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  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Next

Comments 100401 to 100450:

  1. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric and KR, Despite my efforts, I still don't think either of you understand what the gain is representing. The gain is the net result at the surface from the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which makes the surface warmer that it would be without it. KR, I know the gain isn't a constant, but an average. It fluctuates somewhat, but the range of fluctuation doesn't go anywhere near 8 (or 4) that is necessary to amplify 2xCO2 to 3 degrees C. Eric (RE: Post 211), That the gain is increasing as solar power is decreasing and vice versa has nothing to do with excess energy being stored. The ocean heat content is included in Pe, which is the power coming in and out of the Earth's thermal mass. If more power is arriving than leaving, Pe is a positive number; if more power is leaving than is arriving, Pe is a negative number. The averages are virtually zero, with power out being slightly more (0.1 W/m^2 higher on average). Also, the gain decreasing as radiative forcing is increasing - both hemispherically and globally, demonstrates negative feedback to increases in radiative forcing; meaning any small rise in surface power would be opposed rather than reinforced. This contradicts the AGW theory of large positive feedbacks greatly amplifying the small instrinic increase in radiative forcing from 2xCO2.
  2. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    So the more CO2 -> higher temperature part would work, but maybe not the higher temperature -> more CO2 part of the feedback cycle?
  3. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Realizing that I did not give my rationale for the proceding, it is: I assume that when averaged over a year and over the whole surface the flux into the eath's surface will equal that exiting from the surface. The rationale for this assumption is that if there is an imbalance the earth, if it is at a higher temperature than this steady-state temperature, will have a higher out-going than in-coming flux and the opposite is true if it is at a lower temperature. Imbalances will occur at various places over the surface and at different times but the average over a year and the earth's surface will yield the balance energy in = energy out. Actually there is a slight imbalance due to the increasing greenhouse gas effect, but that can be calculated with even greater precision than has been achieved in GWPPT6. The fact that the increase in the earth's temperature is essentially what is calculated for the increasing GHG effect of CO2 means that the mentioned energy balance is a reality for the earth in the absence of astronomical effects such as the Milankovich cycles (which result from perturbations of the earth's orbital eccentricity and the angle of its axis to the orbital plane and are very well understood to occur on time scales very much greater than those concerning us in the current increase in the GHG effectI.
  4. Conspiracy theories
    #47: "She seems to think ... " You won't get any mileage quoting J. Curry around here; this isn't 'climate-skeptic'. You haven't responded to questions here, here and here, among others. Your rhetoric is escalating again; words like 'CAGW' (whatever that means), 'glaciers in on the conspiracy', 'blinders', 'dogma', 'religious importance', etc. are the usual clues to an impoverished argument. I suggest a radical change in tactics; learn something about what the science has to say and you might be able to mount a credible argument. Now that would be an interesting change!
  5. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - "Can you give me the power in = power out relationship between the numbers in your post #196": For the surface, I did. In post #196. Keep in mind that Trenberth's numbers split the Earth system into three layers - surface, atmosphere, and space. If you add up the numbers for any one of the three layers (interacting with the other two) the sums match up to zero. He explains the derivations and evaluations of these numbers in Trenberth 2009. As I said before, if you have issues with any of the Trenberth numbers, say so, and specify which, with some justification as to why. You have not done so to date.
  6. Conspiracy theories
    Many people, including some regulars to this very site, make the claim that the world isn't warming. The #4 skeptic argument is currently "It's cooling." Yes, Judith Curry is wrong. Dismissing independently validated empirical observation and scientific theory as a religion is a good indicator of ideological "blinders". What would you think about that quote if the subject were evolution through natural selection rather than anthropogenic global warming?
  7. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    #3: Eric, a doubling is a doubling; ln 2 is still 0.693 regardless of the level. The difference is that there are more ppm between 2000 and 4000 than between 280 and 560, so it may take longer for subsequent doublings to occur (depending, of course, on how fast CO2 is being put into the environment). The sensitivity, ie the constant of proportion between delta T in degrees and delta F in W/m^2, remains the same. If you are familiar with music, an A = 110 hz & A = 220 hz & A = 440 hz & A = 880 hz & A = 1760 hz etc.
  8. Conspiracy theories
    NETDR - Consider where fame, reputation, and status in science comes from: producing correct results. Nature is a harsh critic, and bad science (Lindzen and Choi? Gerlich and Tscheuschner?) gets found out fairly quickly. Perhaps there is some negative fall out from challenging the IPCC (not surprising, you would be making an extraordinary claim, and hence require extraordinary evidence [Sagan]). But there is a much higher cost to promoting incorrect results. Consistent results work, and make a reputation. Making stuff up out of whole cloth (as conspiracy theories require) is a really foolish tactic - you quickly get caught by nature, the world, and reputation hungry grad students! :)
  9. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    #21: "the earth’s temperature is currently rising by 0.014 degrees per year" Please refer to Are surface temperature records reliable in which you will find details of the measurements that provide independent verification of hfranzen's detailed PChem calculations. You will note in Figure 8 on that page that the ocean temperatures are, on average, rising at 0.14-0.15 degC/decade. Land-based temperatures are rising at a faster rate, 0.2-0.3 degC/decade. This article reconciles 30 years of satellite data and 130 years of surface measurements to a high level of consistency. If you look in detail at other data collections, you may find even higher rates in the last 30-40 years. These data are overwhelming evidence of global warming, which no objective scientist should fail to recognize.
  10. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    response to # 21. The eath's temperature, as I understand it. is the average temperature over a year and over the whole surface of the earth. For me the best way to view it is: the temperature given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for thermal equilibrium from the earth when the flux to the earth is given by the GHG effect (all GHG's e.g. CO2, H2O, O3, CH4, etc.) and the albedo corrected radiatio from the sun
  11. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    Given the logarithmic response of CO2 wouldn't the difference in forcing between 3000 and 4000 be quite small? That would then suggest that the "sensitivity" to CO2 warming shown in the figure above is much larger than what has been calculated in detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html. But it also would suggest that paleo sensitivity analysis has lots of confounding factors that are not being considered. If there are such factors above (extremely likely) then they exist in more recent paleo history as well.
  12. Conspiracy theories
    46 The natural world is warming, that is a given. Despite some people spending huge amounts of time saying things like glaciers aren't in on the conspiracy that is just a straw-man. No one said it wasn't warming. Presenting CAGW as plausible is the wisest course for a non tenured individual as recent e-mails proved. PhD climatologist Judith Curry has had the "blinders" removed ! She wrote: "When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC? Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative." She seems to think there would be some negative fall out from challenging the IPCC ! Is she wrong ?
  13. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Also note that the "global monthly gain" chart in the paper from #150 shows it to be almost exactly inverse to the solar input. That suggests that "gain" is actually representative of the excess power not being stored as OHC. IOW, despite the fact that solar power wanes in NH summer, the earth temperature rises more than in summer as a ratio of that power (ie the "gain" is higher) due to NH land mass (much less OHC storage). The author does point out the hemispherical differences earlier in the paper, but does not carry any of those conclusions to the gain section (again it may be because they are not quantitative). The whole paper seems like a genuinely interesting experiment in data analysis, but ultimately discards the interesting part (seasonal variation in "gain") which seems to preclude its use with long run CO2 forcing.
  14. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - Thank you for the explanation; that clarifies things quite a bit. Unfortunately, that leaves you with a non-constant 'gain', which I do not feel is a meaningful number. In the absence of greenhouse gases (first approximation, mind you, a Gedankenexperiment) the incoming solar energy at dynamic equilibrium will still be ~240, and the outgoing IR will be 240 to match (zero imbalance). Your 'gain' is then 1.0. As the greenhouse effect changes value (more CO2 in the atmosphere, for example), the incoming visible light still be ~240, and the outgoing IR close to that as well - with a higher surface temperature, and a 'gain' > 1.6. What matters is the surface temperature required (with the current emissivity of the Earth) to radiate ~240 W/m^2 out to space. As the emissivity 'e' decreases with GHG's, an imbalance occurs between sunlight in and IR out - resulting in a changing temperature 'T'. Not a 'gain' factor, but basic thermodynamics and math. Your factor of 1.6 is not a constant, but a result. You can't use that as an input - that's confusing cause and effect.
  15. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e (RE: Post 204), Put another way, regardless of who is right or wrong about the energy flows, the gain is still going to be roughly 1.6
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e, the 1.6 comes from the paper linked in #150 (RW1: I think it would have been better to post that paper at the beginning to show where you are coming from). After reading the paper, the data comes from ISCCP, the variables are described here http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/variables.html I started with graph 1, albedo looks reasonable compared to some papers online. Next, input power is derived from Psun and albedo, also reasonable. That's the denominator in the "gain". The next section is where I have issues, both from lack of understanding of the data sources and from what looks like errors in a formula. As described in that document "The output power is calculated as Po = (1-ρ)*Ps + ρ*Pc + Pw, where ρ is the fraction of clouds, Ps and Pc are the power fluxes originating from the surface and clouds" First I do not know where Ps and Pc come from (in my link above). The Ps might be calculated from emissivity and temperature (but I have no idea really). The Pc may come from cloud top temperature but I think that lacks some parameter (clouds are not black body) Then my biggest issue comes from using the fraction of clouds (the corresponding variable is cloud amount). Then there may be a problem with "power consumed by weather" albeit small. The next step is subtracting the input from the output power, then comparing that to the change in temperature to conclude that "As expected, the net flux in and out of the Earth's thermal mass, Pe, closely follows the solar input variability." IMO that should have been followed with an analysis of thermal storage, namely something like #117 in this thread and the others muoncounter mentioned. After that fairly obvious and non-quantitative conclusion, the author gets to the "gain" formula which he conflates with sensitivity (I also have a problem with how sensitivity is defined, but I don't think the solution is this formula for gain). The numerator in gain is the power flux calculated from surface temperature using S-B. IMO the previous discussion came from an analysis that was supposed to yield a quantity but did not. The choice of surface power flux is quite limiting IMO due to issues I discussed in #144.
  17. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e (RE: Post 204), e: "Can you explain the physical relevance of the gain factor you keep citing (not the numbers you divided to get 1.6, but what does this number physically represent)? Nobody here understands why you think this number is meaningful." Using Trenberth's numbers, the gain is still about 1.6 (396/239 = 1.65). The gain is the simplest representation of how the system responds to each 1 W/m^2 of power entering, because it makes the fewest assumptions - like what all the energy flows may or may not be (cloudy vs. clear sky, how much absorbed power is re-directed toward the surface or space, how much passes through unabsorbed, etc.) The gain of 1.6 is the net measured result of all these things, independent of whatever specifically they may all be. Does that help clarify it?
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    e (RE: Post 204), e: "Can you explain the physical relevance of the gain factor you keep citing (not the numbers you divided to get 1.6, but what does this number physically represent)? Nobody here understands why you think this number is meaningful." I'll try again. The gain is simply a representation of the amount of post albedo power entering the system from the sun that is "gained" at the surface due to the presence of GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere, which delay the release of infrared heat energy by redirecting some of it back toward the surface, which makes the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. A gain of about 1.6 simply means it takes a 1.6 W/m^2 power flux at the surface for each 1 W/m^2 of power to leave the system, offsetting each 1 W/m^2 entering the system from the Sun. that 1 W/m^2 of post albedo power entering the system from the Sun, you get 1.6 W/m^2 of power at the surface,
  19. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 @ 203, The numbers are right there in the diagram, you can add them up however you prefer. Precisely which numbers do you find confusing?
  20. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 @ 202, Can you explain the physical relevance of the gain factor you keep citing (not the numbers you divided to get 1.6, but what does this number physically represent)? Nobody here understands why you think this number is meaningful.
  21. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    E (RE: Post 201), I understand those numbers very clearly, as they are easy to see. I'm talking about all the additional numbers and relationships as far as power in = power out.
  22. Conspiracy theories
    NETDR: I disagree and have some experience in a similar situation. OK, so we can now add the weight of personal anecdote to that of mere insinuation. I still prefer climate science and its actual data, thanks. Again, what you and other "skeptics" never seem to get is that your speculation about a "conspiracy of self-interest" — and its effects — requires at least the same amount of hard evidence you demand for AGW. This article makes the point clearly, but it can't be said often enough. You don't have this evidence. What you have, generally speaking, is prejudicial language (e.g., "mafia"), cherrypicked quotes and weak inferences based on a particular ideological view of human nature (which, significantly, you tend not to apply consistently, if at all, to other theories and sciences). The major problem you face is that the natural world is effectively in on the conspiracy, so your speculative and inferential attacks on scientists are pretty much beside the point. It's fine to talk about "self-interest" within a competitive field, but you also need to consider how rewards and credibility actually accrue to individuals within that field, because this determines which tactics are available to them. The idea that (wrongly) presenting AGW as "plausible" would garner the greatest rewards and fewest risks in climatology strikes me as a really bizarre proposition. And that would be the case even if there weren't a well-funded anti-AGW movement waiting to take scientists' remarks out of context or leave key data out of their arguments. Given what's at stake and the nature of the forces arrayed against them, "self-interest" for climatologists involves using careful language, doublechecking their calculations and getting their facts as straight as possible. In that regard, the contrast with "skeptics," who need to do little more than throw muck and see what sticks, couldn't be more stark.
  23. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: 191), KR: "- You have repeatedly asserted that cyclic variations (orbital distances, seasons) somehow affect the global energy balance differently than CO2 forcings." Funny that you say this when in fact I've argued the exact opposite. I've said that the CO2 forcings are treated differently than the same amount of incoming power from the Sun over "cyclic varations (orbital distances, seasons)". KR: "You are incorrect - they all affect the global energy in the same fashion. It's just that long term trends in averages will change global climate, whereas balanced cycles will not." I never claimed that balanced cycles change global climate long term. I'm well aware that they don't. How about you explain why the 1.6 gain factor works to explain the global average temperature difference of -3 C even with a +7 W/m^2 net solar input at perihelion, but not with a gain of 8 (or 4) needed for a 3 C rise from a doubling of CO2?
  24. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 @ 200 239 W/m^2 is the albedo adjusted input at TOA, 494 W/m^2 is the input at the earth's surface. If you look at the more precise numbers cited at the top of the diagram, the input and output at TOA is: input: 341.3 albedo: 101.9 output: 238.5 difference: 341.3 - 101.9 - 238.5 = .9 W/m^2 of warming. I agree with KR that the diagram seems straightforward, I'm not sure why you find it so confusing.
  25. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    You may also be interested in the recent paper by Young et al, which shows a dip in CO2 concentrations coinciding with the Odovician glaciation. To quote their abstract:
    "The Late Ordovician Hirnantian Stage (∼444 million years ago) was one of three time periods during the past half billion years in which large continental glaciers formed over Earth's polar regions. The effects of this glaciation were far-reaching and coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. The cause of this ice age is uncertain, and a paradoxical association with evidence for high atmospheric CO2 levels has been debated. Precise linkages between sea level, ice volume, and carbon isotope (δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg) proxy records of pCO2 have been poorly understood due in part to uncertainties in stratigraphic correlation and the interpretation of globally important sections. Although correlation difficulties remain, recent Hirnantian biostratigraphic studies now allow for improved correlations. Here we show that consistent trends in both δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg from two well-dated stratigraphic sequences in Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada coincide with changes in Late Ordovician (Hirnantian) climate as inferred from sea level and the extent of ice sheets. The integrated datasets are consistent with increasing pCO2 levels in response to ice-sheet expansion that reduced silicate weathering. Ultimately, the time period of elevated pCO2 levels is followed by geologic evidence of deglaciation.
    Young et al. Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2010
  26. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: 197), Are you saying that 239 W/m^2 is not the albedo adjusted input power? The diagram shows the albedo being 102 W/m^2.
  27. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    Plimer has done cherry picking. As one goes back in time, one sees less and less detail. Certainly carbon dioxide was higher in the past but many things were different in the Ordovician than they are at present. One example is that all land was in the Southern Hemisphere at that time. Ocean and atmospheric circulations were different and mountain ranges were lower with the possible exception of the Taconic Mountains. The Sun was certainly dimmer. Steve O'Connor's post is a very good one. We need to address the deniers every time they open their mouths or put pen to paper. The science is sound and conclusive.
  28. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR, Can you give me the power in = power out relationship between the numbers in your post #196.
  29. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    nerndt #18 I would think that when adding gases to the atmosphere, there may be some type of "balaning effect" where part of the atmosphere may recombine to form particulates that may go back to the ground. Can you give an example, please? Or failing that, a more detailed rationale for why you would make this assumption? If such "particulates" were being created and going "back to the ground," it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to detect them, especially since this process would presumably be increasing along with CO2 emissions. Where should we look? If I'm misunderstanding your comment, I apologize.
  30. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    References to religion, e.g. heresy, are not helpful to this discussion. If that was an attempt at humor, please realize that plaintext is not a compatible medium for such aims. "Earth's temperature" refers to the air, water & terrestrial surface; not a 2-d idealized surface of a sphere and not the sum total of the planet's mass.
  31. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Dear Hugo, nice calculations, I have no doubts about their correctness. There is no doubt about the forcing due to the steady increasing levels of CO2, it is well established physics. I just have, as a really skeptical scientist, not at home in the climate science, some heretic questions to the statement "that the earth’s temperature is currently rising by 0.014 degrees per year". Does this rise refer to the whole mass of our planet, to the crust, to the sum of liquid and frozen water or just to the atmosphere or a part if it? Surely not to the surface, since it is two dimensional. Probably not to the whole mass of our planet, its thermal inertia is much too high. If the troposphere or the whole atmosphere is meant, than the heat exchange with the solid or liquid masses beneath should be taken into calculation. Could you please, specify, what is meant by "earth’s temperature"?
  32. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    I agree with 19, i.e. the GW concern is with fossil carbon. On the other hand to mention an interesting fact, the equation that relates the rates of chemical reactions to temperature in a general way is the Arrhenius equation - the same guy who invented the term global warming. basically rates go like the expoential of one over T and the full exponent is the so-called enthalpy of activation divided by RT.
  33. Comparing all the temperature records
    #41: Be wary of edge effects when using the Fourier transform and filters at WfT. They can be pronounced and utterly artificial. #42: Yooper, climate science is easy when you're only in it for the cherries.
  34. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    nerndt @18 Decomposition rates do not have a significant effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as any CO2 lost via decomposition was taken from the atmosphere to begin with. The carbon from fossil fuels on the other hand has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. The general topic is discussed here. Also, there is no need to guess about balancing effects, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly measurable and it is increasing rapidly. You can find the discussion here.
  35. Conspiracy theories
    Re: NETDR (42) Unless you actually had a conversation personally with Dr. Schneider you should refrain from quoting him as if you did. If you did, when was that? Do you have any way to corroborate that? If you wish to have any credibility here, exercise a little more care when composing your arguments. The Yooper
  36. Conspiracy theories
    Re: Tarcisio José D'Avila (37) Dyson is an extremely poor source to quote-mine from on things related to climate science. While an expert in his field, he admits to knowing next to nothing about climate science and in the remainder of that interview admits to merely offering up an uninformed opinion. Asking Dyson to offer up substantive opinion on climate science is like asking a pastry chef to be a rocket scientist for NASA. The Yooper
  37. Comparing all the temperature records
    PDT 41 Woodfortrees has a Fourier function and global temp data.
  38. Comparing all the temperature records
    Re: Alexandre (40) Not an expert on the satellites, mind you (and from the linked Open Mind thread it would seem even experts have some uncertainty on this matter), but my thought is this: the satellites are calibrated to read a certain way under conditions found the majority of the time. ENSO comes along & throws up a prodigious amount of water vapor and heat higher into the sky than the satellites are calibrated to "read properly". Ergo the discrepancy. Climate science = hard work. If it were easy, anyone with an urge to audit something could do it... The Yooper
  39. Conspiracy theories
    NETDR, The point I was making is that the late Dr Schneider agreed with me that the way to increase funding was to hide doubt and overstate certainty. Nowhere did he mention an increase in funding for climate studies, and nowhere did he suggest that actual science be tweaked to fit a particular view. Again, you are confusing advocacy for mitigation with advocacy for climate science, the two are related but very much distinct.
  40. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Response to Villa#11. Thanks for the response. I would think that when adding gases to the atmosphere, there may be some type of "balaning effect" where part of the atmosphere may recombine to form particulates that may go back to the ground. Response to rocco #15 I will have to read these for I would think that the raising of the ocean temps would be much more than the link you posted. Response to hfranzen #16 If the global temp increases 1deg Celsius, decomposition of matter in the oceans and land mass will increase. Any idea how much of an effect that would be? Also, based on huamn activites, can we measure increased decomposition (which increases CO2) accurately outside of calculating how much fossil fuel emissions are made. Thanks for the healthy discussion! I studied Aero/Astro in college but now I am in biotech (past 20 years - much more complicated!) and feel we are missing some key pieces in studying the earth as a control volume part of the solar system (also a control volume and not a conrol mass, since energy from the sun constantly leaves the solar system).
  41. Conspiracy theories
    The point I was making is that the late Dr Schneider agreed with me that the way to increase funding was to hide doubt and overstate certainty. See the quote in #33 The reason I said "when you are in a hole stop digging" is that your additional words strengthened my case. I can see that if to you CAGW is a given then making it more controversial might make it more interesting to study for you, but the government and public don't work like that. Schneider and I agree there are hundreds of problems all screaming for dollars to solve them and more certainty that there really is a problem would increase funding. To you there is no doubt but you are not representative of "the public"!
  42. Comparing all the temperature records
    Thanks for the answers about the 133 month averaging. That makes sense. Does any one have a link to a Fourier transform of global temperature data?
  43. Conspiracy theories
    meerkat at 06:43 AM on 24 December, 2010 OK meerkat but what what does it matter what Kuhn did or didn't think about "normal science"? Kuhn's was simply a personal effort to encapsulate/generalize something about the progression of scientific knowledge. That's what philosophies of science are. They aren't a description of what science actually is or how science is actually done at any particular point in time. In other words you can't make a vague (and incorrect as and Phila and I have described!) interpretation of what someone considers might be a generalised stage of progression within a scientific field (aka Kuhn's "normal science"), unilaterally assert that the present climate science arena conforms to this, and then attempt to bash this science with the flabby truncheon that you've conjured up! If you've got a specific problem with the nature of climate science then why not describe this explicitly? I've given you some examples of why I consider (like Kuhn did) that "normal science" is a hugely valuable (and fundamental) part of the advance of scientific knowledge. If you think otherwise then you really need to give some specific examples. as for "snark", you're suggesting by insinuation that the current areas of strong consensus constitutes a hindrance to scientific advance, and that there's some sort of unjustifiable attempt to protect a paradigm ("circling the wagons"), and seem to have a notion about "interests" of scientists that we can assume you think problematic (since you raise the point!). That's pretty snarky especially as you don't give any evidence in support of those insinuations. you could certainly help to realign this argument with the subject of the thread (conspiracies!) by giving some examples of how you consider the "interests" of scientists to be problematic (if that's what you think). But please be specific!
  44. Comparing all the temperature records
    Thanks Ian #36 and Daniel Bailey for teh response. Eli Rabett's response was more or less what I intuitively imagined... but why is it that the effect is less on the surface? Maybe the surface's mass itself helps keeping the temperature more stable? Or the lower pressure makes the water vapor content more significant?
  45. Conspiracy theories
    NETDR, Your experience with politics is not indicative of the scientific community. The collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent end of the Cold War did decrease the need for military spending. Finding out that a scientific theory, and the empirical observations supporting it, is inaccurate does not decrease the need for scientific research. No amount of exhortation on how self serving, incompetent hacks are conspiring to hide The Truth(tm) in order to protect their funding will cause the independently validated empirical observations and scientific theories to disappear.
  46. Conspiracy theories
    Interesting response, NETDR. You were familiar with a quote-mined passage that fits in with your opinion. I suspect you've used that carefully- shaped "quote" before to support your arguments. When you are shown the full context, you are unable to read it accurately, and understand the clear difference in meaning. An objective and open-minded response would see the considerable difference in meaning. "To me that part just digs the hole deeper ! When you are in a hole stop digging is rule # 1 ." Now what exactly does this comment mean? How was Schneider in a hole and digging himself deeper? It seems as if you are reading Schneider's actual comment as something additional he said later after some original comment. Otherwise your statement makes no sense. On this site, accurate use of scientific studies is valued and cherry-picking of data to fit a pre-conceived case is seen as a misleading, dishonest tactic. Equally, quote-mining and selectively using a person's words to convey the meaning you would like to attribute to them is misleading, and certainly knowingly dishonest when first done in this case. You might not have known that before what Schneider said in full, but you do now. You might want to re-read what Schneider said, with care and an open-mind, and adjust your understanding.
  47. Conspiracy theories
    NETDR >I worked for several defense contractors. When the Soviet Union cease to be a threat the company I was with closed a division and laid off thousands and I was one of them. Your analogy is not valid. The point makes the false assumption that climate science exists to save us from global warming; it does not. By definition, the purpose is to study and understand climate, whatever the result may be. The "threat" from which climate science is defending is the unknown and the unpredictable, and it's not going away any time soon. Mitigation of known risks is primarily in the domain of economics, politics, and engineering - not climate science. Why would climate scientists be working to help economists keep their jobs? Also consider the fact that the Bush administration was openly skeptical regarding the threat from global warming, yet climate science funding continued unabated turing his presidency. From the perspective of the government, the threat did not exist, and by your logic the funding should have dried up, yet it didn't.
  48. Tarcisio José D at 07:46 AM on 24 December 2010
    Conspiracy theories
    Good question. But it is very difficult to separate conspiracy of consensus on the issue of anthropogenic greenhouse because I think these two factors, conspiracy and consensus, are present in most papers and lectures. Take for example that said Freeman Dyson on "climate modellers; "They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in." In his book Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus, the philosopher Nicholas Rescher defined consensus as a “condition of intellectual uniformity, a homogeneity of thought and opinion.” Most sincerity was James Hansen who wrote; "Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~ 4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3°C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.” This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3 ° C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged. " Renew, for to reinforce; "if other factors remained unchanged." By studying the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, it is known that heating the soil above the air temperature triggers the mechanism of thermal exchange by convection. And this exchange is dependent on temperature diferecial ground / air. But examine to the more than 80 meteorological stations INMET-Brazil did not find even a measuring temperature of the soil, only the air temperature (two meters above ground level). Then there is the missing link in the study of clima.Só remains the consensus because no one will say anything to the contrary.
  49. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Nerndt #10, There is a greenhouse effect on the moon due to the surface and subsurface lunar regolith (soil) , which has the property of absorbing and storing the incident solar radiation. This is the reason by which scientists are considering that the greenhouse effect on Earth depends more on the surface and subsurface regolith (soil) than on the Earth's atmosphere. Assuming this line of reasoning is based on Hertzberg and Siddons, you may want to read the discussion here. Generally speaking, linking to anonymous content on WikiAnswers is not helpful.
  50. Conspiracy theories
    #33 johnmacmot I honestly see no appreciable difference between what you posted and what I posted. A little more hand wringing and self justification but essentially no difference in the message at all. Schneider said: "And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need, to get some broad base support, to capture the public's imagination." To me that part just digs the hole deeper ! When you are in a hole stop digging is rule # 1 . Sorry !

Prev  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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