people on SKS to educate myself and my students.
  5. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    "Moderator Response: You do know that "positive feedback" does not necessarily mean runaway feedback, right?" Condescension is usually not conducive to dialog. We're running into cross-discipline semantics. Positive feedback is self-enforcing and will operate on any noise present to select and reenforce components near the system eigenvalues. The amplitude at this frequency will grow without bound until a limiting mechanism is encountered. This limiting mechanism is best viewed as a countervailing negative feedback which works to constrain the poles to the jw axis. #57 - I was not trying to postulate a novel negative feedback mechanism. I was referring to whatever you want to call the thing that prevents thermal runaway. So rephrasing my original question, why won't this same mechanism mitigate the effects of AGW, limiting the temperature excursion to that which would of been encountered naturally?
  6. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Am I reading this correct, that Dr Pielke is only concerned about what he considers derogatory representations (regardless of the content of the actual posts) of specifically colleagues whom he has directly worked or interacted with? So, Monckton's Myths and Lindzen's Illusions are okay? (Assuming he's not worked with Lindzen.) And therefore, also, all the derogatory representations made toward Trenberth, Mann, Phil Jones, and a long list of others, is also fine and dandy? I'm trying to determine if he is only offended by what he considers derogatory representations of people whom he chooses to agree with or if it's truly limited to those whom he has worked with.
  7. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat - Please read the link you were pointed to. Feeback with a gain < |1.0| is always stable. Think of an operational amplifier with gain < 1.0 - stable. There may be oscillation enroute to the stable state, depending on lag elements, but no runaway will be seen with a gain less than 1.0, as each cycle of feedback is lesser and lesser, damping out. As to the Milankovitch cycles - feedback operates on forcing changes both positive and negative. This means that when orbital mechanics decrease insolation, that negative change in forcing is amplified by feedbacks as the earlier positive change was. The forcing acts as a control knob.
  8. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat - please see CO2 lags temperature.
  9. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    #57 - Ok, we've identified the limiting mechanisms. But unless you are saying the system is self-oscillatory, you still need to explain how the small forcing function can turn the battleship around. The CO2 lags by 800 years or so. After the orbital forcing turns negative, we see falling temps while the CO2 is still rising and the GH effect is near maximum. How is this possible? Is there a paper someone can point me to that provides a mathematical model for this?
  10. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke's parting shot reminds me of the chorus of "Charlie and the MTA" made famous by the Kingston Trio. Did he ever return? No he never returned And his fate is still unlearn'd He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston He's the man who never returned.
  11. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    CBDunkerson - I am unaware of any system theory which differentiates positive feedback from "run-away feedback". Feedback is either regenerative (left half plane poles) or regenerative (RHP poles). All regenerative system run away unless there exists some limiting mechanism.
  12. Dikran Marsupial at 06:30 AM on 18 September 2011
    Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat The fact that CO2 radiative forcing only increases logarithmically with concentration, and IIRC the solubility of CO2 in water decreases linearly with temperature is enough to mean that run away heating and cooling is unlikely. There is no need to introduce any feedbacks we don't already know about.
  13. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Dana: "The main 'bone of contention' between both campus seems to be a matter of degree." What are these campuses of which you speak? You describe the position of one campus (IPCC). What's the position of the other campus, and what comprises this other campus? Dana: "Why, because it is no longer a discussion of science, but of politics. Along with the insertion of the precautionary principle as applied to future behavior. It stops being about what is, and becomes what ought." When is science not political? When is a decision to fund one study and not another not political? When is the decision to accept publication of one well-done study and not another not political? When are the results of a study that claims with confidence significant human impacts (positive and/or negative) not political? Why do we study "what is" if not to serve the determination of "what ought"? Note that the NIPCC is not an alternative IPCC. The primary purpose of the NIPCC (determined by its actions and statements) is to be critical of the IPCC. The NIPCC has not produced a comprehensive, institutionally-supported theory that serves as an alternative to AGW.
  14. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Although we have not used the term "rogues gallery" on SkS, personally I don't have a problem with it, depending on how the term is defined. The so-called "rogues" are those who very frequently misinform the public and policymakers on climate related issues, and thus are deserving of their own series of myth rebuttals. If Dr. Pielke wants to classify his colleagues "rogues" for this behavior, I'm fine with that. What I have a problem with is complaining about their "rogue" classification while denying and tacitly endorsing their reprehensible behavior.
  15. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    "jpat, your assertion that "there must be some strong negative feedback...." is an evidence-free assertion. Why "must" there be such a thing?" I should have been more precise. If we hypothesize that CO2 causes regenerative amplification and this positive feedback is the reason small Milankovitch solar radiance variations can result in large global temperature variations, then we must also account for why there hasn't been run away heating or cooling in the past and why we see in the ice record, millennial periods of falling (rising) temps with rising (falling) CO2. Put another way, how can a forcing that's too small to account for the observed variance, overcome the the maximum positive feedback seen at the temperature maximum when CO2 concentrations are near their maximum unless their exists be some negative feedback that comes into play near the extremes? One other possibility occurs to me. Non-linear, regenerative feedback systems whose complex poles are too dissipative to sustain oscillation can be subject to injection locking to a small period forcing. The output becomes quasi-periodic, synced to the input signal but with substantial phase noise. I presume this hypothesis has been examined and rejected.
    Moderator Response: You do know that "positive feedback" does not necessarily mean runaway feedback, right?
  16. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Dana69 - The NIPCC is a lobbying/advocacy group, derived from SEPP, and closely tied to Dr. Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute. Their Interiem Report, with the rather telling title "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate", is examined here. It does not pass muster. You need to examine your sources a bit more closely.
  17. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke is making another false statement when he says "Please alert me when you do if you are interested in a scientific discourse with me". This thread is very much about The Science, it is about Dr. Pielke's (and his colleagues'/associates') one-sided skepticism of The Science. Dr. Pielke also seems to be under the incorrect impression that the sole purpose of SkS right now is to answer his selected questions-- well, we have other projects and responsibilities that require attention. Dr. Pielke is free to also discuss the science on the dozens of other threads that deal with scientific issues such as OHC etc. Dr. Pielke has elected to use the term "rouges' gallery", nowhere on SkS do we refer to the buttons in that manner. Those buttons appear with other buttons such as "OA not OK" and "Interactive history of climate science".
  18. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Would I be right in saying that Dr Pielke failed to answer any of the questions and requests pertinent to this thread made of him by the SkS team? This is despite a whole sequence of verbose posts by him attempting to divert the conversation from the topic of this thread. Clearly he's not willing to call Christy and Spencer out for their bad science and worse science communication, nor is he willing to support his allegation of ad hominem aimed at SkS. He can discuss the science at any one of hundreds of threads on this site, and it would indeed be interesting to understand where he thinks there is error in these posts, or to see if he has moved on from his history of cherry-picking as noted by RealClimate and on an earlier thread here at SkS. If he is afraid of criticising his colleagues, that doesn't make him a very good scientist.
    Response:

    [DB] "Would I be right in saying that Dr Pielke failed to answer any of the questions and requests pertinent to this thread made of him by the SkS team?"

    10-Roger on that.  The inescapable conclusion one is forced to draw is that Dr. Pielke under no circumstances will admit to having been wrong.  Thus, he cedes the Field of Truth to Skeptical Science.

  19. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr Pielke, I agree with you that the labelling of scientists here is unfortunate. In the same spirit I hope you can acknowledge that the disinformation put out to Congress that by Dr Christy was also very undesirable? I look forward to you engaging in the science of OHC on the link provided by Albatross above. Specifically you never replied to my point then that "the variability in the monthly data is not just a small amount, but at least an order of magnitude too large to justify your claim that a monthly snapshot can provide a planetary heat balance on that timescale." I'd love a response thanks
  20. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Muoncounter, While your comments are appreciated, it seems you cherry picked comments for your own purposes. The 3 main points promoted by the climate change community are: * 1) that “global warming” is occurring, * 2) that “anthropogenic global warming” is occurring, or * 3) that “global warming” is unquestionably caused by anthropogenic causes. My comments indicated agreement with all of them, so there does not seem to be any divergent thoughts regarding the physics. That being said the fact that the majority of scientists no longer debate the subject should not lead one to conclude that the debate is concluded, that we have an answer, or that the science is settled. Much of what we’ve learned suggests that we actually know less than we previously thought we did. The main "bone of contention" between both campus seems to be a matter of degree. The IPCC indicates the potential for warming of 1.8 to a high of 6.4 "SPM.3. Projected global average surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century. {10.5, 10.6, Table 10.7}" http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html The projection arc is upwards of 100+ years. The reported catastrophic events that are projected to occur, based on the upper scale of the chart, are what most so called "deniers" tend to push back from. Why, because it is no longer a discussion of science, but of politics. Along with the insertion of the precautionary principle as applied to future behavior. It stops being about what is, and becomes what ought. The NIPCC is an organization created with credible scientists as it members. Smear tactics aside, they are qualified experts in the fields of climate, physics and geology.
  21. Philippe Chantreau at 05:33 AM on 18 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    If Dr Pielke wants everyone to focus on the science then he should have started there instead of throwing accusations against SkS that he has so far been unable to substantiate. It's cheap to yell "ad-hom" on a site without comments allowed and then, when called out on it, come here and say "let's talk about something else." The lack of focus on the science is exactly the reason why Spencer and Christy's statements were named the way they were on SkS. And that, once again, does not consitute an ad-hom, as we were reminded by numerous posts. We are all still waiting on a quote from SkS using ad-hom to attempt an attack on the UAH data, another unsubstantiated accusation. As for Anthony Watts, he keeps being mentioned because of Dr Pielke's association with him and the problem of double standards in scientific skepticism, which is the subject of this thread. The opinion of many contributors to SkS is that the scientific skepticism as WUWT is so one sided as to be hardly deserving of the word. Accusations of fraud and questioning of the motives of very reputable scientists are also so common there that it is truly surprising that they have escaped lawsuits for so long. I asked Dr Pielke earlier if he could point us to an instance of him defending scientists subjected to such accusations on WUWT (or elsewhere) but I haven't found a link yet. Anthony Watts committed to highest level of scientific robustness? Like when he allows a post where percent of snow cover are averaged without area weighing, leading to outrageously stupid numbers? Like the carbonic snow episode? It was rather amusing to see Watts himself encourage a little high school type experiment because neither him nor Goddard nor the posting crowd could understand and "trust" the phase diagram of CO2. Should we consider that this is what Dr Pielke consider as dedication to scientific robustness or did he mean someting else? There is also the occurrence in which Watts published the working address of a scientist and encouraged his readers to physically go there to challenge him. Is that also a manifestation of dedication to scientific robustness? I wonder.
  22. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke wrote: "I raised the issue on my weblog that I view the SkS labeling as ad hominems because I have published with John Christy and have directly interacted with Roy Spencer. They do not deserve such labeling." And yet, when invited to defend their work by showing how the analysis in those threads is wrong you have declined to do so. So... you say they do not deserve to be accused of having engaged in false statements / bad science (e.g. "slips ups"), but you decline to dispute any of the evidence presented in those threads? I don't think many people will apologize for holding the extensively cited evidence that Spencer, Christy, and others DO deserve to be called out for false and misleading claims over your unsubstantiated opinion to the contrary.
  23. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, I would suggest that if you have an issue with your colleagues being categorized as "rogues", as you put it, that you request that they stop behaving as such, for example by frequently misinforming the public and policymakers on climate issues. And as others have noted, these categorizations certainly do not stoop to the level of another of your colleagues, Anthony Watts, with his "Al Gore is an Idiot" category.
  24. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Dana69#466: "“denier” is a pejorative term ambiguously accusing a person of denying:" Then let's not be ambiguous. A 'denier' is simply one who is in denial. Denial is defined very simply as a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. This includes: simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization) projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility. There is nothing in any aspect of this definition that is pejorative. The word 'ignorant' (in your next to last paragraph) does not appear in the meaning of 'denier.' Pejorative, however, is defined as words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste. That in and of itself is an opinion and not an 'ad hominem attack.' Argumentum ad hominem requires an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. As quoted above, 'denier' is a description of someone's state of mind and that is not specifically negative. As far as your attempt at equating IPCC and NIPCC, you'll have to provide some substantiation of NIPCC's scientific credibility. Simply quoting their statement here is at the same level as an unsubstantiated opinion.
  25. Dikran Marsupial at 04:57 AM on 18 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Prof Pielke You may well feel that Spencer and Christy do not deserve the titles associated with their series of articles, however I don't think that Al Gore deserves to be called an idiot either, which as I pointed out is the categorisation of threads relating to him at WUWT. Do you think that is wrong as well. If it is O.K. to level ad-hominems at anyone you think deserves it, then indeed you are being one-sided. If on the other hand you are against ad-hominems, then how about directly criticising WUWT for the labelling of Al Gore as an idiot?
  26. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat, the statement "given that we're here to ask" suggests that you have an incorrect understanding of feedback effects. There is nothing inherent in positive feedbacks which would prevent us from 'being here'. My guess is that you are mixing up 'positive feedback' with 'runaway feedback' or assuming that feedbacks continue indefinitely and thus 'require' a "strong negative feedback" to kick in at some point and 'overwhelm' the constant positive feedback. That isn't how it works. Once a forcing stops the feedbacks associated with it perforce will do so as well unless they are so powerful as to be continually self-perpetuating (which no one has suggested is currently the case for AGW feedbacks). Basically, when the orbital forcing behind the glacial cycle ended the CO2 and ice albedo feedbacks it was causing also ended (not immediately, but relatively soon thereafter). At that point there were no significant positive forcings or feedbacks and thus no need for this "strong negative feedback" which you hypothesized. Instead, the subsequent cooling came from the orbital cycle shifting the other way... causing a cooling forcing and the same CO2 and ice albedo feedbacks then working in reverse. The negative feedback of "this cycle" is already under way... the orbital forcing has switched from warming to cooling. Nobody is 'expecting it not to engage'... it already has. If all else had remained unchanged that would result in slow cooling and another glaciation 10s of thousands of years down the line. However, human CO2 emissions have introduced a new, and much stronger, warming forcing.
  27. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Roger, It is quite possible that there will be a follow-up post regarding the specific issues you raised.
  28. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Regarding the moderator comment - "Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] We are very happy for you to discuss the science with us here at SkS, however please do so on the appropriate thread. SkS is organised this way in order to keep the discussion focussed. As we are unable to comment on the article on your blog it seems reasonable to have an article here devoted to the issue of your accusation of ad-hominems, so on this thread, please restrict your comments to that topic and that topic only. If our reporting of the science is incorrect then I strongly and sincerely encourage you to join the discussion on the relevant threads, your contribution will be greatly valued." You post a "rogues' gallery" on your website ["Christy Croks"; "Lindzen Illusions!"; "Monckton Myths"; and "Spencer Slipups" and are then surprised a number of my colleagues, as well as myself, consider this as degrogatory. I do not necessarily agree with all of their statements, but you are not going to broaden the appeal of your weblog unless you move away from this approach and just focus on the science. Such labeling of individuals is not constructive. I raised the issue on my weblog that I view the SkS labeling as ad hominems because I have published with John Christy and have directly interacted with Roy Spencer. They do not deserve such labeling. If similar rouges' gallerys were made of any other colleague who I have recently published with and/or closely worked with, I would also post on my website alerting the community who reads my blog of such a derogatory presentation. This is the last statement I will be making on this thread, since, in response to the SkS request from Dikran Marsupial, the discussion of science issues on this thread, that some of your commenters have made in response to my questions, is discouraged. I will defer from further involvement at SkS until (if SkS chooses) there is a separate post on the specific science issues I asked about earlier in this thread and on my weblog. Please alert me when you do if you are interested in a scientific discourse with me. I do appreciate, that you did not exclude any of my comments in this thread.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The discussion of the science is only discouraged on this particular thread. I (and I suspect many others here) would be very happy to discuss the scientific issues with you on the relvant threads). Your further participation here is very much encouraged.
  29. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    John Hartz#7: Are you suggesting that cosmic rays are a meaningful source of heat? On the scale of the diagram (fig 4), how big would that cube be?
  30. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    mlyle@5: I looked at a few references to see what the proportions of heat come from radioactivity compared to the three other proposed sources of heat (initial formstion, gravitational fractionation and latent heat coming from ongoing growth of the solid inner core). The precise numbers seemed to vary considerably, which is why I settled on the imprecise "Most comes from radioactivity". Wikipedia cites 45-90% coming from radioactivity but there's no reference given for the low end of the range. If you, or anyone else, could point me to a definitive reference on geoneutrinos, or a recent review paper on sources of internal heat, I would be most grateful. MarkR@6: You're correct about the reflected energy and I thought about including that that in Fig 4. The reflected energy is shown clearly in Figure 6. With all these figures there's a trade-off between getting the basic message across and rigorously including all the factors. And yes, we do plan to put Figure 4 in our figures area.
  31. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass: "The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position - both as students and maybe practitioners of the science. There is a natural tendency to protect this edifice from skeptic hordes." That, Dikran, is a comment on motivation and a violation of the comments policy, but I urge you to let it remain, because it's an excellent example of how many people might misunderstand the climate science communication situation. Critical mass, you're assuming that the theory can't defend itself. That's all anyone here does with the theory: point out and explain the specific studies that form the foundation of the theory. There is no protecting. There is no attempt to conserve an ur-version of the theory. When a study emerges that requires fundamental changes to the theory, that study is given a hard critical look and then either rejected with reason, modified with reason, or accepted--and so the theory changes. While the basics of AGW haven't changed in decades, many of the fine details have. It's open to change, and nothing is rejected without consideration. I'll use religion in a different way, just to irritate DM, in order to suggest that AGW as a theory is not accepted in a universal form. Like the major religions, there are core features that are accepted, but there is great variety in the details. Thus, your perceived edifice lacks solidity, and where it is solid it doesn't really need defending (except to keep people from repeatedly running full speed into it and hurting themselves, ala the 2nd Law thread).
  32. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, I'm also curious about your comment that John Hartz has just highlighted, i.e.: “If you want to be taken more seriously by others outside of your view on the climate issue, you should be provide more balance.” The concept of "balance" in the context of climate science seems a curious one to me! In my field (molecular biology/medical biophysics) such a concept hardly exists - the fundamental imperatives are scientific rigour and good faith in one's interpretation and dissemination of scientific data; "balance" seems more appropriate to political arguments! My experience is that good faith efforts at scientific rigour are what make this site (and others like RealClimate that focus rather stringently on the science) great value as sources for education and communication. And one can hardly accuse this site of not giving due consideration to papers and presentations that apparently cast doubt on the prevailing evidence-based views of particular elements of the science, since that seems to be a particular "house" speciality! The fact that a robust but essentially polite and on-topic discussion is actively encouraged in comments, means that any errors of fact or logic, and alternative interpretations are highlighted or given an airing. So, in your opinion, what elements are lacking which would otherwise "provide more "balance"?
  33. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    In short I agree with the comments above. 1,100 cubic km of excess latent heat will melt the 2010 min of 4,200 or this year's min of c4,000 cu km in less than 4 years. So 2015 is a totally ice free Arctic ocean August-September on current trends and is likely to be sooner. This month a team reached the magnetic north pole entirely by boat. One can expect to reach anywhere in the Arctic by boat in 2015. Reduction of the 2011 maximum ice volume 22,000 cu km by 1,100 cu km per year suggests a maximum of 20 years for a totally ice free Arctic year round on current trends. It will certainly occur much sooner than that.
    Response:

    [DB] One can also visually see the demise of the Multi-Year ice when viewed as in this graphic:

    MY Ice

    "MYI recovery observed in recent years shows a delay relative to
    thermodynamic forcing indicates that MYI is resistant to recovery"

    [Source]


  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Let us not forget that Watts piled onto Keith Briffa along with many others (McIntyre, Morano, etc.) while Keith was laid up in a hospital unable to defend his reputation and Watts also accused NOAA scientists of using station dropouts to intentionally manipulate data to show warming. SkS holds to the highest standards of science but when the Spencers, Christys, Lindzens, Watts, and Moncktons try to fool themselves and others about AGW, they deserve to be called out. SkS provides good science and corrects bad science. I call that balance. I suggest that Dr. Pielke be very careful about who he puts hims arms around.
  35. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    Where is the cosmic ray cube?
  36. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Thanks for these very interesting graphs and comments The last graph in #24 shows 1979-2001 average max 30 to av min 14 thousand cubic km. On average therefore 16, 000 cu km of ice melts and refreezes during the 1980s and 90s. From the graph we note that 2010 max to min was c23.3-4.2 ie 19,100 cu km melted. Max in 2011 volume was 22,000 cubic km compared to the 23,300 in 2010. So maximum ice volume declined from 2010 to 2011 by about 1,100 cu km. Assuming the same amount of heat input in the two years, we have an excess latent heat to melt 1,100 cu km available to melt more ice or to warm the surface waters in 2011. Since the latent heat (heat to melt a unit quantity) of seawater is about 80 times the specific heat (heat to raise by 1 degC a unit quantity), then we can expect increasing ice melt this year and in successive years. Graphs show this accelerating trend as one would expect on average other things being equal. We would expect this from the excess latent heat from one year to the next. On this basis it is clear that once we reach zero ice volume, then heat goes into raising sea surface temperature. This will be rapid given the ratio of 80 latent to specific heat. In addition we know that global temperatures are increasing and that polar regions average SST is increasing by twice the global average, we can expect less and less ice to form during the winter season. This will result in a warming arctic ocean. Remember also that heat capacity/specific heat of water is over 4,000 times that of air. So arctic air even at forty below zero has little effect on the huge ocean heat capacity and heat loss. There may well be winter ice but seawater does not have the 4degC maximum density that freshwater lakes have at the bottom. Freshwater lakes cannot be compared to seawater lakes and seas for this reason. Maximum density of seawater is below its freezing point. Moreover the great majority of global warming is in the oceans for reasons because of the high heat capacity. This will have huge effects climate. Springs will be much warmer as less and less ice melts taking heat less heat from air during breakup and ice melt seasons. It will be fascinating to watch the UW APL graphs as we journey through these interesting times.
  37. CO2 lags temperature
    Where in the chart can you show me "amplification of original warming by CO2"? There is none. [accusation of dishonesty deleted]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please read the comments policy (link provided below) and adhere to it in future. In general posts that contravene the comments policy are deleted rather than edited, I have been lenient on this occasion.

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

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

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

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

  38. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke You conclude your most recent post with the following admonition: “If you want to be taken more seriously by others outside of your view on the climate issue, you should be provide more balance.” You obviously believe that SkS has an official “view on the climate issue.” What do you perceive the SkS view to be? Please define what you mean by “climate issue” in your response.
  39. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass, you're absolutely correct to say that: "We should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or wilfully publish what they know to be incorrect." The entire process of scientific peer review, dissemination of scientific results and publishing of scientific papers is underpinned by the presumption of good faith. Sadly the presumption of good faith is occasionally abused. It's obviously not ad hominem to highlight examples, and we'd be remiss not to do so given the efforts to misrepresent particular fields of science in pursuit of dubious agendas. Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the scientists who has a section here ("Spencer's Slip Ups") that you disapprove of, has recently published a paper that seems not to conform with our expectation of "good faith". In fact the Editor of the journal resigned upon realization that the fundamental expection of good faith has been abused. That the presumption of good faith has taken a serious knocking is sadly supported by the fact that Dr. Spencer participated in a press release that constitutes an appalling misrepresentation of the science (see also post on this site describing these events.) As you say "..evidence of error or incompetence is not evidence of bad faith". Quite so. However sometimes (and happily quite rarely), we have to recognise that certain specific examples of flawed analyses and misrepresentations are more than simply errors or incompetence...
  40. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    I like the figure. A better representation would be 240 W m-2 for the solar figure though, since ~30% is reflected without doing anything. And we're on course to get more like 7 W m-2 from CO2 alone by 2100...
  41. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Further to Eli's comments above, a few months ago, Dr Pielke engaged in a debate here on OHC using Argo data. As I recall Dr Pielke posited that the data was so accurate that a month by month comparison was an appropriate way to analyse it ie we now understand the Earth's heat balance on a monthly timescale - and that there was no significant noise in the signal(!) Mods - I can't find the thread but perhaps you could have a dig through the archive and redirect the debate Dr Pielke is attempting to start here there. Dr Pielke - I'd be most interested in whether you have reconsidered your position on that. However, on the relevant thread rather than this one please!
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] I think this is the thread that you are looking for.
  42. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Actually, "Joe Bob is an idiot" is an insult, not an ad hominem argument. Insults do not add to the discussion, and in fact generally detract, but are not part of the process of logical argument. If you state "Joe Bob is an idiot, hence his statements about global warming are wrong", then you have committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. You have used an insult rather than evidence/logic related to the issue to attempt to dismiss an argument. If on the other hand, you state "Joe Bob has been wrong on A, B, C, and D due to W, X, Y, and Z", where those are logical statements, and then state "Hence I consider Joe Bob an idiot", that is not an ad hominem argument. Rather, it is a judgement based upon past behavior. That kind of judgement can be an influence in reviewing further work by Joe Bob, as in the Trust but verify statements made earlier. You do have to be wary of the Poisoning the Well fallacy - dismissing further arguments from a person you hold a negative opinion of without actually judging those arguments. But judgement statements such as "Christy Crocks", "Spencer Slip-ups", and "Lindzen Illusions" are supportable by the long list of repeated errors, focus on inadequate models, quickly refuted papers, and public presentation of flawed conclusions by these people. Just be careful not to use those labels to shortcut actual evaluation of their work! --- I will further note that Dr. Pielkes initial accusations were that SkS was dismissing the UAH satellite data based upon ad hominem arguments. That is demonstrably false, and he has presented exactly zero evidence to support that statement. Shall we move on now?
  43. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Anyone not able to see from a mile away how this dialogue be recast elsewhere? I can already see the statements: "I went to their own site attempting to discuss the science with them, but all I was met with was rhetoric and personal attacks!" Mods feel free to delete this comment, i just think you deserve fair warning in the event you didn't already know this is how this is almost certainly going to be misrepresented. In the meantime, Dr Pielke i would really like to see you prove me wrong by not doing exactly what i expect. It's unfortunate to me how few people are ever able to rise above such games. I would like to see the topic at hand addressed cordially and appropriately.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Ken, this is not a "game", not for SkS at least. I am not aware of anyone attacking Dr. Pielke here...the word "attack" is unfortunately used commonplace on the internet nowadays and seems to often get confused with "challenged" or factual critique. Recall, that Dr. Pielke initiated this dialogue and has made some unsupported and false accusations in the process. He has also repeatedly evaded some very pertinent questions as they relate to the topic of this thread, "One-sided skepticism". As for your concerns of this exchange being misrepresented by some. I trust that Dr. Pielke and Mr. Watts being men of integrity are above misrepresenting or "spinning" what has transpired thus far. Moreover, please note that while Dr. Pielke is certainly entitled to his opinions, as a scientist of repute, he is not entitled to his own facts when it comes to speaking to the science and those conducting the science. The facts, history, do not support his claim that "and he [Anthony Watts] is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness", for example. We have been very accommodating and given Dr. Pielke much more lee way and flexibility in terms of staying on topic. We have also urged people, as frustrated as they are, to be polite. And I have offered to condense the many questions directed at Dr. Pielke into a few pertinent questions so that he is not overwhelmed. He has not indicated (yet) that he is open to that offer.
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 01:07 AM on 18 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass wrote "The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position". Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Scientists tend to be rather odd people who actually don't mind being proved wrong, as it is usually a pretty interesting experience. Certainly we would generally prefer to be proved wrong rather than continue in ignorance. Anybody who can't handle critcism and takes it personally really ought not to be in science. Real scientists go where the science takes them, the climatologists I know are no different, and I'm sure they would like nothing more than to be wrong about the projections. Whether a scientific argument is correct or not doesn't depend on whether it comes from a formally qualified scientist or not. An ad-hominem against a politician is just as much a logical fallacy as an ad-hominem against a scientist. The number of peer-reviewed papers someone has published is irrelevant (otherwise what would someones first paper be worth?). For Prof. Pielke to be consistent, he needs to acknowledge that WUWT does go in for ad-hominems and labelling and he needs to be equally critical of WUWT. Note that "Christy crocks" and "Spencer slip-ups" refer to arguments made by Christy and Spencer, not to Spencer and Christy themselves. These arguments are shown to be incorrect based on their content not their source. "Al Gore is an idiot" on the other hand is a criticism of the person, and hence actually is an ad-hominem.
  45. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass: Yes, "we should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or willfully publish what they know to be incorrect." But these series of articles are focused on specific errors and misrepresentations so egregious that it is not credible that they were simply mistakes. The people involved are too knowledgeable and too skilled to make those kinds of errors by accident. Go to any one of these series and read the articles. These are not differences of opinion or honest mistakes; just as a safe-cracker doesn't end up with the cash by just fooling around.
  46. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    #117 DM I think the issue here is one of over-reaction on both sides of the debate. The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position - both as students and maybe practitioners of the science. There is a natural tendency to protect this edifice from skeptic hordes. This also applies to the more extreme skeptics, who give the Lukewarmers a bad name. When one's strongly held beliefs are attacked by those who one regards as unqualified, then over-reaction and ad hominem are a slippery slope away. However, evidence of error or incompetence is not evidence of bad faith. We should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or wilfully publish what they know to be incorrect. Labelling individual scientists work in mocking tones (rather juvenile and lacking in wit or subtlety to boot) is not quite a personal attack but more properly marked as bad manners which debases the currency of this site. Al Gore is not a scientist and I don't believe has ever published a 'peer reviewed' paper. When polemic is the topic of discussion then political positions become fair game and the bounds of free speech short of libel should apply.
  47. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    In discussions or debate over climate science, “denier” is a pejorative term ambiguously accusing a person of denying: * 1) that “global warming” is occurring, * 2) that “anthropogenic global warming” is occurring, or * 3) that “global warming” is unquestionably caused by anthropogenic causes. This is an illogical ad hominem attack rather than addressing the substance of the argument. Long term global warming: I and most literate people I know of, recognize, and do not “deny”, that long term “global warming” has been occurring for about 11,000 years since the last ice age. Anthropogenic global warming: Similarly, I do not “deny” generic anthropogenic causes to “global warming” or “climate change”. Anyone having a basic understanding of solar energy and “albedo” recognizes that converting a forest to a field or ploughing the prairie is decreasing the albedo and increasing absorption of solar radiation. The consequent US “dust bowl” caused significant climate effects. Burning coal generates sulfate aerosols that cool the planet while “clean air” legislation reducing sulfate emissions will reduce this cooling. Thus, to accuse a person of being a “global warming denier” per se is a knowingly false libelous accusation inferring moral and scientific perfidy. The key scientific issue is whether “anthropogenic” causes dominate natural causes for the “global warming” of the latter half of the 20th century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 AR4 Summary for Policy Makers Sect. 2 p 5 concludes: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. (The IPCC defines “very likely” as at least 90 percent certain.) Conversely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered in the Excutive Summarycites other evidence and concludes the opposite: It is therefore highly likely that the Sun is also a major cause of twentieth-century warming, with anthropogenic GHG making only a minor contribution. Whether the global warming from the mid-20th century to the end of the 20th century is caused primarily by anthropogenic causes is thus a scientific issue that is subject to scientific contention and evaluation. The environmental movement has made “anthropogenic global warming” a major political issue. Heated political advocates try to use “denier” pejoratively as meaning ignorantly denying the scientific evidence. Emotions run high from beliefs that opponents are “destroying Mother Earth” and killing millions of people in Bangladesh etc. Any scientist using “denier” is in effect making a pejorative political ad hominem attack rather than objectively addressing the substance of the scientific facts hypotheses, models, and theories.
  48. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat, your assertion that "there must be some strong negative feedback...." is an evidence-free assertion. Why "must" there be such a thing? And what's your logical train that deduces a "strong negative feedback" from the observation that CO2 lags temperature changes in ice cores? I would have thought the ice core data is rather strong evidence of positive feedback.
  49. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    "Why would anthropogenic CO2 now be the first forcing that doesn’t engage net positive feedbacks?" But isn't their a corollary to this question? Given that we're here to ask it, there must be some strong negative feedback that engages at some temperature, especially since CO2 lags temperature at every point in the ice core data. Why do expect this cycle to be the one that doesn't engage this negative feedback?
  50. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Sorry, here's the link to the Dragic paper
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Dragic et al 2011 is discussed here and here. Please move any follow up comments on that paper to the CERN thread.

Prev  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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