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  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  Next

Comments 75601 to 75650:

  1. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    45, Camburn, I did not watch Dr. North's presentation because the streaming method used did not make it easy to fast forward past Dr. Lindzen, and I really didn't have the time. Honestly, one can absorb 1000 times as much in 1/10th the time through reading. I see little point for such kindergarten level show-piece presentations. I'll take your word for it on what it contains. Suffice it to say that (a) it's a waste of my time in general and (b) if Dr. Lindzen was in any way involved then it's a waste of everyone's time, and a just a chance for people to get even more confused. As much as the denial crowd wants to frame it as such, this is not a "debate." It's not about opinions and beliefs, and Dr. Lindzen's position is laughable. If he or Spencer or anyone else really had a way to prove their case, they'd have done a substantially better job by now. They haven't. The fact that Lindzen takes so readily to the talk show circuit and high-visibility op-ed pieces instead of real science all by itself speaks volumes.
  2. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Sphaerica@43: Didn't you listen to Dr. North's presentation as well? actually thoughtful: I commend you if you were able to listen to Hannity, or Rush, or Levin. I have tried, but I find no entertainment value in those folks. I have made it through 10 mins, and just couldn't stand it any longer. They whine and whine, yet present no alternative solution. If I want to hear whining, I can listen to a two year old to get my fill of that. Dr. North is almost a polar opposite of Dr. Lindzen. Apparantly most folks didn't listen/observe his presentation, nor the discussion period at the end. As far as vacations....I don't care how many President Obama takes. In fact, his current economic policy is so flawed that I wish he would take a longer one. All I can say about President Bush, is that he didn't take enough of them either. Not good for the USA to have two somewhat dim presidents in a row who never saw someone elses dollar that they didn't want to spend.
    Response:

    [DB] American politics are now OT on this thread.  Please, no more.

  3. actually thoughtful at 11:13 AM on 6 September 2011
    Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Indeed Camburn, just as you watch what you put in your body for your own health, it is important to watch what you put in your own mind for your mental health. I spend a fair portion of my day listening to right wing talk radio. As an educated and thoughtful person, I thought myself immune to their tactics. I can usually debunk a statement made by Hannity, El Rushbo or Mark Levin literally before they are done uttering it. However, I had no hard data on time spent on vacations, and the recent talk has been about Obama's excessive vacations, and time on the golf course, etc. So I assumed Obama must be roughly equal to Bush (who got an earful for not working enough). Well, I had an opportunity to check the facts and it turns out that Bush had taken THREE times as many vacation days in the same period of time! 3 TIMES! http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/08/18/cbs-comes-obama-s-defense-vacation-time-after-they-cue-him-prognosticat So when you choose to let people known to twist the facts (like Spencer at this point (see Sphaerica@43)) into your mental diet - it is incumbent upon you to be extra, excessively vigilant, or else end up spouting half truths (see Camburn@37). Now that those who actively reject science own the main stream media (Fox news is the most watched, therefore the most main stream media we have in the US (and Murdoch is big in at least Australia and Great Britain as well) - we all must be very, very careful, as the mental diet being forced down our "throat" is indeed not healthy.
  4. On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    An interesting little article. Illustrative of the scientific mindset, too! The first question that popped into my mind, though, was this: What caused that tunnel through the iceberg? I'm guessing one of two things - a vertical meltwater channel (is 'moulin' the right word?), or something carved by wind & wave action since the berg calved from the glacier.
  5. On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    My first up close experience with bergs brought a similar mystery. A berg with beautiful grooves in it. Almost like they were made with a giant rake with a thousand teeth. The local iceberg expert explained it to me at the time but darn if I have not forgotten the exact reasons. Something to do with currents. Here it is: http://mactardis.com/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=18708 I may not know exactly the cause of this but my first thought is not to chalk it up to magic or a higher power but to ask how it happens. We live in a country where far too many find it much more comforting to invoke the magic.
    Response:

    [DB] Embedded picture.  You can even see the seabirds flying in the foreground.

  6. actually thoughtful at 10:39 AM on 6 September 2011
    On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    I can't help but wonder how efficient that lawn mower is. I am hazy on the reasons, but two stroke engines are less efficient. One presumes a riding mower would be 4 stroke, but it isn't clear. I think, too, the above comment shines a light on the fundamental difference between science oriented and denial oriented minds. The science oriented questions everything. I admit the first thing I thought of was the climate impact of the mower - not in a gotcha, but just where my mind goes. Everything is on the table, and grey exists. I think for many "skeptics", the same observation would be in gotcha mode, as in "why should we listen to you - you use a polluting, gas powered device to mow your lawn" - as is endlessly done to Al Gore and Dr. Mann, Dr. Jones, etc. Kind of hashing my point here - it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between skepticism (question everything, by nature) and the blind ideologue approach I see in US politics (on the right in particular (indeed it has become a distinguishing feature between the left and the right) that questions anything that doesn't support the current talking points, but gives the rest of reality a pass.
  7. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    41, Camburn, I do not consider Lindzen to be eminent in climate science. When you do so you are attempting an appeal to authority, but in this case competence does not equate to trustworthy. Actual eminence would require that he publish something that contributes in a notable way to the science. He has a long publication record, primarily focused on either minor details, or else magic bullet papers that attempt to overturn the field in one fell swoop, and then are roundly and embarrassingly refuted by his peers. That does not, to me, qualify as eminent. When he stands up and uses his "authority" to spout drivel, he does not actually talk in a balanced and informative way about the science but instead acts like a debater being very careful to offer only those details that would lead you to a particular desired and incorrect conclusion. He has shot himself in the foot with his credibility with his op-ed pieces and flat out lies. I've seen them for myself, to the point that I do not trust a word that the man says. That you find him credible speaks to your lack of skepticism.
    • Politically oriented commentaries that do nothing to advance science, and in many cases actively work to undermine it:
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2008) An Exchange on Climate Science and Alarm. In Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006.
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2006) There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Debunking the Myth. Business Today, 43, 66-67.
      • Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen (2006) The Stern Review: A Dual Critique, Part I: The Science, World Economics, 7, 167-198.
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2008) Climate science: is it designed to answer questions. arXiv:0809.3762, available as pdf file on www.arxiv.org, Physics and Society.
  8. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Nice new piece of evidence showing nights warming faster than days and DTR decreasing. Thirty years of hourly temperature data at Mauna Loa makes this detailed analysis possible - and hard to question. -- source (tamino analysis of new paper) Link to paper: Malamud et al 2011 Small world: one of the co-authors (Turcotte) was a geophysics prof when I was in grad school.
  9. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thanks Mark. The impacts are still being researched but I think I can summarise the whole biological field as saying that: As with any rapid and large envionmental change there will be some winners and many losers. Yes, we have plans to return after a decent break with more. Yes, it is seldom talked about. It may not have been obvious but most of the posts were written to rebut the "science" behind a particular denialist meme without actually detailing that meme. (Something of a turnaround from usualy SkS approach). Denialist memes are like viruses (I know PZ Meyers will have at me for mixing evolutionary metaphors) and change their packaging slightly each time. Our science foundation approach should neutralise them all. Given this rationale, we will be focussing on observations more than projections.
  10. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Then again, maybe Hearlek is right. Salby may publish something very different after having the science of the presentation demolished in an unusually public (for him) way. To add to what Dikran said, if Salby has discovered any of these conditions, he should only submit to Nature or Science, as those discoveries would take many disciplines by surprise. I doubt if he has, though, because if he had, he would already have shared the information with his fellow climate scientists. He wouldn't wait for final publication. One wonders where Salby turned for feedback before he went public with the presentation.
  11. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Great resource. Thank you.
  12. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Kudos on a job well done!
  13. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Sphaerica#5: Extremes? Nah, its the new normal. From Jeff Masters, 5 Sept: "I do not believe I have ever seen a site with a long period of record, like Shreveport, where records go back to 1874, break its warmest single month on record by an astonishing 3°. This is unheard of. Usually when a site breaks its single month temperature record, we are talking about tenths of a degree, rarely a whole degree, let alone 3 degrees!" There seems to be a wall shutting moisture out: And that is 'just' a tropical storm.
  14. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    And remember, I am always harping about the error bars and that they must be taken into account when stateing anything relevent. When I read a paper, I want to see those error bars, digest the ramifications of those error bars and go from there in my decission as to the validty of the conclusion.
  15. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Sphaerica: From the awards, the tenure of both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North, to say they are saying nonsense rather than being factual is quit a statement. Both are emminent if the climate science field. Dr. Lindzen thinks the senseativity is low, while Dr. North thinks it is higher. Think what you like, but these are two experts in the field, who present some of what is known and some of what is not known.
  16. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    However, the fact is that Huntsman is barely registering in most polls, and the leading candidates in the Republican party are successful in part precisely because they are voicing an opinion that runs counter to expertise. For many in the US, expertise has taken on a negative cultural value; experts are part of an elite that thinks it knows better than the average citizen. (This is accurate, for what it's worth.) Very few object to that sort of expertise when it comes time to, say, put the space shuttle into orbit, but expertise can become a problem when the experts have reached a consensus that runs against cultural values. And, for many in our society, scientific expertise has done just that. Abstinence-only sex education has been largely ineffective. Carbon emissions are creating a risk of climate change. Humanity originated via an evolutionary process. All of these findings have threatened various aspects of people's cultural identity. By rejecting both the science and the expertise behind it, candidates can essentially send a signal that says, "I'm one of you, and I'm with you where it counts." Source: ” Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy (and why it scares me)" by John Timmer, ars technica, Sep 4, 2011
  17. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    And yet at the same time (note the area of extreme lack of precipitation in the southern USA in the map above) CNN has this to say about the fires in Texas:
    Texas is battling its worst fire season in state history. A record 3.5 million acres have burned since the start of the season in November.
    More extreme whether. But I'm sure the two aren't related at all to climate change. No sir. That would be alarmist.
  18. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Seems like some duplication from the prior 'pothole' thread. Any way to combine the two so as not to lose the existing comments there? But it looks like some folks were predicting heavier rain and more snow back in 2006. Some scientists predict severe weather events will be even more extreme over the next few decades -- more snow, harder rain, and hotter heat waves. ... Computer models based on nine different countries' climate data indicate every country will be hit with climate change throughout this century. Computer models got it right? Astounding. Oh bad news, the quote is 'every country;' the 'skeptics' will be sure to point to Lichtenstein or Brunei or some equally tiny spot as proof this prediction was 'wrong.'
  19. Pete Dunkelberg at 01:30 AM on 6 September 2011
    Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    How many places received excessive precipitation? Check Colorado Bob's list. Rain isn't everything. Snow is precipitation too.
  20. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    @Badgersouth. Red=warmer, blue=colder; or am I being too logical?
  21. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Color code needed for the twin globe insert of first graphic.
    Response:

    [DB] Color scale added from the JPL website.

  22. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Color code needed for the twin globe insert of first graphic.
    Response:

    [DB] Color scale added from the JPL website.

  23. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    37, Camburn, I'm sorry, but I think the presentations are nonsense (although they were too long and boring to watch all the way through). As you say they are in a very calm and gentlemanly way distorting the facts and trying to focus entirely on every ounce of doubt they can generate. That is not presenting the science, as you imply, that is an unbalanced effort that ignores the vast majority information we have available to instead focus on every trivial complication they can think of to exaggerate the level of doubt. If you listen to such nonsense instead of reading everything you can then you are getting a fragment of the picture and you are going to make incorrect judgments. I could put together very similar and gentlemanly presentations arguing that man should never have developed airplanes or tried to cure diseases or improve agriculture. Such presentations would deserve the same amount of attention as the one to which you have linked.
  24. SkS Weekly Digest #14
    @Bern #1: Thanks for the positive feedback. Suggestions for improving the Weekly Digest are most welcome.
  25. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    103, hearlek,
    It might be worth waiting until you can see whats in the envelope before you comment.
    It might be worth it if "skeptical" climate scientists like Salby and Spencer engaged in science instead of grandstanding and PR. If they are going to engage in the latter, however, they are going to be soundly debunked at every turn where their presentations are a flawed. Flawed presentations will yield corrections and derision. Flawed papers will yield (as in the case of Spencer and Lindzen) correcting papers. Each response will be fairly quick, as is appropriate to each transgression. To imply that Salby's foolish presentation should be allowed to stand uncontested because he did so before releasing his paper is absurd.
  26. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    14, enSKog, The surface waters that you are talking about mixing (which doesn't really occur much, instead an area of warm/cold water displaces or overlays an area of cold/warm water, exposing more of one or the other -- look more into the mechanics behind ENSO events here and here and here, among other places) pertain to only the upper tens of meters of water, in an ocean that can be kilometers deep in some places, I think you can see that any such expansion is trivial. As little mixing is actually occurring and it is only in the uppermost fraction of the ocean any expansion/contraction that might occur is trivial. Over long time frames, thermal expansion and ice melt are raising ocean levels. As explained in the post, over shorter time frames the (very) temporary movement of water from the ocean to land can result in a marked drop in sea level.
  27. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    It might be worth waiting until you can see whats in the envelope before you comment.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Unless there is evidence that the carbon cycle is not essentially closed and large amounts of CO2 are dissapearing from the atmosphere without being taken up by the natural environment, Salby's conclusion in incorrect. Salby's paper is not the first along these lines, and sadly I suspect it won't be the last. The probability that Salby is as wrong as his predecessors is substantially greater than the probability that he has a proof that the carbon cycle is not a closed system.
  28. Pete Dunkelberg at 21:50 PM on 5 September 2011
    NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    How many places had excessive rain? Ask Colorado Bob. You do recall Benin and Togo being under water don't you? Recall too that excessive precipitation is not always rain. Hint: winter.
  29. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thanks Doug for a wonderful, comprehensive summary of the complex chemistry here (well complex to me at least - I'm just a poor physicist). Now, it may be beyond the scope of what you set out to do but are there any plans to explore further implications, particularly the biological and food chain impacts, of what the projected range of increased acidification might produce? I have heard it said many times that OA is the "sleeping gorilla" of fossil fuel based CO2 emissions and that, in some ways, it is more worrying than increased average temperatures and the associated weather pattern changes. It is certainly seldom taked about in the press. Would welcome any comments from you or the moderators.
  30. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Great post Sarah. I must admit this particular skeptical argument does my head in. The most extreme possible example must be that of atomic weapons. It is estimated that no more than 1000 milligrams of matter was converted to energy during the detonation of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. That is, even by my most conservative rough estimate, no more than 0.0000000004ppm of the combined weight of land and buildings destroyed by the blast.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] According to Wikipedia Little Boy (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) weighed 4,400 kg, of which 64 kg was uranium, less than 1kg of which underwent nuclear fission, of which 600 mg was transformed into energy, which if I have calculated correctly is about 100 ppb of the mass of the bomb alone.
  31. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Given that mixing warm water (SST about 25C) with cold (deep ocean about 5C) leads to a decrease in volume, could anyone comment on the idea that La Nina events cause increased mixing? There would also, of course, be a link to energy budgets and OHC.
  32. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    A sign of an accelerating hydrological cycle, but with a twist?
  33. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    North Dakota fracking blowout - Killdeer ND, sept 2010 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/03/denbury-leak-idUKN0324715520100903 It's a desperate job rush in the Bakken where many of America's newly unemployed scrabble for any work at all. Not a pretty sight. From the AP with pix.
  34. SkS Weekly Digest #14
    "NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas" is listed both in the "Week in Review" and "Coming Soon" sections... Lots of good content, and I like the 'toon. :-D
    Moderator Response: Correction made. Thank you. Badgersouth
  35. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    It's pretty clear from Figure 1A that there is an inferred linear feedback relationship from rising temperature to TOA radiation, or positive cloud feedback. That the support is weak is obvious from the diagram, but that weak support collapses into nothing as soon as one considers the internal forcing of ENSO on clouds. One mechanism, suggested by "Chief Hydrologist" at Judy Curry's site was sulfides. A quick look shows that to be a forcing but both anthropogenic and natural. The natural papers seem to be old. The anthro papers seem to be modern such as "Nonlinear Aspects of the Climate Response to Greenhouse Gas and Aerosol Forcing" by Feichter and Roeckner. Regardless of origin, they are both forcings that at the very least add noise to that scatterplot if not some sort of bias. The paper also points out that the aerosol-temperature feedback is very nonlinear. There appear to be papers that simultaneously support and counter Dessler's conclusions, such as ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/papers/2007/Zhu-etal-LowCldClimSens-JGR-2007.pdf That paper shows a negative correlation of clouds to SST (bottom of Fig 1), but also shows that other ENSO effects such as changes in circulation patterns have an even bigger effect on clouds than SST ((see top row in Fig 12).
  36. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Eric#34: "Jonathon does not have "confirmation bias" since he did not read the paper (never mind the critiques), That's about the best example of bias imaginable - to have confirmed a pre-conceived opinion without even reading the paper! "just ignorance." Watch the ad homs! "I believe S&B11 is "correct" as far as the data goes, but the data cannot be used to draw any conclusions" How can an author be 'correct' if they use data in a manner for which it is not intended? Isn't that a bit like trying to measure your height with a thermometer? "what Spencer says on his blog is quite different from that or the paper." This practice is destructive to good science. Write a questionable paper, then say whatever you want about it in a forum that you regulate. The echo chamber picks it up and repeats it; soon it is accepted as 'true.' A prime example of garbage in, garbage out.
  37. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Jonathan@26: Wagner was upset enough that he sent an appology to Dr. Trenbeth. Something just doesn't add up in all of this. I hope it blows over quickly.
  38. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Eric@34: I caught up reading the comments. S&B was not a good paper either. The only good to come out of S&B is the seeming acceptance of satillite measurements as being accurate as I have not read a criticism of them anywhere. I just got done listening to a video of a presentation at Rice University. I am going to post the link, I don't know if it is applicable to this thread, part of it is. It deals with a host of climate issues. Presentation by Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North @ Rice I hope the link will stand as it is a very candid, gentlemanly presentation by two climate scientists.
  39. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Thanks Camburn. My view hasn't changed much from that old thread and I'll comment on that there.
  40. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Eric@34: Yes, I read Dessler's 2010 paper. I found numerous questions concerning his conclusions. It has been awhile since I read it, but I just remember that nothing conclusive at all could be derived from it.
  41. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Jonathon does not have "confirmation bias" since he did not read the paper (never mind the critiques), just ignorance. Camburn, have you read the paper and Dessler's? I believe S&B11 is "correct" as far as the data goes, but the data cannot be used to draw any conclusions about long term (or short term) sensitivity. I critiqued Dessler 2010 for somewhat similar reasons on a thread last December http://www.skepticalscience.com/an-even-cloudier-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html although I started with the wrong model and a few other mistakes. I though that "Chief Hydrologist" summed the situation up pretty well on Judy Curry's site:"Dessler 2010 assumed that cloud changes were a feedback to ENSO related temperature changes – and calculated a global warming cloud feedback . Spencer and Braswell found using lagged relationships that the ENSO cloud radiative forcing came before the temperature change – and therefore there was little scope to calculate cloud feedback as it was not possible to distinguish AGW cloud feedback from natural ‘unforced’ variability. Changes in cloud are an ENSO feedback involving changes in ocean/atmosphere coupling and likely to respond, as well, to changes in dimethyl sulphide emissions from phytoplankton." However, what Spencer says on his blog is quite different from that or the paper. He makes the claim I quoted above starting with "Now, if we assume...". That claim is unsupportable.
  42. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Sphaerica a question. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html 1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance 3rd paragraph "Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2. Foukal et al. (1977) deduced from Abbot’s daily observations that higher values of TSI were associated with more solar faculae (e.g., Abbot, 1910)." How did they measure this ?
    Response:

    [DB] "How did they measure this ?"

    Please read the links given in the IPCC chapter you refer to.  And at least try to be on-topic here.  You were previously given advice on using the Search function to find better threads for this type of discussion and advice to read first and then ask questions: try to follow that sage advice. 

    Further off-topic comments will be deleted.

  43. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco, Enough. Go study, then come back.
  44. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Jonathan @ 10 - you have that back-to-front. More heat is buried in the oceans during La Nina, whereas during El Nino ocean heat is released to the atmosphere, which warms the surface and atmosphere. Although the exchange of huge volumes of water between the continents and ocean has long been suspected as the principal cause of sea level fluctuations due to La Nina & El Nino, it's only very recently that we have had the means to actually measure this.
  45. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    82, Rosco,
    There is an enormous difference that cannot be explained by a "constant irradiation" model.
    How the heck do you get to this conclusion? Please rephrase it more accurately as follows: There is an enormous difference that cannot be explained by Rosco's horribly insufficient understanding of radiative physics.
  46. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Camburn The problem is that Spencer did not even acknowledge that there were preexisting criticisms that had to be addressed. They knew those criticisms existed, and did nothing to address them. That is in fact bad scholarship, and bad faith. If we act as if prior criticisms do not exist, there is no way forward in science. We will all be caught in infinite loops of self-evidence. The fact that the reviewers did not represent a balanced cross section is another problem. Even as an associate editor I take pains to make sure to get a such a cross section for papers that are far less controversial. How did that not happen in this case? Who knows, but it is a real problem. I would argue that the way that Spencer and others then exagerrated the findings in the non-peer reviewed press put the journal in a bad position. Spencer et al could care less about the implications of these distortions for the Journal, but the journal for certain cares. I'm pretty sure Wagner felt he'd been hood-winked and decided that the only effective action to undo the damage was the one he took.
  47. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco, I would like to suggest a paper for you to read. I think it might help you understand what so many in this thread have been trying to communicate you. Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34.
    Response:

    [DB] An open-pdf can be found here:

    http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/unskilledandunaware.pdf

  48. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Jonathan, Camburn, Your confirmation bias in this situation is absolutely astounding. It speaks volumes that you (and Pielke and Spencer) can twist, reframe and exaggerate a situation like this to your liking. Just amazing.
  49. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Jonathan @ #10, my understanding is that El Nino / La Nina is expressed as warming / cooling of surface waters. While this may have some effect on SLR, it's not going to be great, compared to deep ocean warming. On the other hand, keithpickering's numbers at #8 (thanks for that, Keith!) suggest that better than 80% of the change in observed SL is due to the simple movement of water from ocean to land surface, thanks to La Nina (and that same movement helps to suppress temperatures, due to cloud cover & evaporative cooling). IMHO, it's not that we're reading too much into it - we just like looking for explanations. Thus why we're all reading this site! :-D
  50. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    muoncounter - the 51 % was after albedo of ~30% and atmospheric absorbtion of ~19 %. Please read this from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html 1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance 3rd paragraph "Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2. Foukal et al. (1977) deduced from Abbot’s daily observations that higher values of TSI were associated with more solar faculae (e.g., Abbot, 1910)." the solar insolation is certainly a vector quantity This link shows ~51 % solar irradiance reaches Earth. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html

Prev  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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