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  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  Next

Comments 88951 to 89000:

  1. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam "So, once again, could you please explain to me why there is no correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperature variations. You do agree that there is no correlation with CO2, right?" and "I have explained why Greenland and Arctic temperature variations are not man made." I do not believe you have adequately established or supported this position. No. If you are going to take a position contrary to the majority opinion then you have to provide a lot more evidence than you have.
  2. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "Please explain why Soon's TSI data after 1960 contradict the reputable (and official TSI ) data. His paper falls to pieces right there." Albatross, first of all from 1960 to 1980 the correlation did indeed increase. I think it is fair to say that the correlation between the sun and the climate (supposedly) ends at around 1981, which is the time of the solar maximum. However, when you use tropspheric temperature data instead of solar data you can see that the correlation does indeed continue. As shown by the graph below, for the past 20 years there is a perfect correlation between cosmic rays and tropospheric temperature. Albatross, the link between the sun and climate did not end. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
  3. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - "...oceanic oscilations play a major role in Arctic climate. They most likely brought in warmer waters, which caused the previous Greenland warming and are most likely what caused the most recent Greenland warming." To which I will reply: Evidence? Do you have any evidence of such changes in Arctic circulation showing correlation to temperatures? There's certainly plenty of evidence for the various known forcings driving global temperatures, along with the Arctic amplification - you're asking for an unproven hypothesis with no evidence to supplant a well supported hypothesis that matches the data. I believe the term is "wishful thinking". If that's all you have, then you're not even hand-waving. As has been said here before - You're entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts. -- "You do agree that there is no correlation with CO2, right?" Sigh - There's excellent correlation with known forcing factors, including CO2; your strawman argument against CO2 as the only factor is both repetitive and deeply incorrect. Your arguments are unsupported, incorrect, and generally empty of data, theory, or (in my opinion) content. Please read some of the references you have been pointed to.
  4. Solar Hockey Stick
    Is it not common knowledge at least that GCR changes with Earth's motion relative to the spiral arms of the galaxy?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Shawn, this is not a debate or rhetoric forum (in which you'd also be doing poorly), this is an online community for the discussion of science. Unless you can provide contextual understanding of your points supported by linked peer-reviewed published science, no one here will take you seriously. Obviously, neither of us wish for that to happen. In your above comment, you provide no additional commentary for anyone reading it to understand why you write what you wrote or even that you understand it yourself, let alone how it is germane to the topic of this thread.
  5. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    #Gilles #82 and #83 You may use the search capabilities of this site, or use instead Google buy placing into the searchbox, for instance, [Trenberth travesty and deep ocean heat site:skepticalscience.com]. You'll find the story of the 0.9, 0.77 and all the values that have been used. You'll even find some peer reviewed literature accounting for more that 60% of Trenberth's travesty in deep ocean Southern waters -next home :)- (Trenberth's travesty had a value in the time of the famous email, and it isn't 0.9 at all -a hint, it included a 1020-. You should know this before discussing the subject). This site is full of material for you to replace your saying with a founded opinion.
  6. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "So, you are left with no theory, no explanation, nothing other than your desire for AGW to be wrong. " Rob Honeycutt, I have explained why Greenland and Arctic temperature variations are not man made. I do not think that anyone here, has properly answered my points. Yes, Greenland is not the whole world, but polar regions are especially important for detecting any effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Therefore, seeing that there is no correlation between Greenland temperature and co2, is not 'cherry picking' and is indeed valid as evidence against AGW.
  7. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam#20: "the previous Greenland warming" In Soon's temperature graph shown by Adam#9, the temperature jumps by more than 1 degree in 1920. In the data available from Polyakov et al, this jump does not occur until the mid 1930s. Does this suggest that the surface temperature data for the early 20th century Arctic isn't all that reliable?
  8. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam, Re blog posts, I concur, but to a point. Please explain why Soon's TSI data after 1960 contradict the reputable (and official TSI ) data. His paper falls to pieces right there.
  9. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "The appropriate scientific response would be to question why there is an inconsistency or even if your perception of the inconsistency is even accurate. " So, once again, could you please explain to me why there is no correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperature variations. You do agree that there is no correlation with CO2, right? So therefore could you please explain to me how it is possible that CO2 is the driver of Greenland's climate despite the fact there is no correlation.
  10. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Albatross@19 I do not think that Adam is "misrepresenting Dr. Box." He is using Dr Box's research to come to a different conclusion than the Dr himself. Adam@20 "KR natural factors are indeed still present and can explain observed climate changes." Natural factors are still at work, no one would deny this. There seems to be great disagreement with your second assertion though. One paper by Soon is a good start to supporting your argument, but why is his dissenting opinion more credible than all the others he disagrees with?
  11. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "I'm sorry, but several people now have very patiently explained the errs of your ways to you, yet you are not listening." No, I have not been answered. You just keep repeating the same arguments over and over again (e.g. that Greenland is not the whole world) and are not giving the issue appropriate thought.
  12. Rob Honeycutt at 06:54 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Looking at Soon's paper he relies on Hoyt and Schatten [1993] (and update from D. Hoyt, 2005) for his TSI data. I find this data heavily referenced on all the standard denier websites.
  13. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob et al., There is something horribly wrong with those TSI data in Soon's figure, especially after 1960, where he has increasing TSI and all the reputable data that I am familiar with shows a slow decrease in TSI since the sixties. Note too that in the Soon paper, the TSI the are inferred/estimated....... I really have no idea how the reviewers' missed that glaring problem.
  14. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Albatross, blog posts are not published and do not warrant a reply. Of course many pro-AGW websites are going to attack him and say that he is wrong. Only published criticism counts.
  15. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "You've suggested filtering out 2003 and 2010 as anomalous: Why haven't those 1920's anomalies caught your attention? Or is it more convenient to be skeptical of things you want to disagree with than things that appear to support your position? " Muoncounter, the 2003 and 2010 spikes were just one year events, which quickly went back to normal straight after. Could you please explain how it could have been anthropogenic co2, which caused those two spikes, and why it went straight back down. The temperature in Greenland for 1920-1940 didn't have many outlier temp anomalies, it stayed at roughly the same trend over those few decades.
  16. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @Gilles #82 (last part) You completely misunderstand what I teach our students: How to spot the people who are manipulating them, and when they need to use physics to do it, they do. For instance -the field is extremely wide and the exercises varied- they have to spot in a discussion like this people who lack education and knowledge in the subject but even though that fact they manufacture a short argument from blogs they like and a grueling 10-minute Google search and keep repeating and recycling what they found -but they slowly move as the discussion's "centre of gravity" displaces-. The fact is that this kind of people can control what they say in a day by day basis, but they are not coherent at all week after week, and students can gather mass evidence of they being just cheaters. Some of them avoid being spotted by changing usernames, but most of them really think that they are right and fair, and valiently keep using the same ego-nick site after site, be it "Tinkerbell" or "Goofy241". Enough by now as this is pretty an off-topic in this thread (though it shouldn't be in this site).
  17. Rob Honeycutt at 06:44 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam... "Rob it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing." It is not unreasonable to look at an area to see if it is consistent with CO2 forced warming. But it is not reasonable to locate what you believe to be an inconsistency and dismiss all other information because of it. The appropriate scientific response would be to question why there is an inconsistency or even if your perception of the inconsistency is even accurate. That's how scientists get research money. "I found an area of science where we currently lack an understanding of the data or response being measured. Please give me money so we can better understand why this is the case." You have gone the other direction and decided because you think there is no correlation that the entire theory of AGW is wrong in spite of the overwhelming other evidence to the contrary. So, you are left with no theory, no explanation, nothing other than your desire for AGW to be wrong.
  18. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    KR oceanic oscilations play a major role in Arctic climate. They most likely brought in warmer waters, which caused the previous Greenland warming and are most likely what caused the most recent Greenland warming. KR natural factors are indeed still present and can explain observed climate changes.
  19. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam, Citing the much discredited Soon (that is but one of many examples) is not helping your case-- also, correlation is not causation. It seems that you have been gleaning papers from the "Prudent path" document which support your beliefs without being skeptical of their validity or credibility. As KE has noted, "Recent warming could not have happened without AGW; other forcings don't add up. " And you continue to misrepresent Dr. Box. I'm sorry, but several people now have very patiently explained the errs of your ways to you, yet you are not listening. You may not realize it, but by choosing to go down this road, you are essentially trolling, and not convincing anyone who has an understanding of these matters.
  20. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob#13: "they definitely don't agree with other data I'm locating..." Kelly O'Day shows another TSI/temp comparison that is vastly different from Soon's. Adam#14: "it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing." Some would consider that a cherry-picking approach. "Greenland should be reacting to CO2, yet the fact that there is no correlation" You keep repeating that despite the correlation shown by Rob#4. Skeptics are known for their criticism of temperature records. If you look at the light blue line in the graph in #4, there are two years in the mid 1920's with extremely large upwards jumps. You've suggested filtering out 2003 and 2010 as anomalous: Why haven't those 1920's anomalies caught your attention? Or is it more convenient to be skeptical of things you want to disagree with than things that appear to support your position?
  21. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    KR, "Soon is not known for his quality of science, and appears to have neglected the last 30 years of data in his graph. " If you had actually looked at the graph presented in Soon's paper you would see that he clearly includes the last 20 years. His data goes all the way up to 2005. I am not pushing a strawman argument. If there is no correlation, that shows that there is no significant causation. But the strong correlation between Arctic temps and the sun shows that the sun is most likely the Arctic's dominant driver and not CO2. And Rob Honeycutt just so you know Willie Soon has written a much more detailed paper on the link between the sun and the climate, which carries on from his 2005 paper. 'Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences' by Willie Soon published in 'Physical Geography' (2009)
  22. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Is there a model that incorporates aerosol and oceanic effects? This is a very common expert skeptic argument. John Christy just used it in testimony to the US House of Representatives earlier this year. No one seemed to have any answer to it. It seems like incorporating these effects into the GCMs would be a normal step.
  23. Rob Honeycutt at 06:36 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Definitely something fishy with Soon's chart on TSI. I'm finding numerous sources for TSI and none of them agree with Soon's representation.
  24. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    I like to think that the 'travesty' (in Trenberth's mind) isn't the absence of data, but that this knowledge could help (marginally, of course) in changing public opinion and policy formation. Every bit counts.
  25. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - I'll repeat it again, look at the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread for other forcings. The early century warming appears to have been due to high TSI and a decided lack of volcanic activity. The 1950-1970 cooling ties into sulfur aerosols, which decreased rapidly after the Clean Air act and other (international) attention to that pollution problem. Currently the insolation is dropping, we have a fair number of active volcanoes, and we're warming anyway - due to greenhouse gases, much higher CO2. The natural forcings that caused the early century warming are not currently active. Which is fortunate; if they were we would be warming at twice the current rate.
  26. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob Honeycutt "My objection here is that you're quoting Dr Box's work as evidence that Greenland shows no signal of AGW which is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of Dr Box himself." Once again, personal opinions have no relevance to science. Whether or not Jason Box believes in AGW is irrelevant to the fact that his papers and data show that Greenland was equally warm 60 years ago. "You keep trying to assign a global response to a local record." Rob do you believe that post 1980 Greenland warming is caused by humans? If so do you agree that if it was human caused, then there would at least be a correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperatures? Rob it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing. The mainstream media has constantly cited Greenland's melting ice as evidence of AGW, yet it has provided no evidence for it. Greenland should be reacting to CO2, yet the fact that there is no correlation pretty much shows Greenland climate change is not anthropogenic.
  27. Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam... I believe those charts from Soon require a bit more research because they definitely don't agree with other data I'm locating...
  28. Solar Hockey Stick
    Albatross, "Surely you jest? Now your hand waiving is someone else's fault?" Hey, for all I know I may have totally misinterpreted the moderators approach, I was just explaining myself to the moderator. I was pointed to the cosmic ray thread a couple of times so I assumed that I was already skirting being OT. "That may be true, but again, one does not need to invoke GCRs or some other hitherto unknown mechanism to explain the observed warming. Surely you agree with that much?" I would pretty much agree with you *if* you qualify your statement for recent warming only. I think that there are plenty of longer term climate changes that do require some unknown mechanisms to explain them. Now, since I have answered your questions can you please point to what, specifically, it was that made you claim that I was sowing doubt or whatever? Keith, I agree that in the paper they find a linear correlation btw phi and TSI, however, that relationship does not hold constantly either on the short-term or extremely long-term time scales. Cheers, :)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Still committing credibility seppuku.
  29. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    Interesting discussion of Artic Sea Level rise here. It raises the question as to what sea level means.
  30. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - Blaming Arctic temperatures on the sun should be carried to the appropriate It's the sun thread: Soon is not known for his quality of science, and appears to have neglected the last 30 years of data in his graph. See again the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread: by asserting that CO2 (and CO2 forcings only) don't match the temperature record, you're really pushing a Strawman argument. CO2 is part of the picture, not all of it, but it's become the dominant changing forcing causing recent warming.
  31. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    KR polar regions are especially sensitive, so looking at what they're doing (specifically if there is any correlation to CO2) would indeed be very important in our understanding of climate change and the forces that drive it. KR, as for your argument that there is no correlation because 'co2 is not the only driver of climate' I will repeat my questions to you, which I asked Rob. Do you agree that the Greenland warming of 1920-1940 was equal to the 1980-2000 Greenland warming? If so, do you agree that CO2 is much higher than it was in the 1930's? If so, could you please tell me what other forcing caused the previous Greenland warming of 1920-1940? And could you also please explain why you don't think it could be that, which is causing the current Greenland warming? As for the increasing Greenland ice melt, I will state once again that evidence of warming (i.e. melting greenland ice) tells us nothing about what caused the warming in the first place.
  32. Rob Honeycutt at 06:23 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam... My objection here is that you're quoting Dr Box's work as evidence that Greenland shows no signal of AGW which is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of Dr Box himself. You keep making the same mistake that every skeptic seems to make when then look at Greenland. You keep trying to assign a global response to a local record. The point when you look at the 20th century record of Greenland is that there is an overall trend consistent with the overall global trend.
  33. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Albatross, first of all that graph is based on the entire Arctic, which is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the current climate on the Greenland ice sheet. And as shown by Jason boxes graph, apart from the two anomously warm years 2003 and 2010, the current Greenland temperature is matched with the temperature it was 70 years ago. Secondly, I suggest that you read this paper 'Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years' by Willie Soon published in 'Geophysical Research Letters' (2005) Albatross Arctic temperature changes show a much better correlation with changes in the sun, than changes in CO2 concentration. Albatross, the current Arctic climate is very difficult to be explained by co2, and shows a much better link to natural forcings. Alabatross, the perfect correlation with changes in the sun, and the lack of any correlation with co2, surely support the argument that the Arctic climate is dominated by natural variability and not CO2.
  34. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @RSVP #81 About commenting what dana1981 wrote, do that here. About your soapbox, not surprisingly, it contains ... soap.
  35. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - "You have also not answered why the Greenland temperature variations don't show any correlation to carbon dioxide emissions." You might want to take a step back from CO2 (or a step forward?) and look at the global temperature anomalies. The Greenland data tracks the global anomalies reasonably well (mid century rise, drop until ~1970, increasing after that). The reason neither of these directly follow CO2 emissions is because CO2 is not the only driver of climate, as is discussed on that thread. The current temperature rise, in particular post-1970, cannot be accounted for without anthropogenic greenhouse warming: factors involved in earlier climate changes are insufficient or of the wrong sign to cause recent temperature rises, rises which we expect to continue for quite some time. We're headed to mid-Pliocene temperatures, where the sea level was ~25m higher due to ice melt. The concern is particularly strong since Greenland ice melt is increasing: As noted on the previous topic, there are a lot of different kinds of glaciers on Greenland, but many of them are subject to water temperatures in their melt rates, not just air temperatures. So: - You're mistaken in thinking that CO2 is the only driver of climate. - Recent warming could not have happened without AGW; other forcings don't add up. - Air temperature is not the only driver of glacial melt; rising sea temperatures (observed) are a huge influence. - Current warming is expected to continue for quite some time, based on the science and current policies. - This has nasty implications for sea level due to Greenland ice melt.
  36. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob @4, You are right of course. This graph also demonstrates that the Arctic is currently warmer than it was early in the 20th century: And again, for those hard of "hearing", it is not so much where we are now, but where we are heading under BAU.
  37. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    First 12 inches per century doesn't seem very threatening.Second 20% of that rise is caused by irrigation from aquifers which won't last that much longer so the actual rise is somewhere between 9 and 10 inches at most.this is from your own ippc graph at the top of the page. Third this rise will probably be much less than that based on the last 9 or ten years especially if it cools for the next 15 or 20 years. So we come to 5 or 6 inches per century and I'm supposed to worry puleeeeeese!
  38. thepoodlebites at 06:04 AM on 14 April 2011
    Solar Hockey Stick
    Albatross #20 Why is the Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) paper always used here as the last word on the effects of a new grand minimum on future climate? The link is broken by the way. I have the original paper, five pages of model predictions with questionable assumptions and circular reasoning, as the conclusions are assumed in the premise. The climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is from private communications with A. Levermann, 3.4 C. And I see you have a convenient answer for the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature anomalies. But your sources are outdated and don’t even consider that cycle 24 demonstrated the deepest minimum in over 100 years, please see updated solar cycle length. The evidence for possible future cooling based on cycle 24 being so quiet, should neither be dismissed or overlooked.
  39. Solar Hockey Stick
    Shawn, "and to the extent that I am handwaving it was an effort to forestall the inevitable Get-thee-to-a-nunnery response that I am off-topic." Surely you jest? Now your hand waiving is someone else's fault? "There are plenty of people who have suggested non-linear responses to indirect solar proxies for example see here" That may be true, but again, one does not need to invoke GCRs or some other hitherto unknown mechanism to explain the observed warming. Surely you agree with that much? And for every paper you quote showing that GCRs may have a discernible (yet tiny) impact of global SATs, I and others can show you and readers here papers which demonstrate that GCRs are not the silver bullet that 'skeptics' wish them to be. Again, Occam's razor Shawn.
  40. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Once again I suggest that you read Chylek's paper. It explains about the two periods of warming, and why there is nothing unusual about the current one.
  41. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob Honeycutt, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to show in your comment. Yes, the trend in Greenland throughout the 20th century is slightly greater than the global record, but it still doesn't change the fact that the warming that occurred from 1920-1940 was clearly equal to the 1980-2000 warming. As it clearly says on the graph for 1916-1932 the warming trend was 1.26 C/decade, but for the 1994-2010 warming it was only 0.97C/decade. I can't see how what you are saying in your comments, answers any of the points I have made. You have also not answered why the Greenland temperature variations don't show any correlation to carbon dioxide emissions.
  42. keithpickering at 05:53 AM on 14 April 2011
    Solar Hockey Stick
    shawnhet #31 Let's review the bidding for a moment. In Shawnhet #18, you said "Since we can be pretty sure that most of the leading candidates for indirect effects do not vary linearly with TSI ..." and in #19 Dana asked you to substantiate that claim. After a bit of back and forth, you substantiated that claim with the link to Frohlich et. al., "Correlation between Cosmic Ray intensity and Total Solar Irradiance during the last three solar cycles" and pointed us specifically to figure 5. Yet if we read the text, Frohlich et. al. tell us that there is a linear function that describes the correlation, namely TSI = Phi * 3.13 + 1363.7 So I fail so see how this substantiates your claim at all. Just because R < 1, that does not mean the relationship is non-linear.
  43. Bruce Frykman at 05:53 AM on 14 April 2011
    There is no consensus
    RE: PC- 335 RE: "It is a consensus of research results, built over many years. It is not some sort of vote in which people get to say what they believe. It is constrained by the results of a a very large body of scientific work. OK, I get it, science demands precise data but ethereal and formless consensus that cannot be quantified. Only politics requires precise consensus. RE: "Science has not been done by consensus, it's the other way around." I get it; consensus is a meta-process that builds science that can stand entirely upon its own legs. ( -Snip- ) RE: "As for Bob Carter, all you are demonstrating is how biased you are." Of course I am biased, to be human is to be biased. I would never trust anyone who claimed he was not. Its not the bias of our individuality that is of any importance but only that our biases may be freely aired. Science operates in a world of humans and of human bias. Your position appears to support the notion that there are a class of people who are not biased and are therefore what? ( -Snip- ) RE: "You believe him because you like what he says." Of course I do, and you don't like him for the reason that you don't like what he says - let him say it. RE: "Can you be sure that he is not corrupt?" I'm not a religious person, but I do find lessons to be taken from faith: Have you ever listened to Handel's beautiful Messiah? - "And we shall be raised incorruptable" ( -Snip- ) RE: "No, just like you can't be sure that all the other scientists you half accuse have done anything wrong." I 'have' accused no one, I do not trust the processes of climate science. I might make the same judgment of the processes of my own physician without accusing him of anything. RE: "In the El-Nino paper, he tried to push a conclusion that was not supported by the data." Oh by that you mean he is human? RE: "James Hansen has been under pressure, from his governement, with an official order; isn't that exactly the kind of thing you object?" If I can stand in the kitchen and take the heat I don't see why he can't - I'm not paid to do this.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic perambulations snipped. "I'm not paid to do this." Neither are we, pal. Neither are we.
  44. Solar Hockey Stick
    I am not disagreeing to disagree, I am disagreeing *because* I disagree and to the extent that I am handwaving it was an effort to forestall the inevitable Get-thee-to-a-nunnery response that I am off-topic. There are plenty of people who have suggested non-linear responses to indirect solar proxies for example see here. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full
  45. Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
    Daniel Bailey and Ron Honeycutt, Albatross was the one that brought up the state of Arctic sea ice, not me. I was simply answering his points.
    Moderator Response: [DB] And you are welcome to respond to him on the Arctic Sea ICE thread of your choice (see here for a listing, provided you also place a link here to that comment you place there. See Rob's previous comment here for a proper example.
  46. Rob Honeycutt at 05:41 AM on 14 April 2011
    Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
    Adam... I've posted a response to you on the "It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940" thread.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thank-you!
  47. Rob Honeycutt at 05:39 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    This is a response to Adam carried over from the Zebras in Greenland thread. Adam... Here is a composite graph of Dr Box's work and GISS global data zeroed to the start of the GISS data. Is there no relationship between the two? No signature of AGW? None at all? I would contend that there is a clear signal when you compare the two trends. The only thing you can take from the Greenland data is that there is a much larger noise factor but you can clearly see that the overall trend for the 20th century is much greater than the global record, fully consistent with AGW theory.
  48. Dikran Marsupial at 05:36 AM on 14 April 2011
    Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    dana1981 I would certainly agree there, the most important form of skepticism is self-skepticism. Once you lose that as a scientist, you are in real trouble. My motto is "Familiarity breeds contempt - and nobody is more familiar with my own work than I am!" ;o)
  49. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    "I think he sincerely believes what he writes, even though it is objectively false."
    I think you could say that about a lot of the "skeptic" scientists, like Christy and Spencer, for example. Although Morner is certainly much more objectively wrong than the former two.
  50. Dikran Marsupial at 05:20 AM on 14 April 2011
    Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    BTW, the criticism that the IPCC don't have expertise in sea level, and that they have been making adjustments to get the result they wanted is made not-so subtly in Figure 4 of his original paper (see the rightmost branch of the flow chart. Note particularly the feedback from the output of the "IPCC Global Warming Scenario" box (also contains the text "lacking specialisation in sea level research"!) back to the "present trend input data" box. With that, the number of self-citations and the Gilgamesh quote (pretentious - moi?), I am amazed the paper was published in a journal (other than E&E)

Prev  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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