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  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  Next

Comments 100601 to 100650:

  1. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I think Eric (skeptic) has hit dead-on one of the problems with your approach, though other commentators I think have mentioned it: "but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer)." Each layer (really, each molecule) radiates half up and half down. The entire atmosphere is not a single layer that radiates half up and half down. There are many layers (molecules stacked on top of each other). Worse, the different layers have different characteristics. David Archer's book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" devotes its Chapter 3 to such a simple layer model, but only as an introduction to the concepts. Even that single-layer model shows heating of the surface. One of the "Projects" at the end of that chapter is to have the student extend that one-layer model to two layers (page 27), which still is far simpler than the real models that climatologists use. I think that chapter is your best way of understanding this topic.
  2. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I can't answer all your specific questions tonight, but I would note that the comparison between the paper you linked in #150 and the Collins paper I linked in #175 is quite dramatic. The author in your link has no representation of atmosphere except the flux-derived "gain" and the borrowed 3.7 number. It appears to be a case partly of misinterpretation and partly oversimplification, but I obviously need to figure out exactly what is wrong.
  3. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Evaporation and convection in the Trenberth numbers count; very much so. The Trenberth 2009 energy budget is essentially a 3-layer layout: 3-way exchanges between outer space, the surface of the Earth (water and soil), and the atmosphere. All numbers are important. You've indicated that you feel Trenberth was just presenting ad hoc numbers, as I indicated in this post, you're going to have to demonstrate your objections to specific numbers in those budgets to be taken seriously." No, I think some of Trenberth's numbers were determined ad hoc, but the diagram is confusing. Also, I did point out that his 70 W/m^2 for the transparent part of the atmosphere was likely too low. It's probably more like 80 W/m^2, because that yields 50/50 up/down for the portion of the atmosphere that is absorbed and re-radiated. What would like to know specifically?
  4. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #181: "~50-60% of the peak-peak values" Surely you are aware that the rms average of a pure sinusoid is .707 of the peak. Some asymmetry may produce an rms average that is somewhat less. The objections to your calculations have been made clear. It is useless to continue insisting that they have not and to pick one point for each posting and ask for details. You need to review this entire thread from post #2 on, as a whole, without asking for line-by-line explanations. We are far off the topic of this thread; IMHO its time to move on.
  5. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 and KR, the 1.6 gain is simply comparing two power fluxes in different locations. By comparing incoming and outgoing solar, for example, the albedo is determined linearly. The 1.6 would appear to also be linear, but it is not. For example if we only had a very small quantity of unreflected solar forcing (say 10 W/m^2), the surface would have no water vapor and no gaseous CO2 and the gain would pretty much be zero.
  6. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your peak-to-peak insolation numbers are meaningless without averaging them over the season; they should be ~50-60% of the peak-peak values (off the top of my head) for seasonal averages." What do you mean by "50-60% of the peak-peak values"?
  7. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your raw number calculations for insolation do not include sun angle; that will change those raw numbers considerably." Please explain and give specifics. I'm using global average numbers for insolation. I'm well aware that the angle of the sun varies dramatically dependent on latitude.
  8. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I don't think you are going to find a calculation of 7.4 W/m^2 absorbed, because like 3.7 radiative equivalent, it is not a physical quantity. The 3.7 is an effective forcing that can be used for comparison purposes with other forcings. The 7.4 would thus be an "effective absorption" but the physical reality is that the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates with decreasing absorption coefficients at every level as you go up. It can estimated with some granularity in the simulations, but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer).
  9. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your 1.6 gain makes absolutely no sense to me, nor to any number of other posters. You appear to be dividing apples by oranges." In what way, specifically? How am I dividing apples by oranges? What are you referring to exactly?
  10. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Seasonal changes are cyclic, which means they average out to a trend of zero (0°C) over time. Seasonal variability is quite large - but the trend over time (30 years for statistical significance) is non-zero, indicating global warming." I totally know all of this. How are you interpreting what I've said as being in conflict with this?
  11. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "The 3.7 W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1.2°C warming without considering feedbacks. That means 3.7 W/m^2 less IR radiation leaves the atmosphere. That number is the result of a considerable amount of computation, more than I can fit on the back of an envelope, working from basic physics to find how much energy is retained by GHG's." I want to see the details and computations, or at least point me to a source that lays them out. The "basic physics" dictate it should be half up and half down. For a 3.7 W/m^2 net toward the surface, that means a total of 7.4 W/m^2 has to be the amount additional infrared power absorbed and re-radiated from a doubling of CO2. BTW, I'm well aware that the calculation of 3.7 W/m^2 involves the things you're mentioning and it not a simple straightforward calculation.
  12. Comparing all the temperature records
    Norman wrote "I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data. Using a 133 month moving average shows a trend but the actual data do not." The 133 month moving average is "actual data." The whole point of computing a moving average is to make more visible the trend that is in the actual data. It's not magic. It's not cheating. It's not artificial. It's not non-actual.
  13. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Hi RW1, sorry I haven't answered your 172 post yet. I am looking at the paper you linked that said "According to HITRAN based simulations, the atmosphere captures 3.6 W/m² of additional power when the CO2 is increased from 280ppm to 560ppm. Of this, the atmosphere radiates half of this up and half down." and looking at the Collins paper http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/rtmip.pdf and others linked from Judith Curry's site http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/ So far I have not found a complete derivation of such a quantity as "captured additional power" for the atmosphere but a changes in LW forcing at various levels in the atmosphere. Hopefully I can reconcile those and determine whether the "divide by 2" idea is valid or not.
  14. Comparing all the temperature records
    Norman - Seasonal variation can be quite large. But if you look at long term trends, there is a statistically significant and easily seen warming. That takes 25-30 years of data, given the 'noise' of seasonal and yearly variations. But it's quite, quite clear.
  15. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - Quite frankly, it's difficult to know where to start. - The 3.7 W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1.2°C warming without considering feedbacks. That means 3.7 W/m^2 less IR radiation leaves the atmosphere. That number is the result of a considerable amount of computation, more than I can fit on the back of an envelope, working from basic physics to find how much energy is retained by GHG's. That's equivalent to a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing from solar changes (1.2°C for each 3.7 W/m^2 change), a 3.7 W/m^2 change in volcanic aerosols (1.2°C for each 3.7 W/m^2 change), etc. - Your 'halving' of the 3.7 radiative forcing is nonsense. You've been told that repeatedly, and have not responded. CO2 absorbs all the IR within it's emissivity/absorptivity bands within a matter of meters at ground level pressures. And emits based on it's temperature, somewhere near dynamic equilibrium. It's not just a single-layer atmosphere (where 7.4 W/m^2 absorption of surface IR would account for that); you would have to look at the integrated spectra of surface level IR absorption, the numeric calculations of each layer of atmosphere, etc. But it's 3.7 W/m^2 not making it out of the atmosphere for each CO2 doubling. - Your 1.6 gain makes absolutely no sense to me, nor to any number of other posters. You appear to be dividing apples by oranges. - Your peak-to-peak insolation numbers are meaningless without averaging them over the season; they should be ~50-60% of the peak-peak values (off the top of my head) for seasonal averages. - Climate sensitivity amplifies (to some extent) that change, with the current estimates being ~3°C for a doubling of CO2. - Your raw number calculations for insolation do not include sun angle; that will change those raw numbers considerably. - Seasonal changes are cyclic, which means they average out to a trend of zero (0°C) over time. Seasonal variability is quite large - but the trend over time (30 years for statistical significance) is non-zero, indicating global warming. - The difference between seasonal heating/cooling and long term trends is, quite simply, the trend. Seasonal effects cancel out, trends on baselines do not. - Evaporation and convection in the Trenberth numbers count; very much so. The Trenberth 2009 energy budget is essentially a 3-layer layout: 3-way exchanges between outer space, the surface of the Earth (water and soil), and the atmosphere. All numbers are important. You've indicated that you feel Trenberth was just presenting ad hoc numbers, as I indicated in this post, you're going to have to demonstrate your objections to specific numbers in those budgets to be taken seriously. Given the large number of incorrect or unsourced assertions in your postings, I would find it very difficult to discuss anything with you. You really appear to be focusing on details (bean-counting) without a good view of what's happening on a larger scale, and are getting tied up in the (incorrectly summed) numbers.
  16. Comparing all the temperature records
    #15: "I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data" Look here and you will see. The trend is up at the familiar 0.15 degC per decade. If you do NH separately (with the data download; WfT doesn't show separate satellite data sets), the trend is higher.
  17. Comparing all the temperature records
    #6 dansat "That is a great graphic. The myth that satellite temps. show cooling is widespread. (Especially here in Huntsville with UAH down the road!)" Satellite temps. From the satellite graph I would agree that it is a myth that satellite temps show cooling is widespread. But they also do not show a clear warming trend. After 1998 the temps flatlined in the 2000's and only went up in 2010 which was an El Nino year. I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data. Using a 133 month moving average shows a trend but the actual data do not.
  18. Comparing all the temperature records
    Just one point John. Should the graph not read "133 Month Moving Average"?
  19. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Moderators - Excellent questions in your comment here. The best minimum recommendation I could make would be (in the cases of blogs vs. rebuttals, or rewrites vs. BIA pages) to include a link between them - the blog including a link to the more formal rebuttal, the rebuttal including a link to the initial blog. That way we could tell the other version actually exists. As an addendum (yes, I know, additional requirements - never fun, always late in the project, very Dilbertian) it would be great to add to the HTML for the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced with the link tabs for them indicating how many comments are on each version, thus indicating where the real conversations are taking place.
    Response: "it would be great to add to the HTML for the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced with the link tabs for them indicating how many comments are on each version"

    That might be appropriate if each level rebuttal had its own comments thread but currently there is one comments thread for all 3 levels. That decision isn't locked in stone, I *may* split it into 3 levels down the track.
  20. Comparing all the temperature records
    I wonder if the fact that the European and Japanese records are published in the obtuse GRIB format are part of the reason why GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA are much more widely published online.
    GRIB is very popular with meteorological agencies. However, end-users who are used to downloading the "end product" (ASCII files) don't find it very useful. I think one reason why GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA are so popular is because they were among the first to produce comprehensive homogenized gridded climate data sets. In other words, they got in on the ground floor.
  21. Comparing all the temperature records
    The link "single spreadsheet" in the paragraph under the graphic is broken John.
    Response: Fixed, thanks Ron.
  22. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    #29: "the objective trend is unambiguous." It certainly is. Now you're watching!
  23. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric (RE: Post 169), What numbers would you like to use for the yearly average albedo vs. the average albedo in January? I now realize 0.4 is too high, and it appears like it's more around 0.33-0.35. Do you see that the 3 C colder temperature at perihelion doesn't conflict with the increased solar power and the roughly 1.6 gain factor, and is actually in line with it?
  24. Comparing all the temperature records
    I would like to advertise Japanese reanalysis as well. It is called JRA25 which covers 1979 - 2004, and continues as "JCDAS". The web site is here. http://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-25/index_en.html You need registration (called "Application" in their menu). And they have conditions, essentially similar to ECMWF's. Near-surface air temperature in 2.5 degree grids is item "TMPsfc" in the group "anl_p25". As for data format, I remember that monthly data are in simple binary (raster) format while data of shorter time periods are in GRIB.
    Response: Thanks Kooiti, I did have in mind the JMA record as well. Does their record cover the entire globe? If so, how do they fill in the Arctic regions that HadCRUT exclude?

    I wonder if the fact that the European and Japanese records are published in the obtuse GRIB format are part of the reason why GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA are much more widely published online.

    UPDATE: Okay, this graph seems to indicate they exclude the Arctic regions similar to HadCRUT, as does the fact that their global average shows 1998 as the hottest on record.
  25. Comparing all the temperature records
    While it is true that we need to pay to get ECMWF data in full resolution, ECMWF makes their popular parts available on-line. They have some "conditions of use": http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/license/era40/ The essential point is "non-commercial". The document is written with academic institutions in mind, and I am not sure how it is applied to citizen engagements. Currently there are two major series of reanalysis: ERA 40: Sep 1957 - Aug 2002, finished. ERA Interim: Jan 1989 - Oct 2010, continuing. Data on a standard latitude-longitude grid are available. I remember that the grid interval is 2.5 degrees. If you want monthly mean values of near-surface air temperature, go to the pages ERA 40 Years Re-Analysis, Monthly Means of Daily Means Type of level: surface http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/era40_moda/levtype=sfc/ ERA Interim, Monthly Means of Daily Means Type of level: surface http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/interim_moda/levtype=sfc/ and select the item "2 metre temperature". The data format is called GRIB. It is complicated, but ECMWF provides a decoder software (C source program ) at a page linked to the above-mentioned ones.
  26. Comparing all the temperature records
    Maybe this is covered somewhere, but why 133 months?
  27. Conspiracy theories
    #2 meerkat… “The AGW debate is fascinating” What “debate”? As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to debate. AGW is not a conspiracy, it is a fact – as are its consequences and the sooner this is accepted and dealt with, the better.
  28. Comparing all the temperature records
    #1 My understanding is that one of the reasons is that it helps to eliminate instrument variability. Just as a simple explanation, let's say we have two thermometers side by side. One reads correct temperature while the other reads the temperature 5 degrees higher. The average of those two instruments would be wrong. But if we only look at the change in temperature, the anomaly, they will both be the same.
  29. Comparing all the temperature records
    Great resourse John. Any idea why the satellite data starts in 1984? I thought data was available from 1979.
    Response: You're correct, satellites started in 1979. It's because this graph shows the 133 month average. Download the spreadsheet to check out all the sausage making that went into this graph.
  30. Comparing all the temperature records
    That is a great graphic. The myth that satellite temps. show cooling is widespread. (Especially here in Huntsville with UAH down the road!) Big thanks to John and Ben. I put that up on twitter and will post it on my AGU blog as well.
    Response: Thanks Dan. Don't forget to credit Kelly O'Day from Climate Charts & Graphs.

    Just a reminder to all, Dan's very cool AGU blog is Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal. BTW, the Twitter link on your blog doesn't work - do you still have a Twitter account?
  31. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    No one here has adequately debunked anything I've said. No one has yet to explain what is so special about each 1 W/m^2 of additional forcing from CO2 that the system is going to treat it as being 5 (or at least 2.5 times) as powerful as each 1 W/m^2 from the Sun. No one has yet to explain why the oceans will obey radically different physics globally than they do hemispherically to increases in radiative forcing. A few people have acknowledged that of the additional absorbed power from CO2, only half of it can affect the surface because the other half is radiate upward out to space. When asked for a source or some kind of documentation that for the total net forcing to be 3.7 W/m^2, the total absorbed actually need to be 7.4 W/m^2, no one has provided it. Now, I know must have missed answering some questions directed to me here, so please remind me of anything I failed to address to anyone's satisfaction.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You have been repeatedly corrected, most recently by KR at 174 below. Please read his comment carefully and review the previous comments others have made. Thank you.
  32. Comparing all the temperature records
    HH - I think the paper you want is Hansen and Lebedeff (1987) on why anomalies are used - and whether there is such a thing as an meaningful measurement of absolute mean global surface temperature extractable from the temperature network. How do you "average" thermometers at different heights, with different screen etc. However, the anomalies are highly spatially correlated and thus meaningful.
  33. Comparing all the temperature records
    Response: I'm not so sure that it's not free - a European scientist once mentioned to me in passing that the data was freely available online (but neglected to point to where).
    Yes, John. I think I've found where the data is. Unfortunately, there are multiple re-analyses and none continuously cover at least the MSU period.
  34. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    @RSVP #82 As I told you, you had from the very beginning a problem understanding what "unexcited" means. You must solve that in order to make the simplest step further. You also made a mistake judging what's going on: Almost anybody here is in need of "clarifying [their] positions" because you and another guy simply don't understand the underlying physics. Get it crystal clear: I don't see here any fellow adopting positions and debating them with you. We are just trying to make you to understand physics by building bridges. You may cross that bridges or ignore them or spit on them or even burn them, but still there's no "positions" in this level. That's the marvel of physics: the universe is not build from opinions. Just in case this is not clear, this post, as many of them in this site, is built with bricks got from experimental science. Your comments are answered "get the fact and logic straight" what is a previous condition to design any experiment. I suspect that find some pleasure from debating matters beyond your actual education and at some point beyond your potential abilities. Your verbal and social abilities -your ability to understand the social effect of a debate- is a thousand times stronger than your ability to pile up simple units of physical laws and principia and make sound inferences from that. And it's this wolverine-like attitude and militant skepticism of yours (the buzz-word skepticism I mean) what I find most interesting and valuable in you. Imagine your comments and the answers we give you analyzed in School -that's what I did, do and intend to do- not within a frame of boring physics but within a multidisciplinary frame including social sciences and studying how common people is manipulated. All the students became suddenly interested and they even learn the scientific method and some physics! That's the opportunity that comes from the pseudo-debate implying the reality of climate change. You shouldn't mix up social debate which includes some shreds of tottery physics, what you appear to have embraced, with a debate about physics: you voluntarily have put yourself out of that sphere. Just keep your comments coming, no matter they take a sentence here, shake it a bit and convert it in another thing. But you may also return to what unexcited is and your 'two-timing' packets and fix your initial mistake.
  35. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    VeryTallGuy (RE: Post 165), The questions I asked were perfectly reasonable.
  36. Comparing all the temperature records
    Hyperactive Hydrologist #1, GISS's calculation does produce a gridded data set of temperature. But the final gridded product that's readily available is in the form of anomalies. As per the GISS documentation, one could take annual averages and add, I think, about 14 degrees C to get back into temperature. The HadCRUT spatially averaged product is only available in anomalies. However, the 1961-1990 climatology is available, so one could add that to the anomalies to get back to temperature. NOAA is only available as anomalies for the most part (I think). Now if one did produce a temperature (as opposed to anomaly) time series, as the spatial coverage changes over time, that will certainly show up. Also, if the temperature time series is monthly, the annual cycle will obscure the changes relative to the long-term monthly means. The only way to solve this is the calculate annual averages.
  37. Comparing all the temperature records
    It appears that the ERA 40 reanalysis is not free. Looks like it's about 500 British pounds. Here's a link to the page with the order forms. However, NCEP and NCAR's reanalysis is free (in gridded form).
    Response: I'm not so sure that it's not free - a European scientist once mentioned to me in passing that the data was freely available online (but neglected to point to where).
  38. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 09:33 AM on 23 December 2010
    Comparing all the temperature records
    Why can't you just leave the mean global surface temperature as a absolute figure? I think I must be missing something really simple somewhere but surely you would still be able to see the change over time.
  39. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    ClimateWatcher - Also of interest is the Is the IPCC alarmist thread. In terms of CO2 emissions, sea level rise, and Arctic ice melt, the IPCC was quite conservative - observations are at the high end of or beyond all IPCC predictions. Your suggestion that "observations converge to a mild rate of change" really isn't supportable.
  40. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    ClimateWatcher - That's already been done. Look at the link I provided in my last posting, also take a look at How reliable are climate models, where this is discussed in some length. You might also look at this article on Deep Climate (June 2009), indicating that recent trends are slightly below predictions, but well within significance limits. I expect that if this analysis were to be updated with the very warm 2010 data there would be even less difference. Short term variation in global temperatures is quite large compared to the ongoing trends - you really need to take a 25-30 year view to really see what's going on.
  41. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    #27. KR, I would challenge you to do this analysis for yourself. The data is publicly available and the objective trend is unambiguous.
  42. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    I would have to second Ned's comment. Eric, if you are not actually a scientist, then you are thinking like one. You would be welcome in our tea room anytime.
  43. It's cosmic rays
    Den siste mohikanen said: "For sure, neither the sun nor CO2 nor the two together make up for the only climate forcing. So your argument is a bit weak by itself, but even if we assume that all the unexplained difference is due to CO2, that doesn't give as much room for IPCCs +6°C forecast that you seem to imply." This is only true if there are no "tipping points" involved. However, if the current temperature rise is sufficient to bring trapped methane out of solution in the oceans, permafrost, clathrates etc, then there could be a feedback effect. Or there are other possibilities that could have the same effect. Here is a comment from Michael Benton, a paleontologist at Bristol University. He says that evidence points to the cause of the Permian extinction being prolonged and violent eruptions from the Siberian traps, a huge region of volcanic rock. In this scenario, mass eruptions triggered environmental catastrophe by belching an overwhelming quantity of gas into the atmosphere for half a million years. "The main follow on was a flash warming of the Earth. That caused stagnation in the oceans, as normal circulation shut down. On land, the consequence of all the carbon dioxide and other gases appears to have been massive acid rain that killed the forests and stripped the landscape bare," Benton said. "This was the greatest of all mass extinctions, the time when life was most nearly completely wiped out."
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Good points. See the discussions on methane hydrates here and here.
  44. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Moderators - I'm a bit puzzled by the nearly identical posts here and here, showing up under Monckton and "temperature overestimate" searches. I also seem to recall at least a little discussion when this topic was originally posted, although there's only one comment visible between the two pages. I've seen much the same thing with Basic/Intermediate/Advanced discussions and duplicate postings of updates to one of those three - we end up with duplicate topics that don't share comments. I would suggest URL redirects rather than the duplicate content.
    Response: [John Cook] There are two sections in Skeptical Science - the blogs and the rebuttals. Originally, it was just the rebuttals - my ideas was to create an encyclopedic reference but then all you whippersnappers said I should do a blog as well, which apparently are all the rage on the interwebs.

    So I consider the blogs a snapshot in time - often blog posts are actually rebuttals being added into the rebuttal section. Then over time, subsequent blog posts feature updates to the rebuttals (a good example is Greenland ice loss which is constantly updated as observations find the ice sheet is losing ice at a faster rate as time goes on). So yes, there is some duplication of content as the rebuttals mirror the blog posts. An additional complication is having 3 levels of rebuttals - we debated at length what to do about comments. Do you have 3 different sets of comments or one set of comments for all 3 rebuttals. I opted for the simplest option (and not just because it was the least amount of work) of having a single set of comments. If you can think of a better way to do it, I'm all ears. :-)
  45. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    ClimateWatcher - You might want to look at the IPCC overestimate temperature rise thread, where this accusation (originally from Monckton) is rather completely debunked. I would suggest moving ongoing discussion of this argument over to that thread, as it's right on topic there.
  46. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    KR, archiesteel, muoncounter, Phil: Regarding #17, please do a least squares fit of the MSU data (UAH and RSS), the surface temperature indices (NOAA, GISS, or CRU) and the SSTs (Hadley). Do this fit since 1979 ( the beginning of the MSU data ). Then refer to the IPCC which predicts the best estimate for a low end scenario. Note that all the above measurements indicate trends less than even the low end scenario. Note this message quickly, because the mods don't seem to like reasoned responses which contradict popular conception.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Actually, the "mods" love reasoned responses, even those that "contradict popular conception". It's just that there are extremely few of them which don't run afoul of the Comments Policy.
  47. Conspiracy theories
    #14: "Whereof one shouldn't speak, thereof one must remain silent. Or else."
  48. Conspiracy theories
    #13: "a "skeptical" transvaluation of philosophy" Don't even suggest that or the State of Texas will start printing philosophy textbooks with "I don't think, therefore I am." Of course, that will immediately be followed by "Ignorance is strength".
  49. Conspiracy theories
    Incidentally, misuse of Kuhn is a fairly common "skeptical" tactic. See, for instance, GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism and Climate junk hard to dump. Once they get tired of this shiny bauble, perhap they can move on to the Foucauldian episteme. Eventually, we can have a "skeptical" transvaluation of philosophy, to go along with the "skeptical" transvaluation of science and history.
  50. Conspiracy theories
    #2 (meerkat),
    But I don't think the world is going to end soon, or that the AGW panic is helpful.
    Exactly what "panic" are you referring to? This is a denier BS habit that really bugs me... casting the AGW situation as CAGW, and equating calls for action to "panic." No one is panicking. If we begin to take moderate, considered and effective action now, there won't be any need to panic. On the other hand, if we sit around doing absolutely nothing until we have reason to panic...

Prev  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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