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  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  Next

Comments 103401 to 103450:

  1. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    So Eric, you're believing the claims of ClimateAudit (the people behind the FoI requests) instead of the claims of multiple, independent sources who say otherwise? That doesn't sound very genuinely skeptical to me!
  2. It's the ocean
    h-j-m. "The logical consequence of this claim is that rising atmospheric temperatures (due to anthropogenic global warming) causes rising ocean temperatures." But this is NOT what is happening. It is not warm air that is warming the sea - it is increased radiation (sun + backradiation) that is warming the sea. Ie radiative heating not conductive heating. And in that setting, it is warm ocean that is warming the air, not the other way round.
  3. It's the ocean
    Yes, there is a net flow of heat from hotter objects to cooler objects. That flow results in the cooler object becoming hotter and the hotter object becoming cooler. Hence, if the oceans were warming the atmosphere they would be cooling.
  4. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    I agree that it isn't relevant to the scientific basis. Why do so many self-described skeptics make it out to be a "final nail in the coffin of AGW"? As several here have explained to you, there is nothing plain & simple about this. Do you think CA was wrong for organizing the intensive campaign of vexatious requests?
  5. It's the ocean
    If the ocean was feeding atmospheric warming, the oceans would be cooling. Boy, I don't follow this statement. If the oceans were feeding global warming they would have to be warmer than the atmosphere for heat transfer to occur. Heat flows from hotter to colder always whether it is conduction, convection or radiation. Since the oceans radiate very little it has to be conduction and convection. This is kind of like the beer illustration in reverse. Problems in assessment of the ultraviolet penetration into natural waters from space-based measurements interestingly seems to disregard or at least down play the role of the atmosphere (CO2 and air) in the absorption of UV in the oceans. The ozone hole, aerosols, clouds and the nature of the ocean with it's life seem to be bigger drivers of the absorption of UV. UV is of course a big player in warming the oceans.
  6. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    #25, dhogaza "McI and the CA crew knew that CRU could not release the small amount of data deemed to be proprietary by a few countries which owned it. McI and the CA crew peppered CRU with FOIs demanding this data anyway" The bulk of the FOI's demanded either data that was not proprietary or to see the agreements that stated that the data was proprietary. See http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/ for more info.
  7. Skeptical Science now an Android app
    Oh, I forgot to mention: the first time I downloaded the app, some of the topics appeared twice and some appeared to be missing. I think this was due to an interrupted download. I uninstalled and downloaded again, and that fixed the problem.
  8. Skeptical Science now an Android app
    I love this app almost as much as I love the website, thank you. @NewYorkJ (#10), I find the app useful for more than face-to-face battle with contrarians. I dip into it when I have downtime, to brush up on some of the arguments. The arguments are in brief form, but there is still enough detail for study.
  9. Renewable Baseload Energy
    BTW, Dana, you forgot to mention Vanadium Flow Batteries. There is strong evidence to suggest that this could be an ideal way to store wind power for release when wind is not available. King Island Wind Farm-for example-is able to provide 50% of the communities power needs from Wind alone because of the batteries. It would probably only be 1/3rd that amount if they relied on the wind power *only* when the wind was available.
  10. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn, when coal power was new, the power cost about US$3.00/kw-h (in 1990, inflation adjusted terms) & its only been in the last 60 years that electricity from coal-fired power fell below the US$0.20/kw-h (again, in 1990 inflation adjusted terms)-& that required much more tax-payer assistance than solar or wind has ever received. So as a new technology, I'd say that solar thermal is off to a very good start. Obviously as economies of scale are achieved, the price will fall below then $0.10c/kw-h range. Also, your claims about Minnesota don't really stack up too well either. According to the EIA, electricity prices in Minnesota have only risen by 0.1c/kw-h (barely a 1% rise), & are still below the average US rate of 11.53c/kw-h. So it seems that, on all counts, your claims just aren't backed up by the facts!
  11. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    bibliovermis: how is it relevant to the scientific basis? It isn't. It is a legal issue, nothing else. Do you think it is relevant?
  12. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    I find it interesting that WDWK after challenging me to analyse data before drawing conclusions then went silent when it transpired that I had already done so. The indication from my data analysis is that ENSO is a redistributor of heat, and is not a driver of global warming. WDWK's observation of increasing oscillation of longer term cycles (#13) is nicely consistent with this paper from Nature on Early-warning signals for critical transitions. The results from my regression analysis suggest that the most likely causal agent for this increase is CO2, as it overtook solar variability as the most important driver of temperature anomaly some time in the mid-20th century.
  13. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: gallopingcamel (67)
    "At the risk of shooting my own arguments in the foot, it would be very strange if Christidis et al. had failed to conclude that CRM [Cold Related Mortality] is much greater than HRM [Heta Related Mortality] in England."
     I must respectfully point out that Christidis et al. concluded no such thing. From the Abstract:
    "Cold related mortality among people aged over 50 in England and Wales has decreased at a rate of 85 deaths per million population per year over the period 1976–2005. This trend is two orders of magnitude higher than the increase in heat-related mortality observed after 1976. Long term changes in temperature-related mortality may be linked to human activity, natural climatic forcings, or to adaptation of the population to a wider range of temperatures. Here we employ optimal detection, a formal statistical methodology, to carry out an end to end attribution analysis. We find that adaptation is a major influence on changing mortality rates. We also find that adaptation has prevented a significant increase in heat-related mortality and considerably enhanced a significant decrease in cold-related mortality. Our analysis suggests that in the absence of adaptation, the human influence on climate would have been the main contributor to increases in heat-related mortality and decreases in cold-related mortality."
     CG, the point of Christidis et al. was to: 1. Measure the trends of the changes (if any) in CRM and HRM 2. To see what portion could be explained by human adaption (if any) and what could be attributed to climate change (if any). At no point do the authors conclude that CRM is higher than HRM. Apples and oranges. Comparing widely diverse areas by latitude is a bit of a strawman as well. The climatic variables impacting the United Kingdom and those impacting Australia as they relate to CRM and HRM are completely different. Apples and breadfruit. In the absence of every variable except for latitude, then yes, I would support your conclusion about the study. If they had made that conclusion (CRM > HRM). Which they didn't do. Apples and Na'vi. The Yooper
  14. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Camburn, Confessions obtained under duress are dismissable. I still want to know why this issue is relevant to a discussion of the scientific basis since you admit that it has nothing to do with climate science.
  15. Renewable Baseload Energy
    That 14 cents a kw sounds a bit pricey for Arizona. It will cost the consumer much more than 14 cents. Right now the consumer pays approx 11 cents per kw at the retail level. I hope it doesn't end up like Minnesota. Rates are going through the roof because of the contracts for purchase of wind power.
  16. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    Yep #12 seconded
  17. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Daniel Bailey, At the risk of shooting my own arguments in the foot, it would be very strange if Christidis et al. had failed to conclude that CRM [Cold Related Mortality] is much greater than HRM [Heta Related Mortality] in England. The country is situated at high latitudes (50N to 55N), so dangerously high temperatures are rare. A similar study done in Australia (26S to 41S) might show quite different results.
  18. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Re: Camburn (22)
    "A wrong is a wrong."
     Except when it's not wrong. 1. Should CRU, the UEA and the ICO have done a better job of making a better effort to comply with the FOIA requests in a more timely fashion? Yeah, probably. 2. Should CRU, the UEA and the ICO have complied with every FOIA request? Evidence shows that all specific, non-vexacious FOIAs not involving the intellectual property of another country were responded to. 3. Should those submitting FOIAs for intellectual property not belonging to CRU and not subject to fulfillment by an FOIA have then taken up their case with those foreign bodies? Absolutely. 4. Was it possible to get the needed data from the requisite foreign bodies in a timely fashion, write the needed codes and then replicate CRUs work? Tamino did it. Ron Broberg did it. Nick Barnes did it. Clear Climate Code did it. The Muir Russell Commission did it in 2 days and further said that any competent researcher could have easily done the same. 5. So where is the analysis, where is the replication, where is the published work of the "skeptics", now that precedent has shown that it tweren't all that hard to do? ( - insert sound of crickets chirping here - ) The real travesty of all this is the inability of "skeptics" to move on. Now that's wrong. The Yooper
  19. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Phil Jones said he was wrong. That is good enough for me.
  20. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    "Winters warming faster than summers". What exactly is the mechanism by which an enhanced greenhouse effect causes winters to warm faster than summers? Is it because a cooler stratosphere strengthens the circumpolar vortex and westerly winds in mid-latitudes?
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    You are aware that backradiation etc is MEASURED? (Look for DLR stations). If your understanding mismatches experimental observations, then your understanding is wrong. As to balance - Planck radiation is the "balancing mechanism". First Law of thermodynamics - that you cant destroy energy - is why you have balance. If a body absorbs energy its temperature rises - temperature is expression of average molecular kinetic and potential energy in the body. It emits radiation in proportion to its temperature. When radiation outgoing matches incoming energy temperature stays constant. Its simple physical law, readily demonstrated a lab. A body "knows" what do in accordance Stefan-Boltzmann, derivable from QM theory - a moving charged particle must irradiate. Incoming and outgoing radiation are measured at TOA by atmosphere. There is problem with the measurements in they have good precision but poor accuracy.
  22. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    "A wrong is a wrong." But as people are pointing out to you, refusing to honor an FOI is not always wrong. In fact, the law specifically makes this clear. McI and the CA crew knew that CRU could not release the small amount of data deemed to be proprietary by a few countries which owned it. McI and the CA crew peppered CRU with FOIs demanding this data anyway. That's about as vexatious as one can get.
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - "... there is no substantial downward radiation because the photons emitted by GHGs are largely absorbed locally and certainly never get to the ground at a level comparable to the Sun's input." Nuh. Any molecule that can absorb radiation must, by definition, emit radiation. The fact that radiation is absorbed, emitted, absorbed again, emitted again multiple times within the atmosphere before striking the surface (again) or eventually escaping at TOA is what the "greenhouse effect" consists of. All this bouncing around is the evidence of energy staying in the system. When there are more GHGs in the atmosphere, more energy stays in the system longer.
  24. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    From the document that The Ville linked to @15 Section 14(1) states that public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test. • To decide whether a request is vexatious, you need to look at its context and history. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation. • In particular, you should consider the following: Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive? Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff? Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction? Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance? Does the request lack any serious purpose or value? Given the description in the main post, it would seem that many of the FOI's received by CRU meet criteria 1,3,4 and 5.
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel @ 153 - The problem is both the back radiation and the ground radiation. First they are both greater than the input from the Sun Well, yes both surface and back radiation occur night and day, whereas incoming solar radiation doesn't.
  26. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    A wrong is a wrong. Where is your hue and cry for inquiries into the orchestrated harassment that incited this? You're also right in that this has nothing to do with climate science. Why then is it used to invalidate climate science?
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Composer99, the wikipedia diagram as well as a similar diagram (unfortunately only black and white) on the mentioned Science of Doom page show clearly that incoming radiation gets absorbed (by water vapour mostly). The Trenberth et al. diagram I have included in my post #50 shows ~ 20% of incoming energy absorbed by atmosphere. I doubt you could justify neglecting it. Nevertheless I completely failed to find any credible further information on that subject. The rest of your post urges me to some provocative questions. How does the earth measure the incoming radiation? How does the earth measure the outgoing radiation? How can it tell the difference? But if it can do this. Who told the earth that there should be a balance? How can he force the earth to respond? Consider these questions answered. How can the earth know what to do? Does the earth have the means to do what needs to be done? Sorry, somehow that sounds rather non scientific, but I could not help writing it anyway.
  28. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Once again, the issue is did CRU perform for the FOI requests. They did not. A wrong is a wrong. This has nothing to do with climate science as to whether the science has merits. A completely seperate issue.
    Moderator Response: My point exactly in my closing two paragraphs. - James
  29. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Regarding CRU scientists not trusting the motives of McIntyre and McKitrick: I would say they had good reason to not trust their motives. A good example is the ISPM (Independent Summary for Policymakers) published by the Fraser Institute. It was issued days after the release of the Summary for Policy Makers by the IPCC, in Febuary 2007. At this time, Ross McKitrick was head of the Fraser Institute, a well know industry front group. ( Interesting that they had their Independent Summary ready just days after the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers. ) Anyway, here are some examples of Fraser Institutes distortions of science then. According to the Fraser Institute: "An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism." Just the use of the word "alarmism" should ring a bell that this is not an unbiased paper. It's a derisive term used by the denier crowd, and you wouldn't find such terms in any real scientific study. The ISPM claimed that the report from the IPCC "is neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community." This was not true. Here's what Desmogblog says about it. "In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s 'scientific' staff - which is led by an economist - includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups." Fraser Institute said: "There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway." Compare that claim with what Dr Andrew Weaver, lead IPCC author and chairman of the Canada Research in Climate Modelling and Analysis says. "The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point." Sourcewatch says that Fraser Institute's ISPM errors include: "Several incorrect statements concerning tropospheric temperature trends derived from satellite data." "Misdentification of peak temperature year in GISS and NCDC global surface temperature data sets (1998 given instead of 2005)." "Mistaken citation of projected sea level rise to 2100 of only 10-30 cm, instead of 21-48 cm given by IPCC" "Several examples of "cherrypicking", inexplicable omissions and misrepresentations." Frazer Institute's ISPM states: "There would also appear to be an unstated implication that temperature may have reached a plateau or even decreased since 1998." Sourcewatch: "the ISPM fails to mention that the smoothed temperature statistic for the combined data sets continued to show an upward trend through 2005." "The ISPM conveniently omitted the following information from the IPCC report." "2002 to 2004 are the 3rd, 4th and 5th warmest years in the series since 1850 Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) ... rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850." "Surface temperatures in 1998 were enhanced by the major 1997–1998 El Niño but no such strong anomaly was present in 2005." http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ISPM#Errors_and_discrepancies More on Fraser Institute's twisting of science at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib/
  30. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #144 archiesteel You write: "To say they do is either to misunderstand the science, or to disingenuously misrepresent what climatologists believe." Lets look at Trenberth's diagram:- You write:- "The point is not that all of the absorbed photons will go back down. The photon re-emission by GHG molecules happens in a random direction." Trenberth's diagram shows 165Wm^2 going out from the atmosphere, 30Wm^2 from clouds 360Wm^2 going up from the ground and 324Wm^2 back radiation going down. The problem is both the back radiation and the ground radiation. First they are both greater than the input from the Sun, second they are not reflected by the ground or the clouds whereas the Sun's input is reflected by both the clouds and the ground. Third the Suns input is absorbed (67Wm^2) by the atmosphere, why isn't the '324Wm^2 back radiation' similarly absorbed? Since 'back radiation' is emitted by GHGs it does not have a short wave component like sunlight, so a bigger % of the 324Wm^2 is going to be reabsorbed by GHGs. All I was doing in my post #143 was drawing attention to Eli Rabbet's recognition that this IPCC diagram does not represent anything real. Using Eli's explanation there is no substantial downward radiation because the photons emitted by GHGs are largely absorbed locally and certainly never get to the ground at a level comparable to the Sun's input. Likewise Earth's 390Wm^2 surface emission cannot be well over double the 168Wm^2 arriving there from the Sun. The IPCC claims that the GHGs warm the surface by about 33C but there are no numbers on this diagram showing how this happens, even though the various places are shown emitting and absorbing radiation, there are no temperatures showing the basis for explaining the greenhouse effect. Is this the way we plan to change the World fuel economy?
  31. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ah, h-j-m's point (I think) could be stated as follows Since GHG's absorb in the visible (as well as the infra-red), doesn't increasing the concentration mean that the earth receives less energy because the subsequent emission of that radiation scatters some of it into space - back radiation on incoming EM which thus goes into space. Assuming I've understood h-j-m's issue correctly let me offer the following rebutals 1. Absorption of EM radiation, either visible incoming or IR outgoing does not result in all the radiation being emitted, some will be converted into vibrational, rotational and translational energy. Thus increasing absorption of visible incoming EM will, in certain extent warm the upper atmosphere as well as decrease slightly the EM hitting the surface. 2. The areas of the incoming EM spectrum in which H2O (primarily) absorb are not near the peak of frequencies and are at the longer wavelength(lower energy) end. Thus they do not absorb proportional as much as the outgoing earth-light. 3. The Greenhouse effect is measured empirically by comparing the temperature at the top of atmosphere with the ground. The commonly quoted 33deg is therefore the nett effect of IR absorption of Earthlight coming out - Visible absorption of Sunlight coming in. I seem to remember seeing 50deg as a figure for the 1st, but I'll be damned if I can remember where ... Thats quite a long response to a point that I may have misunderstood, and is getting increasingly off-topic for this particular thread... :-(
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    That spectral chart is a visual example of what I said - incoming solar energy is primarily in the form of visible & UV light. For your other question, about what makes greenhouse gases so special, you could read the 150 year old research report by Tyndall that I linked to earlier. I apologize for not relinking as this is being tapped out from my phone.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m: You mean the Wikipedia graph? That appears to be taken into account by the graph provided by others (from Science of Doom) several comments down: DSL/Ned (comments #26/27). I'm not sure I follow. Surely, if greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can alter the flow of radiation coming in from the Sun, if that radiation is at the correct wavelenghts, then they can affect radiation coming up from the surface of the Earth, particularly since a very large part of that radiation occurs in the wavelengths most vulnerable to greenhouse gas effects. Leaving out the constant heating from the Sun, the net flow of heat energy, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, should be from the Earth, through the atmosphere, into space. That is what we see. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere delay this flow of heat energy and (bringing incoming Solar radiation back into the picture) force the Earth to increase its surface temperature to bring it back into radiative equilibrium. Again, we see this in empirical observations.
  34. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    JMuprphy #19. In my initial post I showed Dr Landsheidt's relationship between PDO and the solar torque cycle: a 178.8-year cycle that began in 1899.9 and will last till 2078. Within this cycle is the 35.8 year cycle most often revered to when comparing PDO and solar cycles. From that it is obvious that the PDO just doesn't simply oscillate randomly around 0, and that it has long-term trends at different times scales. (Nothing in nature at [such large scales] happens randomly). That said, within a cycle are upward and downward trends; Just look at a simple sinus wave with say a wave length of one 1 yr. Between 0-3 months the sinus wave has an upward trend, between 3-6 months it has a downward trend, 6-9 downward and finally 9-12 upward again. Hence; within cycles are up and downward trends. However, on average (doing linear regression for example) over one period a sinus wave with a period of 1 shows a slope of 0... So, one has to look at the appropriate periods to compare trends within cycles. That said, take a look at the temperature record from 1900 to YTD again: apply the same trend line as what the PDO exhibits (based on the available observations) to the temperature record (yielding an r2 of 0.75... ). That temperature trend line then shows decreasing temperatures from 1900 to ~1910, increasing from ~1910 to ~1945, slightly decreasing from ~1945 to ~1968, increasing ~1968 to current. And yes an r2 <1 means not all variation is explained, thus there are other variables involved. But, again I never said the PDO explains everything. But a lot. Also, I still haven't heard any argument or discussion that can explain or dismiss other than the PDO and solar cycle why el ninos and la ninas have increased and decreased in max strength, respectively, with the exact same rate with an r-square of almost 1 (see post #13) and why the increase of max el nino strength has the exact same rate as the increase of the max temperatures (see post #18) also with an r-square of almost 1 over the last 20yrs? In addition, there is nothing wrong looking at peaks, as it essentially takes away all the noise and as long as you compare rates.
  35. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    My own experience is that it is pretty easy to get angry over things like this. Some people you just know are going to cause you trouble in the future. I'm sure they felt that by giving into Mcintyre that in the future they were going to have to deal with him screwing up a reconstruction and making statements that are wrong. Clearscience http://clearscience.wordpress.com/
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Composer99, for the simple reason that I have already done that in post #23. You can also cross-check with the link DSL provided in post #27.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    As several posters here accuse me of misunderstanding, misinterpret and general lack sufficient knowledge of physics and thermodynamics I will gladly admit all of that. Nevertheless, as posters doing so fail to provide any evidence in the end it just constitutes an ad hominem comment. Being aware of my poor knowledge I check facts before writing, double-check them while writing and triple-check them before posting. Now I will try to do it an other way. Is it true that matter absorbing incoming energy will result in either 1.a phase change (solid to liquid, liquid to gas, gas to plasma) and/or 2. taking up more volume and/or 3. emitting radiation? If we observe gases absorbing incoming energy at surface temperatures, is it true we will observe them gaining volume and emitting radiation (getting hotter)? If you answered no to at least one of the questions please tell my why, if not then please tell me what specifically makes green house gases so special.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m: Rather than cryptic wager challenges, why not share a link or other citation to peer-reviewed literature showing the magnitude of greenhouse gas effects on incoming solar EM radiation?
  39. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    OK Camburn, imagine that you are in a situation like this: You work in a very small organization with no full-time administrative support staff. You have to deal with administrivia on your "own time". You are the PI on a research project where the funding agency wants you to account for every hour you charge to the project. You get hit with a flood of obviously frivolous FOI requests from someone in a foreign country. The requests demand proprietary data/documention that you are not free to redistribute under the terms of the nondisclosure agreements that you signed. Furthermore, the requester could easily obtain the same data and documentation by requesting them from the organizations who actually do own them. Dealing with these frivolous FOI requests will take many hours of your time. But remember -- you don't have any support staff to offload this work onto. In addition, the terms of your research grant forbid you from charging your time to the project while you are dealing with the FOI requests. Essentially, the only way you can deal with the FOI requests without violating the terms of your research grant is to spend your "own time" (nights and weekends) on these nuisance FOI requests. What might your private email messages look like?
  40. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    Correction to #75, Global SAT anomaly was -0.16 C (NASA GISTEMP) in 1976, not 1975.
  41. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    JMurphy, I know, funny how that works. The AO has flipped strongly negative again-- similar to what happened last winter. And if the findings from a recent paper are correct, they should expect more of the same in future winters. From ScienceDaily: "The overall warming of Earth's northern half could result in cold winters, new research shows. The shrinking of sea-ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional heating of the lower levels of air -- which may lead to strong anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents, according to a study recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research." At the same time we may be experiencing one of the strongest La Ninas since 1975/1976. According to GISS the mean global SAT anomaly in 1975 was -0.16 C. I could be wrong, but I reckon that the global SAT anomaly for 2011 is going to be closer to +0.40 C. I wonder what the difference is between then and now? ;)
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #143: "the so-called greenhouse gases, that emit and absorb radiation; Rabbet is acknowledging that adjacent GHG molecules will absorb GHG emitted photons." Your logic continues to spiral downwards. GHG molecules absorbing photons increases the temperature of the atmosphere -- and hence, warming. "and further to Jelbring" I have no particular interest in Jelbring; I assumed that was the source of your gravity=temperature gradient. If not Jelbring, perhaps you are a follower of Landscheidt, then? "you will find a further link to Steve Goddard's thread ... over 400 postings ... the vigorous discussion ... is just absurd." Any credibility you've tried so valiantly to establish here, now gone poof. As far as the number of postings on one of $G's threads being an indicator of substance, value or thought: Really? Here is what Dr. Roy Spencer posted on a similar thread in Watt$land: But it’s when that volume is exposed to outside influences — like IR radiation from the solar-heated surface of the Earth passing through that volume — that a temperature change can occur as a result of adding more CO2 to the volume. -- emphasis added Absurd is as absurd does.
  43. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    All, It continues to amaze me how binary the thinking of the contrarians is. In fact, posts here and elsewhere indicate that they are incapable of attributing any responsibility or guilt on the part of the "skeptics"/contrarians in any of these events. In this case, fault can be found with both groups. By dismissing the totally inappropriate behaviour of McIntyre et al, they are endorsing and supporting unethical activity. But nothing new there I suppose. Actually the FOI attack was at the very heart of this issue. Had McIntyre et al. made not planned vexatious FOI attack on UEA/CRU, then this would have been a non-issue. It was in the ensuing chaos and stress and pressure, that Jones and others made some poor decisions which they have been rightly criticized for by the Sir Muir Russell Commission. See, there is some accountability and reckoning there. Where is the accountability and reckoning for those who instigated this whole process? None. The "skeptics; continue to get free pass for incredibly bad behaviour, and it blows my mind that they were not the subject of several inquiries. Their bad behaviour, their inappropriate behaviour is on the public record. Also, the FOI campaign was part on an ongoing harassment by McIntyre et al against "The Team". One has to wonder why they went after CRU and not NCDC, NASA etc. The reason is clear-- CRU were a small group, with limited resources and made for an easy target. And please note, UEA is also implicated in this, it is not just CRU. UEA did not deal with the FOI onslaught appropriately, nor did they provide CRU with the support required to deal with the FOI attack. The irony is that now CRU will likely be given more funds, more personnel, better IT support and better FOI support to avoid a repeat. So in the long term, they did CRU a favour.
  44. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Camburn @2, "My opinion on the apparent coordinated harassment via staged FOI requests isn't the issue." Of course you would think so, because you choose to ignore some very inconvenient facts. Both Steve Mosher and Steve McIntyre have boasted how they coordinated the FOI onslaught. The 'attack' was coordinated from ClimateAudit. There is nothing even remotely "apparent" about it. Can you at least concede/accept that point?
  45. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    First email in the post is dated 7/5/2004: UK FOI law came into force in 2005. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4003239 Phil Jones in the next email states that the two MMs had made requests for years, despite FOI law not being enacted until 2005, so despite McIntyres possible frustration, the CRU were not obliged legally to respond to the requests for those years. By the time the FOI act had come into force, it is clear that a negative relationship had already been developed.
  46. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Vexatious (FOI) requests – a short guide: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/vexatious_requests_a_short_guide.pdf
  47. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Thank you for this article. I would agree with one commenter that it is plain the UEA and CRU did not properly fulfil their obligations under the Environmental Information Regulations (2004) (EIR). I would not, however, agree that it is simple. BTW, I will try to use 'spin neutral' language here. Just about everyone refers to FOI in this context, specifically the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own Freedom of Information Act (FoISA). CRU utilise, inter alia, weather station data which is environmental information and generate climate data and requests for such information are dealt with under EIR. Just as in climate and other sciences, accuracy and precision are essential in dealing with legal matters. The EIR are derived from an EU Directive and apply in various forms across the EU, including Sweden (Note that Sweden's meteorological office initially refused to allow CRU to release their data). Requested environmental information would have to be released unless it came within one or more Exceptions, and these Exceptions, unless the information would breach the Data Protection Act, will be overridden if it is in the Public Interest so to do. Please note that there is no Exception for a vexatious request or for harassment per se. There is an Exception for a request that is Manifestly Unreasonable EIR 12 (4) b. I am not aware of any attempt to use this Exception by UEA/CRU. Other Exceptions include confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, internal communications and protection of personal data. The latter two come together in the emails. The UK's Data Protection Act requires that personal data are kept no longer than necessary. Since emails are, by their very nature, personal data then any email that forms part of an official or research record should be kept with that record and according to a record retention policy, and all other emails, which are of transitory use, should be deleted promptly. However, I do recognise that this is a non-trivial task and email information management is easier to say than do. I did state that this is not simple. I fully agree with the Muir Russell recommendations that UEA provide much more support to the CRU scientists. I would go further and state that scientists and others should get in professional help to deal with requests, particularly in a subject area that is charged and challenging.
    Moderator Response: I am aware of the FoIA/EIR distinction. I referred only to FoI to simplify. - James
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 02:58 AM on 27 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    That's no answer, just a restatement. As I said earlier, the fact remains that, in physics based models, difficult to obtain measurements that do not agree with the physics are not to be overly trusted.
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @AWoL: "The effect of this gas,at 0.028% of the atmosphere is negligible." No, it isn't. See CO2 effect is weak and CO2 is not the only driver of climate. "I want my children and my children's children to have the same lifestyle as I've had." They won't if we don't take care of AGW. In fact, their lifestyle will positively suck. You seem to believe there's no money to be made in developing renewable energy and other green technolgies. Perhaps you should tell that to China, they're taking the leadership in these areas while the propaganda spread by Big Oil is causing the US miss the boat on these opportunities. Think about it.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @damorbel: " a climatologist does not notice the absorption part of the phenomenon and claims that the emitted photons are not absorbed in the atmosphere but somehow, contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, bunch together to form a radiative flux downwards to Earth's surface." ...except that's not *at all* what climatologists claim. To say they do is either to misunderstand the science, or to disingenuously misrepresent what climatologists believe. The point is not that all of the absorbed photons will go back down. The photon re-emission by GHG molecules happens in a random direction. The point, however, is that without this absorbtion/emission cycle, the heat would go directly into space. Now, it stays in the atmosphere longer, and some of it does make its way back to the surface. This is why temperatures have been going up, and it in no way violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It would be nice if you stopped repeating false information. Please consider it.

Prev  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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