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  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  Next

Comments 75051 to 75100:

  1. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    The big time deniers, needing to explain to themselves why scientists do not agree with them, conclude that it is all politics (projection) and this absurdity forces them into endless additional absurdities. Note by the way that "It's all politics" is absurd to start with. There is a real planet earth with a real climate. Hence there really is a right answer. It can not be all politics.
  2. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    On the subject of delayed warming, remember our cooling layer of acid sky (sulfate areosols) which goes away when we try to stop warming. Just a little good by kiss.
  3. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Bern, there is a referee. Reality. But, we have to wait a lot longer than we usually do for the 'third' referee in the box to announce the result of a disputed call.
  4. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    More heat for CBD: August was a warm month in the Arctic...and the Antarctic as well: [Source] Looks like da Summertime at bot' da poles, eh?
  5. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Chris, you seem to have an ability to distinguish cause from effect that my 35 years have not afforded me. Re 44, we are in general agreement in paragraphs 1 and 2 although I note your assumption that the solar cycle and GCR are exact equivalents, the validity of which I am unsure. Then you state, "But as far as global warming we're not interested in the contributors to variability around the secular trend. We're interested in what causes the trend.", as if the variability in a non-linear dynamic system is incapable in and of itself as causing a trend. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that that is decidedly not the case. >Working the other way, we know that all else being equal, increased [CO2] must cause warming and we have a reasonble handle on how much. Really? My understanding is that there is great uncertainty about the feedback mechanism by which CO2 exerts its effect on global temperatures, both in process and magnitude. Isn't in fact this sensitivity one of the knobs the modelers twirl? >Our confidence that this is the case is further establshed by observations that greenhouse-specific correlates of warming (stratospheric cooling, raised height of tropopause, specific effects on diurnal temperature range and so on) are observed as expected. Really? The authors of the paper you referenced say "Contrary to recent assessments based on theoretical models [IPCC, 2007] the anthropogenic warming estimated directly from the historical observations is more pronounced between 45S and 50N than at higher latitudes (Figure 3d(right)). This is the approximate inverse of the model simulated anthropogenic plus natural temperature trends in IPCC (Figure 9.6)...Climate models may therefore lack – or incorrectly parameterize -fundamental processes by which surface temperatures respond to radiative forcings." As someone with a lot of experience with these kinds of models, I am suspicious of their usefulness in attribution. That does not mean I am skeptical of AWG, I am just trying to separate out what we know from observation vs what we think we know from simulation.
  6. apiratelooksat50 at 11:04 AM on 16 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    Sphaerica at 30 We do need to continue our dialogue. I am now back from Wisconsin and swim season is winding down. My request for some of the posters here to design the survey is genuine.
  7. apiratelooksat50 at 11:03 AM on 16 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    muoncounter@28 Our school is an early college academy where students can get dual credits in high school and college level courses. We are also an Exemplary Writing School and focus on writing. The educational benefit to writing a survey is valid. In ANY class writing and reading are paramount. 1. It is writing using an economy of words in a way that is easily understandable. 2. Writing the survey in the best attempt to remain neutral and not present a bias is not an easy task for anyone (see #11).
  8. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat#40: "a bit convenient for those trying to disprove the GCR hypothesis." One hardly needs 'convenience.' GCRs have a long way to go before rising to the level of hypothesis. Refer to the 4 unproven requirements in this posting; then ponder Esop's dent-making point, as well as the stunning lack of results in the paper discussed here.
  9. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    My mistake, I was just thinking about surface warming and not taking the global energy imbalance into account.
  10. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    "...the justifications for the adjustments to PMOD data seem implausible and the effects of those adjustments over the time period in dispute a bit convenient for those trying to disprove the GCR hypothesis."
    I'd say the opposite! First, the question of whether ACRIM, PMOD or IRMB composite is used has essentially no effect on conclusions re CRF contributions. The CRF has simply not trended significantly in the direction required for it to have contributed to the secular warming trend. In fact the year 2010 is the warmest year on record in the NASA Giss compliation occurring at a time when the CRF is the highest it's been since direct measures began. Since the CRF is proposed to affect climate through cloud nucleation which is an effectively instaneous response (max cloud response a few days after change in CRF according to Forbush event analysis), it's very difficult to consider a significant role for CRF when the period with the maximum cooling contribution coincides with the maximum warming on record. For those that wish to assert that solar irradiance has undergone a tiny rise, rather than a modest fall during the last 25 years, the use of the ACRIM composite would actually be the "oh-so-convenient" observation! But it's a little hard to swallow that the solar outputs wax and wane in a rather regular fashion, but suddenly undergo a jump of a few tenths of a W.m-2, just during the few months when the satellite observations were lost! In fact the Lockwood paper I linked to above discusses this in detail and you should read it. The bottom line is that the Acrim composite is (among other problems) simply incompatible with independent (ground based) observations that span the "gap". But the Lockwood 2010 paper gives lots of insight on this...
  11. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    KR, when SkS discusses the 'delayed warming', we are quite clearly discussing not only what Dana mentioned, but also the warming due to already emitted CO2. So Pielke isn't actually arguing against our argument. He's arguing about thermal lag. That quote he used came from a post that spelled out the reasoning about risk, BAU emissions, and all the rest. He's yet to acknowledge anything in that post besides a sub-title. We should all be skeptical.
  12. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Is it just me, or does this strike anyone else as the opening salvo in an attack on SkS, following the Eureka Prize win that (hopefully) raised SkS' public profile? I wouldn't be at all surprised to see other 'sceptics' start to weigh in on the matter, much as they done previously with Dr Mann and others. Talking about playing the player, not the ball... shame there's no referee in this match.
    Response:

    [DB] "shame there's no referee in this match"

    There is one; that would be me.  ;)

  13. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat (re 42) one of us isn't getting it and I don't think it's me! Something has caused the earth to warm rather dramatically especially since the 1970's. The warming (which can be described as a secular warming trend), is associated with a massive increase in thermal energy in the climate system that can be directly measured in the oceans. On top of that trend there is variability that has cyclical (solar), stochastic (ENSO) and contingent (e.g. volcanoes) contributions. If we take out the non-solar contributions from this set as S-F claim to have down ('though with zero insight into methodology!), we're left with what might just be the solar cycle contribution. That does indeed correlate weakly with the solar cycle. No problem there I think we'd agree (as would Frolich and Lockwood no doubt). But as far as global warming we're not interested in the contributors to variability around the secular trend. We're interested in what causes the trend. S-F is consistent with lots of work that the solar, ENSO and volcanic contributions to the large warming trend are near zero over this period (e.g. see Lean and Rind 2008, I linked to above). They cause variabilty ("noise" on the warming trend, but (as S-F) indicate make little contribution to the trend. Working the other way, we know that all else being equal, increased [CO2] must cause warming and we have a reasonble handle on how much. The warming trend is consistent with this contribution (i.e. enhanced greenhouse forcing). Our confidence that this is the case is further establshed by observations that greenhouse-specific correlates of warming (stratospheric cooling, raised height of tropopause, specific effects on diurnal temperature range and so on) are observed as expected. As S-F says the contribution to the secular warming trend is due to greenhouse gases. Their odd inference that these could be "natural" greenhouse gases makes no sense at all. And since they give us no insight into the origin of their odd thoughts on this we're none the wiser, other than to say that there is zero evidence that "natural" greenhouse gas contributions have been of any significance whatsoever...
  14. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    dana1981 - "...but that heat will come from the oceans..." I'm going to have to disagree; that heat will go into the oceans, not come from them, until they reach rough thermal equilibrium. Current temperatures (including ocean heat values) measure what is now in the climate system. The 'delayed warming', or as I prefer to describe it the 'unrealized warming', is the warming remaining to fully cancel out forcing imbalances. There is considerable thermal lag as joules of energy accumulate (primarily in the oceans), and imbalances are not redressed immediately. This is true as long as we have a TOA forcing imbalance and thermal lag. This was discussed at some length in Has Earth warmed as much as expected thread.
  15. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    " we know that the cycles involved are too short to explain the observed trends." Though there is an obvious 11 year cycle there are also several cycles of much longer duration which have been found to correlate with cool and hot cycles of the earth. As the planets revolve around the sun their gravity affects the sun in complex, long cycles which can be mathematically analyzed and predicted. Theodor Landscheidt made some amazingly accurate long term projections of el nino cycles based on the dynamics of the sun. Those methods predict decades of global cooling which will be obvious in a few years if correct. Here is a link to an elementary summary written after several long term predictions came true: http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm We certainly shouldent ignore this line of study as it will be impossible to ignore if the predictions come true.
  16. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Chris, You wrote "The data in S-F Fig. 2 is a straightforward confirmation that solar variation can have had little contribution to the secular warming trend that is especially apparent since the 1970's." I do not see how this follows. If we take out known forcings and the trend (which we both agree is in all likelihood a system response) and establish that the residual is well correlated to another hypothesized forcing, than you've accounted for the vast majority of systemic inputs. How then do you justify your statement that the observed trend is "due to the massive enhancement of greenhouse gas concentrations." The reasoning seems circular to me. That attribution is what you have to prove. It can't appear in your presumptions.
  17. Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
    Thanks Rob. Then there should be more posts relating to his website ;) It is clever, but misleading. To the diagram/chart: Humlum may have adjusted the chart, but his a priori belief is that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. The chart, adjusted or not, reflects this belief. So my main point was the general one that he is still using the diagram with this particular combination of temperature and CO2 to prove that "The past temperature changes show little (if any) relation to the past atmospheric CO2 content" And "It can, however, from figures [2,] 3 [and 4] be concluded that the temperature increase 1975-2000 is not unique when compared with past records, and that the net effect on temperature by atmospheric CO2 has been small or even absent"(From Humlums site Besides this very doubtful (a priori) conclusion and use of data, if I understand you correctly there are also these issues: 1. He knows of this post, but still uses the lowest estimation in Box et al 2009 (which he refers to as Brox et al 2009) 2. He is still using a local record, your main point of misrepresentation of GISP2 3. Box et.al. 2009 end their data in 2007, but Box has an additional three years of data that Humlum is not using. 4. He is still using a CO2 record that ends in 1777 To me that makes his diagram/chart five times misleading, but I may be wrong.
  18. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Argh, the last sentence should read "that the sensitivity to various forcing functions are not constant with time or that the operating point would exhibit near step changes in response to small input perturbations."
  19. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Chris, Sorry, I don't have access to the scientific literature. But from what I have been able to find, the justifications for the adjustments to PMOD data seem implausible and the effects of those adjustments over the time period in dispute a bit convenient for those trying to disprove the GCR hypothesis. It wasn't my suggestion re natural greenhouse gases. The entire 2nd paragraph was a quote from the paper. But in any case, I don't see your point. If it can be established that a forcing function (be it ITS, GFR or a combination of the two) accounts for significantly more of the variance than is currently modeled, one should not expect the model to track reality nor rely on them for attribution studies. Superposition does not apply. You can just assume small input errors will lead to small output errors that will average out. I've spent 35 years in the design and modeling of non-linear, coupled feedback systems. In all but the lowest of order, these systems can be identified by the fact that they do not exhibit equilibrium in the LTE sense of the word. In the presence of noise, such systems can change regimes at the drop of a hat, exhibiting a whole new dynamic where feedback paths previous insignificant suddenly dominate. A quasi-equilibrium may be reached for a time then suddenly and without apparent cause the output trends off in a new direction. This of course makes attribution challenging, to say the least. Now one would expect a priori that a system as complex and non-linear as the climate would exhibit similar characteristics, so it doesn't seem surprising to me in the least that the sensitivity to various forcing functions are not constant with the operating point.
    Response:

    [DB] "Sorry, I don't have access to the scientific literature."

    Chris' link to Lean and Rind 2008 was directly to an openly-available copy.  Lockwood 2010 similarly was/is freely available (via link from Chris' link), here.

  20. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    'and a major defect in the CO2 models is that they assume it is constant" Sorry, perhaps you would like to explain this further (with references). "It is also different in concentration [and behavior with light] at different altitudes in addition to varying between humid and desert areas near the surface." Not exactly news to climate modellers. What is your point here?
  21. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    KR @25 - I belive Pielke is basically right on this point. The surface will continue to warm until equilibrium is reached, but that heat will come from the oceans. As long as you account for all the heat in the Earth system, you don't have to worry about the thermal lag. Of course if you're going to take that approach, you do have to account for the entire Earth system, including the deep oceans, which Pielke tends to ignore (including in this "response" post). Taking the deep oceans into account invalidates his argument.
  22. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat, re you comment about integrative systems, the only way this would be of sigificance would be if the small rise in solar output from around 1920's to early 1950's was sufficient to drive the tropospheric temperature towards a significantly raised new equilibrium. However, in such a case the rate of temperature response would have been largest at the earliest part of the response (specially for the troposphere which responds quite quickly to forcings). That's incompatible with the empirical temperature data. In any case the solar scientists that address the earth temperature response to solar variation have determined that the early to mid 20th century increase in solar contributions are rather small. For example, this paper by Lean and Rind (2008) (solar scientists like Lockwood and Frolich) is an accessible account and also describes the earth surface response to the solar cycle which S-F "rediscovered"!
  23. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    "Similarly, weblogs such as Skeptical Science, if they want to move the debate on the climate issues forward, need to move towards a more constructive approach." A comment like this makes Pielke seem like a concern troll. He has very little of substance to say on the things we're saying, but rather is highly critical of how we're saying it. There is, in my opinion, little room for this kind of attitude. If the fake skeptics are lying to the public, we have no obligation to be polite in pointing it out.
  24. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Kerry Emanuel has some sage words in an op-ed: "Science tells us that the extent and severity of climate change faced by our children's generation will be determined by the hard choices we must make today. Political leadership is about ensuring that we adults face up to this task. We cannot afford to have those leading our nation misrepresent, or be silent about, the reality and risks of climate change." That last paragraph also applies to scientists, including Dr. Pielke. While some scientists are turning a blind eye to the risks, others (including SkepticalScience) are being pro active in this regard.
  25. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat, It would help if your criticism of the PMOD composite comes from a reputable source (aka peer-reviewed science). For a very thorough discussion of the ACRIM/PMOD/(IRMB) composites and the justification for using PMOD see Lockwood 2010 Not sure what you're trying to say. The data in S-F Fig. 2 is a straightforward confirmation that solar variation can have had little contribution to the secular warming trend that is especially apparent since the 1970's. That's due to the massive enhancement of greenouse gas concentrations. Can't see your basis for suggesting that might be due to "natural greenhouse gases". That seems very odd indeed! What do you mean by that? If you're saying that the solar cycle variation induces a tropospheric temperature response I doubt anyone would disagree. That's well established, but rather irrelevant both to mid 20th century to contemporary global warming, and to the possible contribution from cosmic rays. It's simply not possible from S-F Fig 2 to seperate the contributions from solar irradiance (which we know categorically has an effect on temperature) and from cosmic rays. They have essentially the same (antiphase) profile with respect to the solar cycle. So S-F confirm that solar contributions (TSI, CRF, open solar flux, sunspot number) has had an insignificant contribution to the recent and contemporary secular (greenhouse gas forced v. likely) temperature trend, and that solar variability through the solar cycle has an effect on tropospheric temperature. Nothing controversial about that at all, and it's certainly not in conflict whatsoever with Lockwood-Frolich. S-F clearly misunderstood the Lockwood-Frolich paper and produced a rather redundant and unpublishable web report.
  26. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    >In other words the cumulative warming has nothing to do with changes in solar outputs which have been broadly trendless (trending in a cooling direction since the mid 1980's) This statement is nonsense. In integrative systems, it is the area under the stimulus curve that counts, not the trend. And in non-linear systems, even symmetrical inputs can give rise to trending outputs.
  27. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Well, you can't expect such characters to objectively re-evaluate the actual quality of their work. They are perfectly aware of what the truth actually is, they just have a desperate need to hide from it. Trying to discuss rationally with them as if they can be convinced of anything is futile. The important thing from a scientific standpoint is simply to continue being right, and equally important is to make sure everyone is concretely aware of the exact position of the scientific consensus and where those representing political interests are wrong. Eventually there will come a point where general public hits the tipping point of overwhelming acknowledgement, and the next manipulation from the denialists will be attempts to distort the public's memory of what the science had been saying all along. I imagine there is a degree to which I must be preaching to the choir.
  28. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    WRT Dr. Pielke's most recent post, he says: Skeptical Science writes "A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points." However, there is NO delayed warming when we measure in units of heat (Joules). A measurement of the heat in the oceans at two different time periods tells us what heating has occurred over this interval... This is appallingly wrong. A measurement of ocean temperatures tells us only the current temperatures, whereas the 'delayed warming' describes the warming that will continue to occur until the forcing imbalances are cancelled out. This is warming that we are committed to by the forcing changes such as GHG increases. This is a completely bogus statement on Dr. Pielke's part. He should know better, and I'm saddened to see someone of his stature producing it.
  29. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Rob @23, I agree. Look for a very long time now, those who are concerned about AGW have given "skeptics" a lot of leeway, too much leeway. Well, you can only turn the other cheek so many times. This is an important issue, so "skeptics" can no longer expect to cherry-pick, distort, and misrepresent the science at will. And their apologists can expect to be criticized for doing so. I will concede that the names of the series in question are "cheeky", but they were intended to be catchy. Predictably, Pielke is hiding behind that as a weak excuse to dismiss the severity of the misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy; but him doing so does not change the fact that Spencer and Christy are in the habit of misinforming and spreading doubt and confusion. Would Pielke prefer if we were more direct by saying Christy's half truths" or "Christy's misinformation"? That would be a very accurate description of the statements that are discussed in the series. So Dr. Pielke can save us his indignance, especially in light of the disparaging remarks that he has made against his colleagues and his clear double standard.
  30. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I would suggest that Dr Pielke perform a little experiment. Read a dozen or so articles from WUWT and rate them for inflammatory tone. Then read the same number of articles on SkS and rate them for inflammatory tone. After that go check the website stats for each of these websites. From this information please tell us which side of the debate needs to cool their heels.
  31. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Your second point does not address the ocean temperature correlation presented in the paper. As to 3, in what universe is a .47 correlation "dismal". One need only observe the fit to refute your disparagement. And de-trending data prior to correlation analysis is standard practice, especially when one is trying to separate stimulus from response in non-linear systems with memory. In such systems, the variance is often rectified and when integrated, the resulting ramp will always de-correlate the system's dynamic response. The authors address this issue: As for the upward linear trend removed from Fig. 2 (lower), it is customary to attribute to greenhouse gases any increase in global temperatures not due to solar changes. While that is reasonable, one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. In other words, whatever the source of the trend, it is safe to assume it is a response to a forcing. If all of the forcing stimuli can be accounted for through regression, how is it possible to attribute the trend to some other stimulus?

    Perhaps you could elaborate on your final point and respond to the criticism of the PMOD data used by Lockwood/Frolich. To the untrained observer, it is non-obvious where the charge of poor science should land.

  32. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr Pielke states in his response... "Skeptical Science would do more of a service to the science community if they accurately presented their (and my viewpoints), even when they disagree, rather than disparage those who disagree with them." My jaw is agape at the sheer audacity of this statement. Has Pielke never read Spencer's blog? Anthony Watts blog? Goddard's blog? McIntyre's blog? Dare I say, JoNova's blog? Dr Pielke seems to be completely and utterly oblivious of the tone that has been set by the climate deniers in this public debate. Literally, this is like saying we should stop shooting real bullets at the planes that are carpet bombing the place.
  33. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat#33: "Unless the data and/or analysis can be challenged" Done and done; see the prior intermediate and advanced rebuttals It's cosmic rays.
  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    A truly astounding response by Dr. Pielke Sr.. Dr. Pielke - Your first article, Scientific Robustness Of The University Of Alabama At Huntsville MSU Data, inaccurately accused the SkS site of attacking the MSU data, and of ad hominem attacks against Spencer and Christy. The MSU data is valued by every poster and presentation here that I've seen, and you really really need to look up the definition of ad hominem - the articles here address the science (and science failures, and misrepresentations before Congress and the press) presented by Spencer and Christy, not personal attacks. After you have refreshed yourself on that definition of ad hominem, I suggest you take a critical look at Roy Spencer's blog, including his consistent ad hominem statements about the IPCC and motivations thereof. You then follow up with My Response To The Skeptical Science Post “One-Sided ‘Skepticism” a Gish Gallop of nonsense attacking this thread without ever addressing a single point made in the article. I hope you have some idea of just how poor a light you are currently painting yourself with...
  35. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    first off jpat, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's (S-F)web report isn't "published" at all. It's a report posted on the web. Secondly the data in Figure 2 has nothing in particular to say about the relationship between global temperature variation and cosmix ray flux (CRF). Since the CRF marches pretty much in (antiphase) step with the solar irradiance (TSI), any apparent correlation between tropospheric temperature is likely simply to be due to the TSI variation which is known to affect tropospheric temperature. Thirdly the correlation is pretty dismal anyway -0.47. Fourthly the apparent correlation only works when the actual seculr warming trend has been removed! In other words the cumulative warming has nothing to do with changes in solar outputs which have been broadly trendless (trending in a cooling direction since the mid 1980's) as Lockwood and Frolich have described pretty categorically. Fifthly, S-F's "response" to Lockwood/Frolich is based on a completely misguided interpretation of Lockwood/Frolich as is apparent from reading S-F's first paragraph. It's poor science, and would never have passsed peer review if an attempt had been made to publish it.
  36. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke responded very quickly to Dana's post, yet he doesn't seem to be able to find time to answer a very simple question originally posed to him: "Do you or do you not approve of John Christy's misleading testimony to US Congress, including his assertion that predictions of global cooling in the 1970s were the same as predictions of global warming today?" Waiting. Alas, so far all we have is this.
  37. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    dana1981 - your comment presumes the climatic system exhibits time invariance, which would be quite surprising given that high-order, non-linear systems generally are not TE. As I said, the correlation is quite convincing. Unless the data and/or analysis can be challenged, the proof would seem to be in the pudding, as they say.
  38. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat - your link doesn't work, but considering that CR flux on Earth hasn't increased in the past 60 years, somehow I doubt the accuracy of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's purported correlation.
  39. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Fixed link to the paper referenced above. Sorry for the slip.
  40. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Oh dear, after reading Pielke Sr's "response" SkS may have a whole bunch more 'skeptic' myths to dispel. For example, his claim that: "There has not been warming significantly, if at all, since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree." Not relevant and it depends which metric you are using and if it is OHC how much of the data one uses (does one use all the argo data or does one use the top X metres that gives the desired lack of warming?) But Dr. Pielke, you also say on your blog, in response to Santer et al. (2011) that: "There has been NO long-term trend since the large El Nino in 1998. That’s 13 years." We'll ignore the blatant cherry picking of 1998 for now, but it does raise an interesting question. Dr. Pielke did the warming cease in 1998 or 2003? You cherry-picking 2003, also seems to fly in the face of this statement made by you on your blog: "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.”" Why then select a statistically meaningless short window of time?
  41. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    @ CBDunkerson - At times it certainly could be 95%. - Water vapor varies by 3 orders of magnitude... http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/AtmosphereCompIV.pdf ... and a major defect in the CO2 models is that they assume it is constant. - It is also different in concentration [and behavior with light] at different altitudes in addition to varying between humid and desert areas near the surface. - Plus it's been going up right along with CO2. The CO2 models I've dug into all assume cloud configurations that are 10 to 40 years old. - With a ~10 day Residence Time it not only varies greatly it varies quickly -and- it also moves a great deal of heat around with it when it moves. - Assuming a huge and rapidly changing factor [one that varies by 3 orders of magnitude] as a constant is a lapse of reasonable thought. - There isn't gong to be a good climate model until water vapor is properly accounted for. .
  42. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    A balance discussion of this topic should include the work of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, the challenge of Lockwood and Fröhlich and especially their reply. Fig 2 shows a convincing correlation between global mean tropospheric temperatures and CR data when the data is properly adjusted for known forcings. Any comments/refutations of these published results?
  43. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    It will be very interesting to see what Joe Romm and crew have to say about this brouhaha.
  44. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, Let me remind you what you wrote: "As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data....The ad hominem presentations on this subject [i.e.., the UAH data] include those from the weblog Skeptical Science who have sections titled Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups" That statement by you was wrong-- you were clearly trying to implicate SkS in some strongly worded recent critique of the UAH product and its developers (which reminds me, you seem to have a very selective memory as to how that all unfolded), and you would have known that it was wrong of you to state we were implicated had you read the series. It is unfortunate that you cannot concede error on your part. Equally unfortunateis that you elect to turn a blind eye to the repeated misinformation and half-truths propagated by Watts, Spencer and Christy and others. Yes, Spencer and Christy undertook some novel work with the MSU data, but that does not mean they now get free pass to continually berate their colleagues, misinform, float conspiracy theories, politicize science, confuse and mislead the US Congress. Or do you disagree? Again, you were wrongly trying to implicate SkS in some strongly worded critique of the UAH product, and your "arguments" to the contrary on your blog do not hold up. We have of course discussed the UAH product here at SkS, why wouldn't we for goodness' sakes? In fact, it is stated at SkS that: "The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely. Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space." In both Spencer's and Christy's bios shown at the beginning of the series, we mention that they received an award from NASA for their work with the MSU data. But by all means please do continue to choose to think what you wish to.
  45. Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
    The most disgraceful aspect is the cherrypicked starting date in 1998, which Pielke knows was a huge El Nino year. But yes, Santer et al. used both RSS and UAH data.
  46. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    pirate, I think you should be putting a lot more energy into advancing our discussion before you teach too much one way or the other about climate science to your students. Based on where we are so far in the discussion, I know that you have huge gaps and misunderstandings about the science. It would be best if we filled those gaps and corrected the misunderstandings as soon as possible. One of the hardest things to do with a student is to un-teach something once they've learned it. Their misconceptions then go on to poison everything they attempt to learn afterwards.
  47. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Of SkS he says it "is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science". Should we learn from him, with a rapidly spiralling credibility? But don't worry, maybe he'll recover, just like arctic sea ice after 2007.
  48. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Pielke Sr.'s response sure does beg a lot of questions.
  49. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    True Albatross, Pielke's "response" has just confirmed the basis of this post. I've updated the update to note this.
  50. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dana, I thought that, in a way, Pielke Sr's "response" rather enforces your points. Re "comprehension", I think that he may be seeing/reading what he wishes to see/read. I encourage, no urge, Dr. Pielke to defend his accusations and statements here at SkS.

Prev  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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