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  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  Next

Comments 95601 to 95650:

  1. Meet The Denominator
    So, what we're left with here is a list that is predominantly padding-papers which are out of date &/or have been thoroughly debunked; papers consisting of political or legal opinions not backed up by evidence; papers published in multiple journals (& *no*, Poptech, there is not sufficient difference between a 1964-1994 & 1964-1998 timeframe to justify counting it as a completely separate paper); papers published in journals with a clear political/ideological agenda-& with proven track records of below-par peer-review standards (like E&E & Cato Journal); papers that directly contradict each other; papers which don't actually support the skeptic view-& the list goes on. Yet even if this wasn't the case, what does this list actually tell us? That there is a dissenting opinion in the general community on the future dangers of AGW? Well that's hardly a great revelation. Yet the way Poptech & his followers flourish this "list", you'd think they'd stumbled on the smoking gun that "proves" that AGW is nothing to worry about-yet the list provides no such ammunition. Yet every time they pull out a reference to "the list", its with the air of a chess player yelling "Checkmate". Its not Checkmate Poptech-its not even "Check"-just a restatement of what was already known (that those predominantly from the Far Right don't believe global warming is real-whoop chook).
  2. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    I thought that the Arctic was defined either as the 10C isotherm or the tree-line (both of which are moving north) and was internationally recognized as all areas north of the Arctic Circle. Extending it as far south as 64N does seem a bit generous. Even so, Robert Way again shows that Monckton has yet to make a substantive statement on global warming, its causes and effects which is either accurate or excludes misrepresentation of peer reviewed science. I still don’t understand why global warming produces temperature change in the Arctic 3 times greater than in the tropics. Surely this can not be attributed solely to lower albedo due to sea-ice melt?
  3. Meet The Denominator
    Hey Poptech, how can a claim be libelous when you have actually admitted to the relevant facts? Here in the real, rational world (as opposed to Denialist Central), posting someone's personal info-without their permission-with the intent of silencing them is what we call *intimidation*-& intimidation is the tactic of a thug. Just because you refuse to accept that truth about yourself doesn't make it any less true-no more than an alcoholic who denies they're not abusing alcohol. Its certainly no different from your mate Monckton who-when faced with the exposure of his Snake Oil Salesman routine-threatened to try & have someone sacked from their job.
  4. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech, your list is there to bolster the idea that AGW is not real/not alarming. Ie no action required. I have a couple of questions. 1/ Do you consider the BAU scenario outcomes in IPCC WG2 for 2100 "alarming"? I am guessing not. 2/ If you are wrong, then what future data would cause you to change your mind? (eg world mortality rate, insurance costs, food price index, or even climate indicators like ice extent or sea level?). For your chosen index, what level would they have to get to by 2050 for it to be "alarming". Note that I am quite aware that climate now is well within our ability to adapt, but the movements to reduce CO2 are based on premise future change will indeed be costly.
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 10:47 AM on 16 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    pbjamm@376 - try counting the peer reviewed papers cited in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report, there look to be many more than 850. The references in the IPCC report also have the benefit of actually supporting the argument being made ;o)
  6. Meet The Denominator
    I did a quick count of the peer reviewed papers supporting AGW on the Global Warming Links page and came up with a scant 408 unique papers! Best get to work if we ever want to catch up.
  7. CO2 has a short residence time
    drrocket - "...nature is indeed a net source of CO2 in warming epochs, such as the last 50 years..." Not quite right. Warming decreases ocean solubility for CO2, and in the absence of other effects will outgas until the partial pressure of CO2 matches solubility and oceanic concentrations of CO2 complexes. However, if the partial pressure rises, as is the case with our emissions, then the ocean will absorb CO2. It's a race between decreasing solubility due to warming and partial atmospheric pressure, and atmospheric pressure is well in the lead right now. The oceans are a CO2 sink, sequestering ~45% of our emissions.
  8. Dikran Marsupial at 09:56 AM on 16 February 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    drrocket@19 wrote "First, nature is indeed a net source of CO2 in warming epochs, such as the last 50 years." No, that simply isn't true; if it were true, the annual rise in atmospheric carbon would be greater than anthropogenic emissions instead of less, becuase both man and nature were contributing to the rise. This is a simple bit of accounting, and the uncertainties involved are too small to have any bearing on the conclusion. While temperature does affect uptake of CO2 by the oceans, the fluxes also depend on the difference in partial pressure of CO2 between the atmosphere and surface waters, so if atmospheric CO2 rises, ocean uptake increases. This is known physics. "Third, your claim that the "then the observed rise will be greater than anthropogenic emissions, as the annual rise is equal to total emissions minus total uptake" is false, if by your second use of the word emissions you are referring to your immediately preceding phrase, "anthropogenic emissions"." No, by "total emissions", I meant total emissions, i.e. anthropogenic emissions plus natural emissions. "The annual rise must be equal to the total inputs minus the total uptakes. " yes, that is the very basis of the mass balance argument that proves that the rise is anthropogenic. "Fourth, your ultimate claim that "the natural environment is a net carbon sink rather than a source" is false. Take a look at the Vostok Record, for example, a period in which man surely had no effect. Sometimes the natural environment is a net sink, sometimes a net source." Irrelevant, I am stating what is observed to be happening now, not thousands of years ago. However, the paleoclimate data strongly suggests that the rise is not natural. In the Vostok data you only see a change in CO2 of 100ppmv in response to the sort of temperature change you see at the start of an interglacial (about 10 degrees C), whereas now we have seen a rise of 100ppmv with a temperature rise of less than a degree. So can you explain why the oceans are suddenly so much more temperature sensitive now than they have been for the last 800,000 years? There are parts of AGW theory that are uncertain; that the rise in CO2 is of anthropogenic origin simply isn't one of them.
  9. CO2 has a short residence time
    Maybe someone can help me. I think I've figured this out, but I'm not sure. At NASA OCO , it is stated (within the first paragraph) that: "Measurements from a global network of surface stations indicate that atmospheric CO2 increased by 1% annually over the past 40 years -- i.e., from 326 ppmv in 1970 to 389 ppmv in 2010." If atmospheric CO2 increased annually by 1% between 1970 and 2010, and the CO2 concentration was 326 ppmv in 1970, then wouldn't the 2010 CO2 concentration be 326*(1.01**40)= 485 ppmv? OK, this is what I think is happening. In reality, the 1% increase is in emissions. But only 43% of that remains in the atmosphere on average. Thus, we would see an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 326*(1.0043**40)=387 ppmv, which is consistent with the 2010 MLO CO2 concentration of 389.78 ppmv. I am trying to debate a GW skeptic and that person simply says that NASA is "lying." It's not clear what NASA would be lying about. Can someone help me out? Is my thinking correct?
  10. Climate sensitivity is low
    A question for the group - I hope this is a reasonable place for it, and even more that I'm phrasing this intelligibly. Given that we have raised the CO2 concentration quite high, it's now high enough that the oceans are acting like a sink despite their warming (above solubility pressures) - the oceans are absorbing 2ppm/year or so. If we maintain, as we are doing now, a CO2 concentration above that which would induce CO2 output by the oceans, does that remove one of the feedbacks (CO2 outgassing from said oceans) from the climate sensitivity calculations? In other words, does the forcing by CO2 emissions block the CO2 element of forcing feedback, and thus reduce climate sensitivity??
  11. CO2 has a short residence time
    drrocket: "not trivial because MLO sits in the plume of Eastern Equatorial Pacific outgassing" There's no discernible difference between the monthly MLO CO2 concentration and any station around the world at a comparable latitude -- island or landlocked, no difference. See the thread MLO is a volcano for further information and comments.
  12. Meet The Denominator
    Plilippe... "This obviously indicate that the 850 number is inaccurate. The numerator is all puffed up..." Awww... That means PT is back down to ~0.1% again. So sad. He was doing so well for a little while there.
  13. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    From a carbon taxing proposal I've seen in the US: 1. Tax carbon at it's source. 2. The tax will rise at a set rate over a 10 year period. 3. Costs of goods and services will necessarily rise. 4. To offset those costs - 100% of the tax revenue will be distributed to the public as "dividends". 5. There will be no administrative costs. Without getting into a discussion of the validity of a carbon tax, can this really be handled without creating a bureaucracy?
  14. It's the ocean
    On another thread, friend BP linked to Compo 2009, claiming that ocean heating supposedly drives land heating. ... recent ocean warming ... has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface. This proposed mechanism doesn't seem to make any sense, but it does argue for strong positive water vapor feedback.
  15. Philippe Chantreau at 07:33 AM on 16 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    LOL, that was a good one Dhogaza. If nothing else, this rather miserable thread by SkS standards led to a closer examination of Poptech's list. So far, on the very limited focus of numerator only, we've learned: - Some papers do not appear to support PT's position at all, regardless how "alarm" is defined (such as the Feynmana paper pointed by Albatross a while back) - Some papers don't exist at all (see above) - The same paper can figure up to 4 times. This obviously indicate that the 850 number is inaccurate. The numerator is all puffed up...
  16. Meet The Denominator
    And it seems that the little list is relying heavily on papers by the Idso family - mainly Sherwood (with 66), but a total of 69 altogether. Nearly half of them are from the 80s, though, and very few from this millenium. Up-to-date stuff, eh ? When you combine that with the usual suspects of Michaels, Lindzen, Douglass, Singer, Christy, Spencer, Soon, McIntyre, Loehle, McLean, De Freitas, Carter, the Pielkes (especially Jr, who didn't want his papers included in the list), Morner, Eschenbach, Svensmark, Scafetta, Boehmer-Christiansen (!), and about a dozen others with anything between two and five papers each, you're looking at a list which has about 30 people contributing something up to a third of the total. Take them away and you're left with the likes of David Bellamy, Beck and Gerlich, etc, as well as all those waved through on Energy & Environment, and from journals, etc. with no normal link to output concerning AGW, let along 'AGW Alarm' - whatever that means. I.E. It's a joke.
  17. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    Pirate, Longer growing seasons don't help if the productive agricultural zones move into areas where agriculture cannot take place.
    Moderator Response: ... and more info is in "It’s not bad" and "CO2 is not a pollutant."
  18. CO2 has a short residence time
    drrocket, a warming ocean can be a net sink of CO2, see /Seawater-Equilibria.html
  19. apiratelooksat50 at 06:52 AM on 16 February 2011
    Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    I've read most of the working links above. Do the background documents take in any of the positive effects global warming: longer growing seasons, increased crop productivity, lower heating costs in winter, etc...
  20. CO2 has a short residence time
    Marsupial at 11:08 AM 2/15/11, Your logic is peccable. First, nature is indeed a net source of CO2 in warming epochs, such as the last 50 years. That is Henry's Law, never mentioned by IPCC. Second, the observed rise could be anything. We don't have the powers of perfect observation. The problem is not trivial because MLO sits in the plume of Eastern Equatorial Pacific outgassing, where the CO2 concentration depends primarily on local temperature. Further, what is "observed" from MLO is a highly processed record, far from raw data. For example, >> Each CO2 concentration record, C (t) was decomposed into a seasonal function, consisting of four harmonics, and a seasonally detrended function, according to the relation [C(t) = C_seas(t) + C_annual(t)] (2.1) where [C_seas(t) = (1-γt) * sum((a_k*sin(ω_k*t) + b_k*cos(ω_k*t)), k = 1 to m] (2.2) >>In the second expression γ (a "gain factor") and the factors, a_k and b_k, denote constants obtained via a fit to the data; t denotes the time in years; ω_k the angular frequency, equal to 2πk; and m the number of harmonics, chosen to be 4. The seasonally adjusted function, C_annual, is expressed by a spline function in which the annual average of the integral of the squared second derivative is set to a predetermined value to provide a nearly uniform degree of smoothing of all of the records. The actual function is established in several steps involving intermediate functions (see Keeling et al. [1989a, p. 167 and pp. 218-227]) to assure stability in the calculation and to determine monthly averages that take into account the actual dates of each observation. The isotopic record, δ13C(t), is treated similarly. Keeling, CD, et al., "Exchanges of Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the Terrestrial Biosphere and Oceans from 1978 to 2000, I. Global Aspects, June, 2001, p. 5. "Predetermined"? "Nearly uniform"? "Smoothing"? "Intermediate functions"? "Assure stability"? Read how other stations were "identified" with MLO data, how data were adjusted according to "a long-term trend line proportional to industrial CO2 emissions". Id., p. 6. These "data [that] have iconic status in climate change science as evidence of the effect of human activities" [AR4, ¶1.3.1, "The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases", p. 100] are over-masticated, over-celebrated, and over-fraught with opportunities for subjective influences. Third, your claim that the "then the observed rise will be greater than anthropogenic emissions, as the annual rise is equal to total emissions minus total uptake" is false, if by your second use of the word emissions you are referring to your immediately preceding phrase, "anthropogenic emissions". The annual rise must be equal to the total inputs minus the total uptakes. Fourth, your ultimate claim that "the natural environment is a net carbon sink rather than a source" is false. Take a look at the Vostok Record, for example, a period in which man surely had no effect. Sometimes the natural environment is a net sink, sometimes a net source.
  21. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Rob, have you looked at the topic Why ocean heat can’t drive climate change, only chase it?
  22. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Hopefully the 2nd to last paragraph makes sense. Looking at it now it's a bit ambiguous discerning fossil fuel CO2 from total carbon forms in the oceans (DIC).
  23. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    I made a comment specifically about coastal upwelling Yes, and you've been asked twice already, how this novel CO2 production line is supposed to work. Like all skeptic ideas it lacks coherence. It still doesn't look much like muoncounter's graph. Your eyecrometer "filter" is in need of adjustment. Muoncounter's graph appears to be that of dissolved CO2 in the oceans (given the concentration levels). The graphs you have linked to are for all forms of carbon dissolved in the oceans, which includes bicarbonates and carbonates (very important for shell/skeleton building marine critters). The salient point being that all graphs show carbon accumulating in the upper ocean, exactly as science expects. The large injection of fossil fuel CO2 is accumulating too fast for natural processes to mix it throughout the water column.
  24. Meet The Denominator
    Waste Management, a journal "designed for scientists, engineers, and managers, regardless of their discipline, who are involved in scientific, technical and other issues related to solid waste management".
    Well, the paper's a form of solid waste, so it landed in the right place, no? :)
  25. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Here's another reference for anthropogenic CO2 in the oceans: Sabine et al 2004 A number of key points: -- CO2 is not evenly distributed throughout the oceans. The highest vertically integrated concentrations are found in the North Atlantic. ... By contrast, the Southern Ocean south of 50°S has very low vertically integrated anthropogenic CO2 concentrations -- anthropogenic CO2 invades the ocean by gas exchange across the air-sea interface, the highest concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 are found in near-surface waters. Away from deep water formation regions, the time scales for mixing of near-surface waters downward into the deep ocean can be centuries Given that time scale, I'm not sure I get the significance of the pre-1994, post 1994 change. -- Globally, only 7% of the total anthropogenic CO is found deeper than 1500 m. The only place where large concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 penetrate to mid and abyssal depths is the North Atlantic --the ocean has constituted the only true net sink for anthropogenic CO2 over the past 200 years. Without this oceanic uptake, atmospheric CO2 would be about 55 ppm higher today than what is currently observed (~380 ppm). That's critical. If the rate of ocean uptake is decreasing (and Sabine makes the suggestion that it is), the result would be an acceleration of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Bad news all around. Here is a representative figure, highlighting the differences between 3 ocean basins. It is somewhat consistent with the figure from Key posted above, perhaps because Key is the 3rd author in the Sabine paper. This is obviously a complex and very dynamic problem. Hopefully the availability of the PMEL data will help sort out what's going on.
  26. Meet The Denominator
    Addendum to above - '...three journals (one of them twice)... mclamb6, there seems to be no abstract or copy available of "Global warming: Failed forecasts and politicized science", from that obviously relevant journal Waste Management, a journal "designed for scientists, engineers, and managers, regardless of their discipline, who are involved in scientific, technical and other issues related to solid waste management". That particular gem came from, wait for it...P.J.Michaels, and the link from that little list goes to Hit Count is 'Zero' with recQuery =, i.e. nowhere.
  27. Meet The Denominator
    Edited from 369: Criticism of the quality of my research would be subjective and therefore solely in the of the beholder.
  28. Meet The Denominator
    Yes, Poptech, we understand why the Pielke paper is on the list over his objections. You have created a vague definition of "AGW Alarm" that is found no where else other than on your web site. The definition is filled with sufficient wiggle room and entirely "subjective" language such that it can be stretched to include or exclude nearly anything at your whim. There is no quality control check, other than the barest of bare references to what constitutes "peer reviewed" and also because "quality" is "subjective". Armed with this definition and claiming to control the "context" of same, you include whatever you see fit, irrespective of the objections of the authors of said papers. Now, a couple of questions: are there any papers on your list for which there is no abstract available AND that you have not personally read? You've argued that "quality research" has no objective meaning. Suppose I took seven temperature readings at my house at the same time for seven consecutive days. I then author a paper "Global Warming at my House", complete with a statistical analysis of my results; references to appropriate literature, etc. By hook or by crook, I get my paper published. Are you arguing that criticism of said research would be subjective and therefore solely in the eye of the beholder? In other words, all research and resulting papers may have merit, regardless of objectively flawed methodology?
  29. Meet The Denominator
    I think Poptech has done an adequate job of chopping down the size of the denominator here. Good work Pop! Now, taking all his criticisms into account we are left with something in the neighborhood of 500,000 papers. So, we're giving him the benefit of the doubt on both sides of the equation. That leaves him with something in the range of 0.2% of papers challenging AGW.
  30. Meet The Denominator
    Eric: "there is no censorship here." Thank you for pointing this out. It's odd that PT confuses 'censorship' with the Comments Policy that tries to keep things civil. Posts that violate said policy tend to get deleted. Those are the rules established by John Cook, the owner of the site; it's expected that you play by the owner's rules. If PT has redefined violation of an established, mutually beneficial policy to mean 'censorship,' it must be another 'example' of his own version of what is supposed to be a common language. I'm also fascinated by this contradiction: pt: "Declaring a paper unscientific does not make it so." But when PT declares this post to be meaningless, we are just supposed to believe. As they say, the truth is out there.
  31. Meet The Denominator
    The following four papers from that little list are basically the same paper submitted to four different journals : Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States, (Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 14, pp. 1712-1718, November 2003) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States, (Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 175-184. September 2002) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels Decadal changes in summer mortality in U.S. cities (International Journal of Biometeorology, Volume 47, Number 3, pp. 166-175, May 2003) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels Seasonality of climate–human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change, (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 61-76, April 2004) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff Is it really that easy to pass off the same basic paper as four 'unique' ones ? And as Michaels has his name next to another 26 papers on that list, it is easy to see how quickly the numbers add up from using papers (even from 'relevant' magazines like WASTE MANAGEMENT and the CATO JOURNAL) by a limited number of so-called skeptics.
  32. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Guinganbresil, You are doing a good attempt to look at the data, but I am not sure you have the graphs right. Muoncounters data is comparable to the bottom graph on your chart. His data is a summary of a bunch of graphs like your bottom chart. If I look at your bottom chart, it resembles Muoncounters graph. Muoncounters graph is more complete since it is a summary of a bunch of graphs. The points where the carbon goes down cancel out after averaging many graphs. The upper graphs on your chart show the normal carbon distribution, which is not what we are interested in. We are interested in the change due to humans. Be careful about criticizing others data if you are not sure what you are looking at. Remember that the scientists Muoncoumter linked to are professionals at looking at this data.
  33. Meet The Denominator
    Ron I'm not finished :)
  34. Meet The Denominator
    I think PT has been given more latitude than he deserves. I can think of a few forums that would ban you from posting after just one warning PT. Consider yourself lucky that the folks here have allowed you to continue. Perhaps the best solution here would be to allow him to continue to rant, but put him on ignore mode. All we seem to be accomplishing is to feed his need to stir the pot. You will never convince him he is wrong about anything. ( -snip- )
    Moderator Response: [DB] A little less descriptive word imagery, please. The purpose of this post has already been served.
  35. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Guinganbresil, The difference in the charts is that muoncounter's is tracking the increase in anthropogenic CO2 (the only source on the rise) dissolved in seawater whereas yours deals with total CO2, anthropogenic + non-anthropogenic. Anthropogenic CO2 resides mostly in the upper oceans because it is absorbed at the surface. In addition increasing temperatures create a more stratified ocean, acting as yet another barrier to transport of anthropogenic CO2 to the depths.
  36. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech, there is no censorship here. There is deletion of off-topic posts, usually after several are allowed to remain. There is also deletion of specific posts that are in clear violation of the comments policy which is quite reasonable. If you complain on your own site about "censorship" then you will simply be obfuscating the facts which are clearly spelled out in the comments policy and rigorously adhered to. As for your list itself, I don't understand your refusal to improve the quality. I have been to many websites where the list is used as a "silencer" comment from and to participants who don't understand the science. I have also seen links to this website used the same way, but more often they are used by participants who understand the science and simply need a handy reference to save a lot of typing. The proof of effectiveness of your list, versus this website, is ultimately entangled in politics and personal beliefs. But please do not for one moment think that because the politics might be in your favor that is proof of the effectiveness of your list. Your list is ultimately self defeating because as soon as anyone learns a modicum of physics, they realize that some papers on your list are rubbish (a Jack Barrett term and he has a paper on your list). They will tell their friends that your list is flawed so you will lose effectiveness. Further, even worse consequences arise when someone uses papers from your list with incorrect understandings of physics without realizing that it is incorrect. In short: fix your list!
  37. Meet The Denominator
    "Yes any addition would strengthen their position. It is not 1 article but over 850. Your analogy is illogical." So you don't think the denominator is relevant at all? So if I found 850 peer-reviewed articles that supported a skeptical position on smoking and cancer, you would trumpet that number as having strengthened the skeptical position, without knowing how many other articles overtly supported the consensus that smoking does cause cancer? If so, how much would it strengthen the skeptical position? A lot? A tiny bit?
  38. Meet The Denominator
    Poptechs's categories of peer reviewed papers include some refuting Al Gore's movie? Seriously? Must be some peer review...
  39. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech: "Obviously hundreds of published peer-reviewed papers in scholarly peer-reviewed journals supporting skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm would strengthen the skeptic's position." No, not at all. That is the point of this post. If I find one peer-reviewed article that finds no correlation between smoking and cancer, but there are 10000 stating there is, does the one article strengthen the skeptic's position on smoking and cancer? I agree with you that the posted denominator is a guess without looking at each hit, but the point stands that 850 means very little without some kind of denominator. Do you agree?
  40. Meet The Denominator
    #352 Poptech, yes some of your posts have been deleted. I read most or all of them and of the remaining, quite a few should be edited to remove personal disputes, repetition, unsupported claims, etc. It is too big a job for the mods, not to mention the serious effects on discourse. Please try to understand the purpose of this website: it is to provide a convenient resource for other websites to link to so that they can debunk common "skeptic" arguments that have no merit (in the opinion of individual authors). The website allows critiques from skeptics to strengthen the final product: a better debunking article. Accordingly if some author here sees fit, they will use the results of a thread like this to write a better debunking article, perhaps one that highlights the many extremely unscientific articles in your list. I understand that you might take this personally since you spent considerable time compiling your list. Perhaps no author here will bother critiquing it further than this thread, but don't take that as a stamp of approval. To put it as bluntly as possible: your list is very low quality and needs thorough review and filtering to be a useful (for example, that I could use to support my arguments on other threads here).
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you.
  41. Meet The Denominator
    #352 Poptech: It looks like various posts of mine have been deleted throughout this discussion. That tends to happen when the "comments Policy" is violated. I would imagine comments opposed to your position, also in violation, are deleted as well.
  42. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Rob Painting: Fair enough. Lets leave coral reefs out of this. I made a comment specifically about coastal upwelling and you made a statement that atmospheric CO2 is affecting the global oceans. I take a look at global data and you switch to coral reefs. Feels too much like Three Card Monty. As for my 'eyecrometer' (I love that term!)... I agree! I noticed that the bottom plot above showing the change in CO2 uses a different color spectrum. One that would enhance changes in the positive direction and obscure changes in the negative direction. I thought at first it was a coincidence, but the color spectra in the top two graphs are different... The plot below uses a more rational color spectrum and you can clearly see regions of decrease that would pretty hard to see using the pink scale as in the above plot. I pulled the data into Excel and plotted it. If you hover over the data points with your cursor you can 'see' pretty well! I admit that I just pulled data for a cruise that cover a similar track to the plots presented by muoncounter, so I haven't looked through all of them. Here is a plot running through a longitude line in the Pacific for comparison: It still doesn't look much like muoncounter's graph.
  43. Meet The Denominator
    BTW, your categories need to include "uses Beck's CO2 measurements" and similar caveats.
  44. Meet The Denominator
    I see a single alphbetized list http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Your idea that including incoherent, contradictory material is simple "non-discriminatory" is not useful over the long haul. My job as skeptic is to understand the science with every possible alternative and your list helped for that because it has everything. However my other job is to correct people on forums arguing that CO2 is not a GHG and similar assertions. I wouldn't mind doing this, but your list is a hindrance for propagating a coherent alternative to CAGW. You are making my life more difficult because you won't do or delegate the detailed reviewing that needs to be done.
  45. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech, about two years ago I saw your list on a conservative forum. I had already read a number of the papers, but I looked at others since then. As just one example, Arthur Rorsch (phlogiston paper) presents Beck's CO2 findings and a non-quantitative GH theory to question "enhanced" GH effect (a nonsequitur). He claims "poor correlation" between the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and estimated anthropogenic emissions. How is this paper helpful? OTOH, the Bellamy-Barrett paper "Climate stability: an inconvenient proof" clearly shows the temperature increase from added CO2 (Modtran results) and then casts doubt on climate model results (clouds different from measurements), mentions some negative feedbacks (nonquantitatively), and a loose (IMO useless) section on solar. Not a perfect paper, but coherent with science of GHG physics and radiative balance. My point of this contrast is that your list is self-defeating in the long run unless it is reviewed and quality controlled. Above all, it needs to be sorted into categories.
  46. Meet The Denominator
    350: I'm not demanding you raise your game... Obviously when I said "that's also your choice" it clearly wasn't a demand. It was, obviously, just advice; again, you are as free to take or leave it as I am to answer or not answer your or anyone else's questions. Equally it's up to you to try to "correct misinformation" without being convincing... The reason I bothered to post what that opinion is that I read SkS because, as much as anything, it's high quality science and debate - I just happen to like watching a good bit of science being done from time to time, in fields I'm not directly involved in. Some of the debate on this thread has not been up to the normal standard and I'd hope that, having the privilege of having the subject of the article available for comment, we'd get a high-level consideration of the issues. Some have tried, but the quality of the responses hasn't been up to the quality of the rest of the site, which is a shame.
  47. Meet The Denominator
    Why is someone who censors comments to their own secretive website allowed to post spam freely on other open websites...and then make claims about censorship ? Now we have three crucial words that mean something in the real world, and something entirely different in a strange denier world : 'AGW Alarm', 'skepticism' and 'censorship'. It really is impossible to rationally debate (well, at least we do try the rational stance !) with someone who has their own versions and definitions of words than everyone else. It's like trying to argue with a 9/11 troofer, whose bottom-line is that anything coming from or associated with the government is false : you hit a brick wall very quickly. Once that happens, the best thing is to move away slowly and get back to the world of rationality as quickly as possible.
  48. Meet The Denominator
    347: Really "not here to convince anyone" but "here to correct misinformation" ... but surely to do the latter, you must do the former?!?!? Bit confused there. But sure, you decide to find any allegations I make meaningless; that's up to you... like I said, we all get to form our opinion based on what we see. If you don't want to raise you game to suit your (adopted) audience here, that's also your choice.
  49. Meet The Denominator
    #344 - thanks for the comments. Noted. You clearly think you've made no error or that you've sufficiently clarified or amended what you present; others disagree and, like I said, we all get to form an opinion. Clearly you care very deeply about your work otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time trying to defend it... clearly your defense isn't working and, I suppose, this maybe because you don't understand your audience. I was merely opinioning that, after 7 pages here, it isn't looking good. Just some feed back. Oh, and, there really is no point in posting questions to me in bold, I'm not here to do your work for you; nor telling me what to do or not do... I'm more than capable of deciding that for my self, given the information presented.
  50. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Guiganbresil - "I did a little more reading..." Still not enough. "It gives the impression that rising CO2 is impacting the ocean in general" Declining coral growth rates and calcification in a few other species gives that impression too. "Well PMEL has some data also" Yes. Saw the graph. It shows the dissolved inorganic carbon in surface waters are increasing. And?. "First, it shows that the DIC is acually lower near the surface compared to the deeper waters" You expected carbonate shells from dead marine organisms to float up?. "that means that the total (anthopogenic + nonanthropogenic) CO2 could be going up or down - you can't tell from his graph" As per my previous post, you haven't postulated a mechanism whereby natural processes could increase CO2 dissolved in the oceans at the current rate. Nor explained why dissolved CO2 in the oceans parallels fossil fuel emissions. "will show that the surface temperature was a couple of degrees higher in 1993 than in 2003 over the latitude range 45N-55N" What about the other areas?. They are far more significant. "This qualitatively matches the region of largest increase." My eyecrometer disagrees with yours. "Could this explain the change in DIC in the PMEL data rather than atmospheric CO2 increases?" So where's all that fossil fuel CO2 going again?.

Prev  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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