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  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  Next

Comments 83401 to 83450:

  1. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    An interesting article which reveals the conservatism of the Climate Commission, particularly in relation to predicted SLR of 0.4m by 2050 and 1m by 2100 shown at Fig 15. The Commission rightly points out that these estimates are likely to result in significant damage to buildings and infrastructure in coastal regions. As others have pointed out, one does not “adapt” to repeated flooding other than by abandoning the flooded area – but abandoning it for what, to go where? What I question – as does the Commission - is the reliability of its SLR estimates. Fig 15 suggests an almost linear rise in sea level, a view held by some climate scientists, eg. Archer but disputed by others, Hansen. SLR is related to melting of ice, particularly polar ice which in turn influenced by a number of factors such as rise in temperature of ocean water and the atmosphere. In the Arctic slow (but accelerating) methane feedback will prove important. Hansen et al 2011 expresses the view that, taking these factors into account, it can be expected that the rate of melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) can be expected to double each decade, increasing from its present level (250 Gt/year) to ~130,000 Gt/year by 2100. He argues that since the main cause of SLR is non-linear, SLR itself can not be linear and concludes that a SLR of 0.5m by 2080 will be followed by a very rapid rise of 4.5m before 2100, resulting in a 5m. rise this century, consistent with polar ice loss. Although Hansen qualifies his conclusions by stating that more data is needed to verify decadal doubling of GIS ice loss, he has been proven right on too many occasions to ignore. While one might cautiously accept the Commissions’ 2050 SLR estimate, it would seem unwise to rely on its forecast of a 1m rise by 2100. It will certainly be much higher.
  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1039) "You are tying yourself in knots making this more difficult than it needs to be. Before we move on, please answer the question posed by this simple analogy: Suppose I have two bank accounts. Now suppose you pay me $240, and I in turn spend $239 dollars, leaving $1 in bank account #2. From this information alone, can you tell me what the deposit amounts will be for each bank account? (Assumptions: I cannot create or destroy money, and nobody is paying me except you.)." I know the diagram is depicting an energy imbalance of about 1 W/m^2. This is not related to the issues of COE in the diagram that I am addressing.
  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1> is it just a coincidence the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?). No it is not, but consider my question @1039 to see why this does not support the claim you are making.
  4. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1>show me how numbers from the row of "this paper" yield a 'NET Down' of 0.9 W/m^2? Seriously, think of energy absorbed at the surface as "gross income", and energy emitted or transferred via latent heat as "gross expenditures", and the answer to this will be obvious. The first column applies to the atmosphere not to the surface and is simply shown for reference, so we won't add that in. We will also ignore "Solar reflected" as that is neither absorbed nor emitted. Our "gross income" comes from "Net solar", and "Back radiation". Our "gross expenditures" come from "LH evaporation", "SH", and "Radiation up". From here the math is easy: "net income" = "gross income" - "gross expenditures" = ("Net solar" + "Back radiation) - ("LH evaporation" + "SH" + "Radiation up") = (161.2 + 333) - (80.0 + 17 + 396) = 1.2. The .3 difference comes from measurement uncertainty. Also note that the "Net LW" field is just "Back radiation" - "Radiation up" which we already accounted for in the equation.
  5. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1040) Also, is it just a coincidence the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?).
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1040), "RW1, as e has pointed out, the correct values are listed in the paper on tables 2a and 2b under "this paper" for the TOA and surface respectively, with the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere listed with the surface values for convenience. Your apparent inability to read the paper or distinguish between TOA and surface values is not a problem with the paper." From table 2b "Surface components of the annual mean energy budget for the globe", show me how numbers from the row of "this paper" yield a 'NET Down' of 0.9 W/m^2?
  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1, Your post @1041 illustrates continued misunderstanding about how these numbers should add up. It is really much much simpler than you are making it. Since physical explanations are failing to make this clear to you, I think it might help if you thought of the diagram as illustrating the gross flow of money between three accounts: sun, atmosphere, and surface. You can start by answering my question @1039.
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Sphaerica (RE: 1037), "I've explained this to you before. You are ignoring the 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration and 17 W/m2 from thermals, or 97 W/m2 more. 396 W/m2 + 97 W/m2 = 493 out. 161 W/m2 + 333 W/m2 = (surprise) 494 in." I have not ignored the 97 W/m^2 from latent heat and thermals. It's a net zero flux at the surface. The diagram has 97 W/m^2 leaving the surface and 97 W/m^2 coming back as part of the 333 W/m^2 designated as 'back radiation' as explain in my post # 1038. Subtract 97 from 493 and you get a net flux of 396 W/m^2 - the amount emitted at the surface.
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1, as e has pointed out, the correct values are listed in the paper on tables 2a and 2b under "this paper" for the TOA and surface respectively, with the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere listed with the surface values for convenience. Your apparent inability to read the paper or distinguish between TOA and surface values is not a problem with the paper. If you read my 1025 (sections (3b) and (4) I clearly do include atmospheric absorbed solar radiation, thermals and evapo/transpiration as sources of energy which is later reradiated to the surface as back radiation. Further, I included them as specific terms in the slab atmosphere model I mention in my section (4). Your insistence on attributing to me a view that would involve non-conservation of energy despite the evidence to the contrary is again your problem, not mine. Frankly your claim that, "the surface cannot be receiving a net energy flux above 396 W/m^2 in the steady-state" makes no sense. In the steady state (no change in the energy stored in the climate system), the net surface energy flux must be zero (ie, energy in - energy out = zero). Trenberth et al are claiming the climate system is not in a steady state. If your claim is about total energy flux, the downward energy flux at the surface by best estimate (excluding reflected solar, which self cancels) is 494 Watts/m^2 which almost exactly matches the net upward flux (excluding reflected solar) of 493 Watts/m^2. Your 1031 is an even more bizzare misunderstanding. Frankly your style of analysis seems to consist of taking a figure at random from what somebody writes and simply asserting a random falsehood about it, then attributing that falsehood to your opponent. I do not have the time to continuously rebut such inane ramblings. Nor should I need to as it is an obvious trolling strategy. I will not feed the troll, but request that the moderators also no longer permit you to troll this site.
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1, You are tying yourself in knots making this more difficult than it needs to be. Before we move on, please answer the question posed by this simple analogy: Suppose I have two bank accounts. Now suppose you pay me $240, and I in turn spend $239 dollars, leaving $1 in bank account #2. From this information alone, can you tell me what the deposit amounts will be for each bank account? (Assumptions: I cannot create or destroy money, and nobody is paying me except you.).
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e, Table 2b in the paper does not define 'back radiation' as the downward emitted LW from the atmosphere that last originated from surface emitted. It just defines it as "LW downward radiation to the surface". The problem is as I said in post #1027, not all of this is 'back radiation' as defined as that which last originated from surface emitted radiation. Some of it is LW 'forward radiation' from the Sun that has yet to reach the surface. What Trenberth does in the diagram is lump the 78 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere from the Sun and the 97 W/m^2 of latent heat and thermals all in the same return path of 333 W/m^2 designated as 'back radiation'. This is highly misleading and why everyone is so confused. 157 W/m^2 from surface emitted (396 - 239 = 157) + 78 W/m^2 from the Sun designated as "absorbed by the atmosphere" + 97 from latent heat and thermals = 332 W/m^2 all lumped in the return path as 'back radiation'. Trenberth has an extra watt in there for at total of 333 W/m^2 to account for the NET Down of 0.9 W/m^2.
  12. Bob Lacatena at 09:51 AM on 7 June 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1, I've explained this to you before. You are ignoring the 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration and 17 W/m2 from thermals, or 97 W/m2 more. 396 W/m2 + 97 W/m2 = 493 out. 161 W/m2 + 333 W/m2 = (surprise) 494 in. They balance. Minus, of course, the net 0.9 which is being absorbed by the planet and thus increasing its temperature. You can't just ignore the thermals and evapotranspiration/latent heat because they are not in the form of radiation. They still represent energy transfer.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e, How can the surface be receiving 161 W/m^2 from the Sun and 333 W/m^2 of 'back radiation' from the atmosphere when it's only emitting 396 W/m^2? The surface cannot be receiving more than a net flux of 396 W/m^2 unless it is warming, but we are referring to the system in the steady-state (or at least an imbalance less than 1 W/m^2).
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e, You do know that the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own, right? If, of the 396 W/m^2 emitted at the surface, 70 goes straight to space, then 326 W/m^2 is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere (396 - 70 = 326). Are you saying that this energy never leaves because there is 333 W/m^2 of 'back radiation' from the atmosphere? Where does the difference of 7 W/m^2 go? Where is the 169 W/m^2 emitted to space from the atmosphere coming from then?
  15. Bob Lacatena at 09:34 AM on 7 June 2011
    Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1,
    Even if the claim is warming causes decreasing clouds for positive feedback, how is this consistent with increasing water vapor from warming? Does increasing water vapor from warming cause decreasing clouds? That doesn’t make any sense since water vapor concentration drives cloud formation.
    Your overly simplistic model of the system completely fails. It doesn't properly consider how clouds form, it doesn't understand that clouds do not need to decrease to provide a positive feedback, it doesn't account for the many varieties, locations (in space, meaning 3 dimensions, and time) of clouds, it fails on many, many other levels. At the same time, your interpretation of Dessler 2010 is flawed. You should probably read the paper several more times before commenting on it again. My advice would be to read more on the subject, and post less. Kitchen table science may make perfect sense to a lot of people, but it's still wrong, and your analysis is kitchen table science.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1028), What do you think a NET Down of 0.9 W/m^2 means? It's showing a positive energy imbalance at the surface of 0.9 W/m^2 - meaning more energy is entering the surface from the Sun than is leaving at the TOA as OLR (239.4 - 238.5 = 0.9 W/m^2). It's quite apparent to me that few people here actually understand the data in that paper and the constraints Conservation of Energy puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA. Part of the problem is the diagram itself, which is only loosely connected to the text and details presented in the paper.
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1@1031 You are not understanding, please read carefully: TOA measurements do not distinguish between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere. They treat the entire surface/atmosphere system as a black box emitting and absorbing energy. The 239.4 W/m^2 could be absorbed by the surface or it could be absorbed by the atmosphere. The table you are looking at does not tell you how much is absorbed by each. For that you need to take a look at table 1b or 2b which treat the surface separately from the atmosphere. It shows that only about 160 W/m^2 of solar energy is absorbed by the surface. The 0.9 W/m^2 is just the difference between the energy entering the surface/atmosphere system and the amount of energy leaving. Again, it says nothing about where within the earth the energy goes.
  18. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    It's great that we're living in a global CO2 experiment so will be able to see for ourselves the results of significant increases in CO2
    Response:

    [dana1981] Lucky us?

  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1028), Furthermore, if you look at the surface components in table 2b, you see 161.2 W/m^2 of "Net Solar" and 78.2 W/m^2 of "Solar absorbed". Is it just a coincidence that 161.2 + 78.2 equals 239.4 W/m^ and this is exactly the same as the ASR at the TOA?
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    e (RE: 1028), Look at the Global data in table 2a. for the row entitled "this paper". ASR is 239.4 W/m^2, OLR is 238.5 W/m^2, NET Down is 0.9 W/m^2. Are you seriously claiming that this means that of the 239.4 W/m^2 absorbed, only 0.9 W/m^2 gets to the surface and the remainder is radiated out to space without ever reaching the surface?
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1 "Actually, the ASR and NET Down data is on the 8th page of the paper (not the 6th). " Both pages show these values, they are for different time periods. Same thing I pointed out earlier goes for tables 2a and 2b, 2a shows TOA measurements, it does not distinguish between surface and atmosphere so it is irrelevant to your claim.
  22. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1025), Actually, the ASR and NET Down data is on the 8th page of the paper (not the 6th).
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1> "Not according to the text of the paper (look on the 6th page where they give absorbed solar radiation ASR and NET down data)." If you are referring to Table 1a, those are TOA measurements, they not distinguish between energy absorbed in the atmosphere and energy absorbed at the surface. It in now way implies that energy absorbed in the atmosphere must make its way to the surface. If you are looking for measurements at the surface specifically, then you should be looking at Table 1b. "Solar down" to the surface is shown to be about 160, exactly as depicted in the diagram. In the steady-state, conservation of energy dictates that 100% of the post albedo - in this case 239 W/m^2, gets to the surface one way or another. No, it dictates that it gets either to the atmosphere or the surface.
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1025), "Most importantly, the average 333 Watts/m^2 is not only that which has been calculated using Line by Line and Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulation Models, it is the back radiation that has actually been observed. Any theory that does not predict it, in other words, is falsified by observation. Of course only greenhouse theories predict that back radiation, or at least they are the only ones that do so without violating the laws of thermodynamics. So and denier of green house theories is left to explain how there can be an average 333 Watts/m^2 back radiation given a 240 Watts/m^2 input energy from the sun, and without the absorption and reradiation of energy by green house gasses." I do not dispute there is downward emitted LW from the atmosphere significantly above the 157 W/m^2 required for the net flux of 396 W/m^2 at the surface (396-239 = 157), though obtaining an accurate global average is impossible without measuring equipment looking up all over the globe. That aside, what you don't seem to understand is that the downward emitted LW from the atmosphere has 3 potential sources. Some if it last originated from surface emitted radiation, some of it last originated from the Sun (yet to reach the surface) and some of it last originated from the kinetic energy (latent heat and thermals) moved from the surface into the atmosphere. The bottom line is that the surface cannot be receiving a net energy flux above 396 W/m^2 in the steady-state. All the energy entering and leaving at the TOA is radiative. Any net energy loss from the surface to the atmosphere from thermals (convection), for example, just offsets the amount of energy that would otherwise be need to be radiated from the surface.
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis (RE: 1025), "For RW1 convenience (and for the umpteenth time) there is no guarantee that energy absorbed by the atmosphere will make its way to the surface, and as most of it is absorbed in the stratosphere, most of it doesn't. In fact, most of it is radiated to space." Not according to the text of the paper (look on the 6th page where they give absorbed solar radiation ASR and NET down data). What you don't realize is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere that is radiated back out to space is included in the albedo of 102 W/m^2. This is why when you look at the amount of outgoing LW from satellites it tends to be about 250 W/m^2 instead of 240 W/m^2. 341 W/m^2 - 250 W/m^2 = 91 W/m^2 not the 102 W/m^2 albedo referenced. The difference of about 10 W/m^2 is the LW emitted back up out to space as part of the albedo. All the energy at and below the surface came from the Sun (excluding an infinitesimal amount from geothermal). In the steady-state, conservation of energy dictates that 100% of the post albedo - in this case 239 W/m^2, gets to the surface one way or another.
  26. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric(sk) - but what if nuclear power wasn't cheaper? To me this pushes close to the hub of the issue. It seems to me that libertarian ideals require an ideal market. But our hypothetical question (that at some point you became convinced that cost of adaption is going to exceed cost of mitigation) has the scenario where individuals choosing coal-power on price are not paying the full cost of it; the cost instead is falling to another generation. It is also exceedingly difficult to actually cost that properly. So what is acceptable way to proceed (other than sweep the problem under the carpet)? I see a similar issue for clean air. While emission controls irrelevant for country, people die without pollution control in large cities. Consider again the hypothetical, that failure to control pollution from cars kills x people a day in large cities and these deaths are unequivocally linked to the pollution. As I understand libertarian principles, the protection of individual rights (to non-lethal air for an asthmatic say) should be through courts. But how do you sue the individuals who chose engine efficiency over clean air? If there is a valid libertarian way, then it has to answer these kinds issue for credibility. The most common response I've had from our local variety on similar issues is, worryingly, denial - just like you get over climate. If the problem doesnt fit the model, then the problem cant exist.
  27. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Eric, do you mean this:
    virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.
    from introduction to AR4 synthesis
  28. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric the Red@427 Curiosity is different from casting doubt.
  29. Bob Lacatena at 07:07 AM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    427, Eric the Red, They're called La Nina's. They are a well known phenomenon. Go study it. It's interesting. It also says nothing about the warming trend, because they've been happening for as long as records have been kept, and probably for thousands and thousands, if not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, of years.
  30. Bob Lacatena at 07:01 AM on 7 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    25, Eric the Red,
    GISS's own admission...
    Why do you insist on constantly doing this. "Admission." As in confession, as in, they're doing something wrong by making the corrections, and they need to "admit" to their evil, nefarious actions. "...the raw data is suspect." Did you read the post? Do you understand why the data must be homogenized (or, perhaps to use a better term, normalized)? That doesn't make it "suspect." By dropping these little grenades of yours, with no clear explanation and without background, you are sabotaging the nature and intent of the original post, and to my eyes, you are doing it deliberately, because you feign ignorance when it is pointed out to you, and yet compound the error by reiterating your (vacant) points. And you completely dodged my question. Your posts imply that the data is suspect and therefore the world may not be warming. Is this what you intend to communicate? Is this what you are saying? Agree that this is what you are saying and openly deny that the globe is warming, or else deny that this is what you are saying, and explicitly agree that the world is warming. State it clearly and without ambiguity. What are you saying?
  31. Eric the Red at 06:55 AM on 7 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    A post on a previous site stated that likely was defined as 66%. Is this correct? If so, is very likely 90%?
  32. CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
    J. Bob"Nice graph, but you are only looking at a little over 50 years of reasonably accurate CO2 recordings. A longer record would be more helpful." Try this video, Time history of atmospheric CO2, which covers 800 Ky. Also, what dip of CO2 rates? There's some variation in the record, but no significant dip in the rate of CO2 rise.
  33. Eric the Red at 06:51 AM on 7 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    24. Sphaerica, From GISS's own admission, they make these corrections. Yes, that would imply that the raw data is suspect. This analysis is all about the requires and corrections made to U.S. monitoring stations. The rest of the world makes no such claim. Are they performing similar correction?
  34. Eric the Red at 06:44 AM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    pbjamm, I do not have an explanation, but there have been 5 such dips in the past 35 years (they show up better in the surface temperature data). I was simply curious. In the same way that I am curious as to the larger 60-year cycles. However, Spaerica seems to think that my curiosity means that I am just a denier for thinking such. Yes, the overall trend is up, but one must be careful not to measure trends that are influenced by these cycles (see the graph above).
  35. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom Curtis @ 418 OK.
  36. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric the Red @423 Do the dips occur in 7.5 year intervals? Hard to tell eyballing a graph. Assuming they do what is your explanation for it and why does it matter if the overall trend is still up?
  37. Bob Lacatena at 05:58 AM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    423, Eric the Red, This isn't the place to discuss this graph, only how you can personally (in your opinion) read something from the graph that actually isn't there, and yet with a straight face insist that it is. The trend for the thirty year period is undeniable. The trend for the selected 7.5 year period, and only that precisely selected period, is also undeniable. The intent of offering the second, in complete disregard to the first, and then actually sticking to your guns on it is, to me, also undeniable. As far as your lectures about science and skepticism, as I have repeatedly said, you demonstrate not one hint of actual skepticism, and calling daylight the darkness of night is not skepticism, it's foolishness. There is a serious and obvious line between "squelching any investigation into plausible explanations" and just plain making nonsense up to see if it somehow sticks somewhere. Scientists do not need to respectfully consider every ounce of drivel that deniers can think of in order to do their job properly. Quite to the contrary, they are wasting far too much time on denial nonsense when we have very, very important things to be researching and considering. By the way, the backhanded comment implying that deniers keep science from getting complacent is patently absurd. Science does just fine without worrying about Eric the Red's insightful 7.5 year cooling trend.
  38. Bob Lacatena at 05:51 AM on 7 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    23, Eric the Red, From your comment #7
    ...accurate corrections need be applied to remove this effect.
    1st implication = the temperature record is suspect 2nd implication = if the record is suspect, then logically maybe there is no warming. Many, many people will draw those (invalid) conclusions from your statement. From your comment #16:
    Now, if we can just get the rest of the world to follow suit ...
    Same implications and ultimate effect. That this is done by implication instead of direct statement escapes no one. It also directly contradicts the content of the original post, which is supported by a wide variety of evidence and logic, while your little grenades (to me) serve to subtly and inadequately attempt to refute the original post. Am I mistaken? Would you like to clarify what you actually meant to communicate?
  39. Eric the Red at 05:35 AM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    And yet Sphaerica, I suppose you will be the first to deny the actual graph. Are you not the leats bit curious as to why all the dips in the graph occur at roughly 7.5 year intervals? Although it wouldn't surprise me it you denied that also. With regards to skepticism and denial, if scientists would squelch any investigation into plausible explanations in the same way much of this crowd does, science would still be in the middle ages. A good dose of skepticism will keep science from getting complacent.
    Response:

    [DB] You strain credulity, sir.

    Why anyone (let alone a scientist) would try & read into a short, noisy time series dataset and see things that aren't there and then declare (without a postulated physics-based mechanism to explain it) that the quasimythological oscillation/trend/periodicity du jour explains away the temperature rise so that there's nothing to worry about, is beyond me.

    Tamino describes the thought processes involved here, among many other similar posts.

  40. Eric the Red at 05:27 AM on 7 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    Sphaerica, Do you pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you in the same way? Is that why you think everyone is a denier? I have never denied anything in your previous posts, except for droughts. Whatever gave you the idea that I do not believe that the planet has warmed?
    Response:

    [DB]  Everyone:

    1. Please focus on the arguments, not the person(s).
    2. If one must discuss climate denialism, the Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? is the appropriate venue for it.  Not here.
  41. funglestrumpet at 04:38 AM on 7 June 2011
    If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    Sorry, showing my age! Mandas @ 3 (I think)
  42. funglestrumpet at 04:37 AM on 7 June 2011
    If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    Mandas @ 5 You know what they say about the 60s: "If you can remember them, you weren't there." I Would love to help, but I can't remember. Peace!
  43. Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    Dr. PhD: I'm sorry but I asked a few weeks ago for the total number of global glaciers and somebody gave me a link which did not have the information readily available. All I am looking for is a number. If you want that information, there are many ways of finding it on your own (especially if you have a PhD). Demanding that other people do your research for you, and then getting snippy because you don't like the answer, is kind of ungracious, IMO.
  44. funglestrumpet at 04:24 AM on 7 June 2011
    SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
    Looks good to me. 1 Perhaps this digest should be the only way into the individual postings because, being considerably narrower, they are much easier to read. With the current postings, which are too wide, I often lose which line I am on and find myself reading the same line again, or the next but one, which, as you can imagine, is a bit confusing and no aid to comprehension. The last thing we need is to lose readership because of technicalities. Failing that, go straight to the narrow form on opening specific email postings (the one with the comments section at the end). This would have the added benefit of guiding any newcomer seeking knowledge on climate change to the large reservior of information available from SkS (in the side bars). 2 You could try bringing all the comments on all the linked articles into the comments section of the weekly digest (see chrismartenson.com weekly newsletter as an example) instead of the currrent arrangement. For instance, if I wished to reply to, say, fred1234's comment (item 96) about the Amazon Death Spiral, it would take the form: Amazon DS, fred1234 @ 96 .... That way, people would get to see all comments about all articles automatically without the need to open each specific one. You never know, a comment on an article that had originally been skipped might pique someone's interest enough to change their mind and read it. More importantly, someone expert in a particular field might in passing notice a comment that is incorrect and feel obligued to set the matter straight, even though they had originally only bothered with the article but not had time to read the comments section. That way we all win. As far as I am concerned, you can forget posting articles individually because from now on I will wait for the digest and dedicate time to an indepth weekly climate change session at my computer (the dog will just have to wait for his walk).
  45. Bob Lacatena at 04:20 AM on 7 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    pbjamm, That was awesome! I never knew about lmgtfy.com. Oh, my gosh, I've got a new toy to play with and I can't wait to use it. I swear, I need it 50 times a day, and the implicit sarcasm is just priceless. Awesome!
  46. Bob Lacatena at 04:17 AM on 7 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    16, Eric the Red, You stick in little (baseless) insinuations and I'll point them out. It's as simple as that. The follow-on statement about the world temperature record being unreliable is similarly foolish. Look, the indicators that the world is warming and the climate is changing are becoming almost too numerous to mention. How can you possibly sit and harp on the observational surface temperature record when multiple different sets of scientists have been working on it full time for decades, and the results are buttressed by satellite observations, melting ice, rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers, migrating species, expanding droughts, etc., etc., etc., etc. To nitpick on obscure details, trying to make the obvious seem controversial, is just denying the undeniable. I don't think you can deny that denying that the planet is warming is an act of serious denial. Do you deny it?
  47. Bob Lacatena at 04:10 AM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    And he throws in a cherry pick to top off the denial sundae he's been concocting. Really, one couldn't ask for better examples. The point is made by the deniers themselves. I'm even beginning to think that Eric the Red is a Poe.
  48. Eric the Red at 03:39 AM on 7 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    The issue was whether temperatures have risen or fallen over the past decade. Very few trends are going to be statiscally significant over such a short timeframe. However, the trends are obviously different from the preceding two decades (which differ from those before). Many have attempted to gloss over these seemingly insignificant trends, and focus on the longer term. For statistics, I prefer the long-term, and coincidentally, the latest CRU data falls almost exactly on top of the long-term trend (since 1880) of 0.6C / century. Although not statistically significant by our measurement methods, these short-term changes may yield some insight into various forces at play in global temperature records. For the record, RSS is negative for the past decade (-0.003 C / year excluding 2011, -.006 C / year if you do an exact 120-month analysis). http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
    Response:

    [DB] "The issue was whether temperatures have risen or fallen over the past decade."

    Umm, no.  The issue of this thread is Skepticism vs climate Denialism.

    Quite frankly, there's so much wrong with your comment I scarce know where to begin.  The focus on RSS, insignificant timescales, cherry-picked start dates (Tamino has many posts on this), etc.

    Cherries Jubilee:

    Cherries Jubilee

    [Source]

    Your attempts to stay off-topic merely reaffirm the perception of denial (which is on-topic) you convey.  If you wish to discuss temperature records or something other than Skepticism vs climate Denialism, please use the Search function for a far more appropriate thread.  Thanks!

  49. There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
    J Bob "...referenced by Meehl, uses models, and again show little compassion of GHG to temperature, except they both go up over time. I don’t see the up and down motion that would give stronger correlations. This process is my idea of a skeptic. Your thoughts?" My thought currently is "Oh bother!" Once upon a time I had a lovely little display showing changes in nighttime temperatures in early 20th century. Can't find it (I'm sure some very thoughtful person will eventually direct me to the right place.) 'Twould be handy for one point I might make. Without it, I'll stay mum on that one. As for thinking about your "idea of a skeptic", I'm not so sure. The up and down squiggles you're looking for could just be the 'noise' from various natural variation or they could be those familiar roller-coaster dips we see after major volcanic eruptions. My first response as a skeptic would be - why do the people who know more than me about this stuff not consider it the same way I've been thinking about it? Read a bit, or a lot, more. Then decide whether I understand it well enough to see what they're getting at - or decide I've spent enough time on it and just accept it until someone comes up with the brighter, shinier, clearer version.
  50. DaneelOlivaw at 03:28 AM on 7 June 2011
    Poleward motion of storm tracks
    @9 Ron Crouch. Thanks!

Prev  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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