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  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  Next

Comments 103451 to 103500:

  1. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    BP wrote "Induction is always a messy process, never governed by an established rule set in practice." Yep, and science is a messy process. BP, you have an incorrect definition of science. What's odd is your certainty of your definition despite your lack of background as a scientist, and in stark contrast to the explicit descriptions of science by real, working scientists (including me and other commenters here), historians of science, philosophers of science, anthropologists of science, and sociologists of science. We have linked you to a multitude of those descriptions, but you have either ignored them or simply insisted they are wrong. I'm going to remind all of us of the point of this too-long exchange with BP: Some "skeptics" of anthropogenic global warming claim that the conclusions of climatologists are not convincing because climatologists do not behave like the "real" scientists in other fields. The original post by Maarten at the top of this page was taken by some skeptics as more evidence of that. Those skeptics then ignored Maarten's later points that this particular statistical incorrectness is common in scientific fields outside climatology, and does not have a profound effect on the overall conclusions of climatologists.
  2. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Berényi - You are quite correct about deduction in mathematics; given that the premises are defined as a consistent system, without inductive input, math (and pure logic) is pretty much by definition a purely deductive system. The 55th Mersenne prime is an extended deduction from posited premises - it's already contained in the premises, even if we haven't ground our way down to it. I once took part in a graduate class where we proved the equivalence of syntax and semantics for propositional logic - that took the entire term! This had been stated (with good reason) before, but apparently the full proof had never been explicitly worked out prior to that time. But that conclusion was based entirely on the premises we started with. Now, back to the real world. At least some of the premises we use for any deductive argument about the real world (as opposed to a self-contained by-definition realm) are observational, inductive premises. Johannes Kepler could not have formulated his theory of elliptical orbits without Tycho Brahe's body of observations. And that theory was induced as a generalization that accounted for observational (fuzzy, noisy) evidence. And hence back to significance tests - they perform as tests on the strength of our observational knowledge. Enough - I will not debate this with you any further, especially as it is too far off topic. I understand, Berényi, that you do not like induction as a principle for understanding the world, and seem to object to the lack of certainty involved. Unfortunately, that is the world we live in, where we use induction to tie possible maths to how the universe works, and not the realm of by-definition premises of pure mathematics.
  3. Berényi Péter at 03:19 AM on 24 November 2010
    How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Some remarks in no particular order.
    • I have never told you induction was not a necessary ingredient in the scientific endeavor. What I keep telling it's not a scientific method, much less the scientific method. Induction is always a messy process, never governed by an established rule set in practice. It is best considered to be part of heuristics.
    • True Baconian "inductive method" was never practiced by anyone, ever. Not a single scientific discovery was made by applying those silly lists.
    • There's this persistent myth deduction cannot teach us anything we don't already know, only induction is capable to do that. That's simply not true. Just consider GIMPS (the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search). They're looking for prime numbers having binary representation devoid of zeroes. The quest is entirely deductive, but we surely acquire new knowledge as the search proceeds. The only credible way to dispute it is to fully specify the 55th Mersenne prime right now.
    • Or consider the discovery of Neptune on 23-24 September, 1846 by Johann Gottfried Galle and Heinrich Louis d'Arrest using the 24.4 cm aperture size, 4 m long achromatic refractor of New Berlin Observatory. But they already knew where to look and what to look for (unlike Galileo Galilei, who has also seen and documented the planet on 28 December, 1612 and 27-28 January, 1613 again, but failed to recognize and report it). They were simply told by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier where the planet is supposed to be. He used inverse perturbation theory applied to Newtonian celestial mechanics to calculate mass and orbital elements of an unknown planet in an entirely deductive manner to explain observed anomalies in orbital elements of Uranus. He had made a conceptual error in his calculation of errors, so the mass and orbital elements of the newly discovered planet turned out to be outside the error bounds given by him, but its celestial position was still within limits. Calculation of error bounds was corrected only after discovery.
    • No amount of induction based alone on careful observation of Uranus' orbit would possibly lead to such a result without an axiomatized background theory. The inverse square law of Newtonian gravitation itself was of course based on induction, but originally only on a few examples (the known lunar and planetary orbits of the time) and was verified by Newton with a 4% accuracy. Which later on turned out to be more than a millionfold better. That's what I mean when I tell you in science (somewhat miraculously) much more is coming out then was put in.
    • As for "the issue about stratospheric intrusions", the small (300 m - 1 km) scale is rather instructive (it is not resolved by GCMs). Large scale stratosphere folding events are well known, now it looks like it happens on all scales in a rather fractal-like manner. BTW small scale in itself does not mean it has only minuscule effect on radiative forcing, for it can happen all over the globe. Troposphere-stratosphere mixing has the potential to bring down extremely dry startospheric air to the upper troposphere (while freeze-drying humid air of tropospheric origin). Overall effect on radiative balance can be huge.
    • I'll return to Fisher 1955 later.
  4. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ugh - when I say "uniform in temperature," I mean it uniformly decreases in temp from bottom to top.
  5. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel wrote: "Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place." One of my favorites. Ice is invisible to Damorbel. Damorbel, your post #38 suggests that you think the atmosphere is fairly uniform in temperature from surface to top. After all, no energy can move from a colder place to a hotter place. Yet instrumental observations show a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere. How does your physics account for this?
  6. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Actually, the rotational changes of an excited CO2 molecule occur at 10^-7 second, while emission appears to occur on the order of 10^-6 second. Hence that should be 1000 collisions before a CO2 molecule emits a photon. I read the wrong number, my apologies on the order of magnitude error! Note that these numbers are from laser work, with deliberately pumped energy levels and cascaded emission; thermal emission can be no faster than from this highly excited state. So to answer your question, oamoe, the fraction of CO2 that re-emits before sharing energy with the rest of the air mass is negligible.
  7. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    KL #144, if I did that, you'd just move the goalposts, as The Skeptical Chymist shows in #146. We arrived at OHC via the debunking of your Trenberth comment, which followed the gish gallop and associated debunking through the previous >100 posts. Will you accept you were wrong about Trenberth's position on whether "human caused global warming is as solid as ever"? The 'meat and potatoes' of this particular thread is explained by the OP in two emboldened statements - the first is above, and the second is "Has 'Climategate' changed our scientific understanding of global warming?" The ongoing challenge of improving OHC measurements, including Purkey and Johnson's discovery of some of the 'missing heat', and more relevant on the other threads TSC linked to, does not affect either statement substantially. Many independent reviews confirm these points, which is to say that there are legitimate areas of research and debate, but that we are the cause of recent warming and that it is ongoing is as certain as it was 13 months ago (in fact, more certain, as further papers and data have confirmed trends and earlier findings).
  8. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Thanks, Ned - I couldn't remember where I had posted that!
  9. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Argh, I wasn't fast enough! During the time it took me to link to KR's comment in another thread, KR himself/herself appeared to add a comment here.
  10. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    oamoe, you might want to check out the discussion in another thread. Commenter KR notes that the typical CO2 molecule will experience around 100 collisions during the time it takes to engage in the IR emission process. In essence, all CO2 molecules will both share kinetic energy with N2 and O2 molecules and emit longwave IR radiation.
  11. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    oamoe - At surface pressures, air molecules collide with other molecules ~1 billion times per second. The CO2 electron relaxation time for emission is about 100 nanoseconds, so a CO2 molecule on average collides with ~100 N2 and O2 molecules before it's able to re-emit. Given the statistics there, any excess or deficit of energy in the CO2 molecule will rapidly be dispersed through the air mass, meaning that CO2 will be very close to thermal energy with the rest of that air mass. And it will emit at a rate based upon the air mass temperature, and with the spectra of CO2. At lower pressures (stratosphere?) these numbers will change, but I would expect close equivalence between CO2 energies and the total air mass temperature down to around ~1/100th an atmosphere.
  12. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Of the number of CO2 molecules absorbing outgoing blackbody radiation, what fraction re-emit the radiation, and what fraction transfer the excess energy to N2 and O2 molecules? Anyone know?
  13. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele - Sorry if I was not clear in this posting. Multiple EM waves in both directions (not canceling, not unidirectional) between warm and cold bodies, with heat flow (total energy transfer) determined by the difference in magnitudes. I'm speaking of EM first, the heat flow is the result of those emissions. The principle of superimposition means just that - EM emissions are superimposed on each other, which (in the very limited case of coherent light) can give rise to standing patterns of constructive/destructive interference thus displacing energy along the pattern, but never destroying energy. And coherence is absolutely not a factor in thermal emission, which is incoherent - individual molecules giving up energy are not synchronized.
  14. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Ned, I didn't notice that the author's had responded there also. Thanks for the heads up. Sorry for the misdirection.
  15. The Skeptical Chymist at 01:05 AM on 24 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Ken, you used the "Trenberth Travesty" email to suggest Trenberth would question that "human caused global warming is as solid as ever". He wasn't then and doesn't now and his own words confirm it, you were wrong. Moving the subject to the "missing heat" does not change the fact you were wrong. The "missing heat" and the TOA imbalances are interesting topics, but I have no intention of becoming entangled in an different argument to that I jumped in on, I've seen this goal post shifting before. If what you really want to talk about is OHC, TOA measurements etc well there are plenty of treads on this site for those, but do be more careful with Trenberth's words in future.
  16. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Re: skywatcher (143) On behalf of all the regular commenters, thank you! I know I'm wasting my time trying to convince the regular contrarians (and the new ones that crop up), so I remind myself to try to maintain a detached tone when rebutting. Because I read this blog for nearly 2 years before joining the discussions, I know that many others lurk here; I try to remain aware that my comments are for them, and for posterity. It's difficult to self-censor (I sometimes go back & delete comments I've just made [commenters regret] so I can re-word them to be less inflammatory and more instructive). I know at time I've crossed the line. For those times, I apologize. To you and to those I've wronged. Thanks again for speaking up! The Yooper
  17. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    skywatcher #143 Engage on some meat and potatoes - not broad non-specifics.
  18. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    kdkd #56 "Even if we take the idea that the "Nature trick" was dodgy, you have to ask the question: what material difference to the scientific conclusions would be made by discarding this data analysis" A post of mine has already been deleted on this matter. Please re-instate it if your SS blog is to be taken seriously. Perhaps now is the time to note that kdkd is also a 'Moderator' on this blog and has the power to purge my and other posts without explanation. If the Moderators of this(to date)excellent blog start purging opposition views whilst being partisan AGW contributors themselves - then they will end up talking to themselves and therefore stifling proper debate.
    Moderator Response: Three of your posts have been deleted. One contained direct accusations of tax fraud, and two more contained graphic descriptions of the alleged sexual practices of those who disagree with you. None of those were appropriate for this site, and the decision to delete them was straightforward. (Also, to address your concern, please note that none of them were moderated by kdkd or any other individual involved in the debate with you).
     
    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commenters repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion in comment threads. If you would like to compliment or complain about the site's moderation policies or how they are implemented, please do so via email to John Cook.
  19. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    77.Albatross There would be no logic problem in suggesting a data set is insufficient to prove A while at the same time being sufficient to disprove B. You'll have to be more specific to allow us to make a call on that.
  20. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    JMurphy @75, Thanks. For those wondering, more about the divergence problem can be found in a Nature paper here.
  21. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Albatross wrote: "So CRU science/data is only crap when it is advancing your belief that climate scientists are "incompetent", but when you want to show allege that the warming is not that bad, then CRU data suddenly become a perfectly credible source again." I know! Isn't it wonderful!? With new improved 'Skeptic' Logic (tm, patent pending) it is now possible to firmly believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Just think of the possibilities!
  22. Climategate a year later
    Re: Ken Lambert (62) I don't have time to play in Upside-down World today, sorry. The Yooper
  23. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    CB, Try and wrap your head around this logic: "...they both are consequences of the kind of bad science done at CRU." Hmm, yet skeptics (e.g., Lindzen and Michaels) frequently cite the CRU temperature data to advance their arguments that the planet is not warming much or to claim that the models are overestimating the amount of warming. So CRU science/data is only crap when it is advancing your belief that climate scientists are "incompetent", but when you want to show allege that the warming is not that bad, then CRU data suddenly become a perfectly credible source again. Also note, from post #70, "similar" does not mean "the same". Isn't it now almost 2011? Yet some people seem stuck somewhere between 1999 and 2001.
  24. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    22.CBDunkerson erm....that's cleared things up.
  25. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re: damorbel (70,71) (70) So, you're prepared to show, via evidenciary process, specifically how the WMO figure used led to the figure used in the TAR; and to specifically discuss those similarities in the figures themselves. After all, I'm sure you've done your homework to support your allegations of wrongdoing that would entail not only a 7th investigation into "climategate" but an additional investigation into the Muir Russell commission itself? Because that is what you're claiming, right? Or is it that all you have is a case for logic in absencia (and there's nothing saintly about that)? (71) This is what the Muir Russell report did not clear CRU of: 1. Sloppy record keeping 2. Having a kind of crappy attitude 3. Failing to properly annotate or explain via comment the specific nature of a graph used on the WMO 1999 Report cover (where admittedly, from a graphic arts perspective, proper annotation would have played havoc with the presentation...perhaps the WMO should have repeated the graph in the report with the proper explanatory text...so it's all the WMO's fault!!!). So, whatcha got? If something substantive, I expect you to write it up & submit it (Tip: E&E have a track record for publishing material like this, I'm sure they would make room for it) for publication. Fame and fortune await you. Or you've got nuttin'. Which is it? PS: I'm tired of the constant injection of unsupported innuendo and invective into this thread by those who see nothing but what they wish to see, instead of what verifiable sources actually say (this last bit not aimed specifically at you, damorbel, though portions of it certainly do apply). The Yooper
  26. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    HR, I'm a sarcastic skeptic. Which, translates into 'skeptic' as 'dismissive alarmist'.
  27. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Albatross wrote : "You have the patience of a saint." Well, it's not really that difficult when all you have to work against are comments like these from damorbel, which have no basis in reality but are the interpretations of someone who doesn't want to accept AGW : There is not the slightest doubt that Muir Russell identified the failure to draw attention to the source of the 20thC data used to substitute for the 'off message' tree rings as a serous deficiency. There is more than doubt because you have interpreted that in the way that you want to. If that is the case, why does paragraph 23 of the Muir Russell Report read as follows:- "in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure .... we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report)"? As Albatross wrote, that has no effect on anything in any IPCC Reports. Reading the whole paragraph that you have butchered, you can see what the reality is : On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick‟ and to „hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. Surely you can work out what could be classed as misleading (a picture on the cover of a WMO report) and what isn't, i.e. the data or the way it may have been used subsequently ? I am not providing new evidence of temperature trends, just drawing attention to the Muir Russell Review which says that substituting the instrumental (thermometer) record without identifying the substitution is unacceptable. Still not representative of anything in the Muir Russell Report, no matter how many times I look at your interpretation and the reality again. In fact, there are no references to "deficiencies" or anything "unacceptable", with regard to this matter. Perhaps there are two versions of the report - the real one and the one that so-called skeptics have interpreted for their own ends ? One isolated instance? So why did the IPCC when adopting this flawed data use just one isolated instance as a major argument in its Assessment Reports? Still no information forthcoming as to what this relates to, with regard to "flawed data" or the Assessment Reports. Still waiting for examples. I am also still waiting forlornly for answers to the questions I asked previously : Do you believe all "dendrochronological" data is fiction, or are you referring to a particular set of data ? Do you believe that "dendrochronological" data (i.e. temperature reconstruction) gives a more accurate reading for temperature in the 20th Century than thermometers ? Have you ever heard of the Divergence Problem ? What are you referring to when you write "the method and location of the measurements were different" ?
  28. Climategate a year later
    Ken, I think there is a fine nuance you may be missing here; Mann, Bradley, Jones, et cetera were accused of misconduct... by people extremely biased against them. When impartial experts reviewed the matters (repeatedly) they found that it was all a bunch of hooey. Nothing rising to the level of academic misconduct. In contrast, Wegman is now accused of misconduct... by independent experts with no axe to grind in this fight. The review on Wegman isn't over yet... but when it is, chances are he's going to be found to have committed serious breaches. See the difference? Accusation by partisans which later proves false vs accusation by independent experts which is still ongoing.
  29. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    18.CBDunkerson You'll have to remind me because I can't remember the flavour of your past comments, are you a sarcastic skeptic or a dismissive alarmist?
  30. Climategate a year later
    Marco, Albatros, kdkd, Yooper Claiming that someone else on the other side of the argument did the same crime is not a defence. I will condemn proven misconduct by any scientist who has a duty to act in good faith. I don't know whether the GRL editor and his peer reviewers was in 'error' or not regarding the content of the published paper. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Mann improperly interfered with the GRL process. I note that none of you are challenging the accuracy of NP's narrative - just trying a general smear of NP on other matters. 'Plugging a leak' implies that the 'fix' was put in on GRL and the new editor to prevent publication of what Mann et al disagreed with. My AGW position is simple. There is no doubt surface warming has occurred - there is great doubt about the relative contributions of the various forcings - their accuracy of measurement and particularly the future trajectory of the TOA imbalance and the OHC measurement. That means that there is false 'certainty' in the claims by AGW protagonists of overwhelming evidence for the role of CO2GHG as the main driver of global warming.
  31. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Ned say: "The point of this post is to address the claim that commonly cited temperature reconstructions are biased due to missing stations in Canada." Given the rebuttal here the skeptic claim would have to be that missing Canada stations over it's whole land mass was affecting the GISSTEMP "whole arctic" trend. It seems like a curious claim. Maybe it would be clearer if you could provide the skeptic analysis that was making this claim.
  32. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    For those interested I managed to track down Environment Canada's "Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin" here. They state that: "...the 2000s was the warmest decade out of the six that are available for this national study, 1.1°C above normal. The rankings of the remaining decades, in order from warmest to coolest are: 1990s (0.7°C above normal); 1980s (0.4°C above normal); 1950s (0.1°C above normal); 1960s (0.0°C of normal); and 1970s (0.2°C below normal)." One critique is the trend in annual temperatures that they provide for the 1948-2009 period-- they sate that is +1.4 C. OK, but convention is to say per year or per decade.
  33. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel: "...they both are consequences of the kind of bad science done at CRU." Which produced temperature anomaly results nearly identical to those of AGW skeptics Spencer & Christy at UAH. Therefor AGW skepticism is clearly all a vast conspiracy of nonsense with no scientific basis! Thank you for introducing me to 'skeptic' logic. With this tool at the ready I can 'prove' ANYTHING!
  34. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Wow, this thread has turned into a textbook example of the gish gallop! It includes the full gamut of long-debunked skeptic arguments, including the 'it's not warming', 'it's not CO2', 'it's the Sun', quotes from non-experts pretending to be experts, nearly all the utterly debunked 'climategate' memes, and a collection of others. Each time one argument is patiently debunked (by Rob, Tom, Daniel, Philippe and the many other excellent contributers here), either by reference to material avaialble on this site, or at other reputable sources, then another allegation is thrown in and no acknowledgement is made to the failure of the previous skeptic argument. And of course each long-debunked argument, often relating to research/events/data >5 years old is presented as if it might be new or controversial, when the simplest research shows it not to be the case. So, skeptics... is that really all you have? Nothing new to add to the mix? No new research or data that changes the consensus on AGW? Just perpetual gish galloping? Looks to me awfully like the OP's point is demonstrated valid!
  35. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    I think HR's point is that theoretically Canadian stations could have doubled in the CCC dataset, but there might only be only say one additional station in the Arctic region represented by the graph above... thus making the close correlation a result of almost no change in the data and the whole 'doubling' bit a red herring to mislead people. Remember... it's ALL a conspiracy. Is it sad that I'm starting to understand how they think? I'm vaguely worried. Any way to find out the extent of station increase for the region covered by the temp anomaly graph?
  36. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Thanks, Riccardo. Robert, thanks for the link, though I'd point people towards the actual Clear Climate Code blog rather than ClearScience. I would just reiterate this comment. The point of this post is to address the claim that commonly cited temperature reconstructions are biased due to missing stations in Canada. Clear Climate Code replicates one of the most widely used of those reconstructions (GISSTEMP). As shown at CCC and as discussed in this post, doubling the number of Canadian stations has no effect on the GISSTEMP product (high latitude northern hemisphere land temperatures) that would be most strongly affected by changes in the number of Canadian stations.
  37. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    Reporting of Wegman's plagiarism (and possible other issues) has finally made it into the 'mainstream media' with this piece from USA Today. Has been picked up by a few non-climate blogs and there are also pieces in Salon and UPI. Nothing compared to the 'Climategate' furor of course, but when all is said and done all those accused in that brouhaha have been cleared and Wegman... USA Today's independent experts say he's shockingly guilty.
  38. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re #66 Albatross, you wrote:- "the splicing refers to the front cover schematic from a single obscure WMO report back in 1999. It has nothing to do with the IPCC assessment reports as you falsely claim". If that is the case, why does paragraph 23 of the Muir Russell Report read as follows:- "in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure .... we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report)"? Oh yes, I have the patience of a Saint too!
  39. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Here is the relevant comment where Nick points this out... http://clearscience.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/just-a-small-note/#comment-36
  40. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Ned, I guess it should be pointed out that the warming shown is for the Arctic from 64 N to 90 N rather than for Arctic Canada. I saw on another blog that Nick Barnes posted a note about how it wasn't just Canada.
  41. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re #65 JMurphy you wrote:- "All you have to do is look at the report," Since I have already cited paragraph 23 (p13) of the report (cited in the OP) as the main thrust of my contribution, I think you will agree that for me to do a search based on your recommendations would be wasting my time; but then I have no objection to reading the results of a search done by you using your own recommendations. You have of course read the relevant paragraph as cited in the OP?
  42. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    The Skeptical Chymist #141 I find it is always useful to let the experts argue their own case and if it is consistent and plausible then I tend to believe it until better or stronger cases are presented, or it collapses from internal inconsistency. In the case of Dr Trenberth, his Aug09 paper was a comphehensive roundup of the state of the science and measurement of global warming. He accounted for only about 55% of the purported TOA imbalance (145E20 Joules/year) by sequestration in the oceans - with wide error bars. The residual unaccounted amount of heat was 30-100E20Joules/year. The TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m (145E20 Joules/year) was not directly measured - it was modelled. Fig 4 of his paper reconciles the individual forcings - IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 with the climate responses. Some of those forcings (particularly cloud albedo) have wide error bars, and the solar forcing is wrong compared with other IPCC data. BP and I have argued that the OHC charts which have been used splicing XBT to Argo data are also wrong due to impossible jumps which are likely offsets - so the linearization of 1993 to 2010 OHC increase is bogus and in the last 6 years OHC has been flat. Better Argo measurement is showing less (or small) ocean heat takeup. Therefore the OHC bit of Dr Trenberth's story I find less plausible. There is a bit missing in his website statement. What he added to the original 'travesty' phrase was: "The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” Now, if the observing system is only inadequate to 'effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability' then why would it be adequate to monitor longer term climate change? Surely short term error would be compounded when extended over longer periods. And the other bit which is somewhat obscured in Dr Trenberth's paper is that the TOA imbalance is not 'Observed' or measured drirectly at all. Read the statement carefully: "The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from **climate models** and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated **recent changes in ocean heat content** (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005). A comprehensive error analysis of the CERES mean budget (Wielicki et al. 2006) is used in Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) to **guide adjustments** of the CERES TOA fluxes so as to **match the estimated global imbalance**." (**Emphases mine**) This is 2004-2005 OHC change he is referring to, which is subject to the offset XBT-Argo errors. The latest Willis analysis finds the equivalant of only 0.1W/sq.m of OHC increase. So this TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m is found from Hansen's 2005 model, not really supported by Willis 2004-05 OHC analysis, then used to correct the massive 6.4W/sq.m CERES TOA flux measurement, to match the **estimated global imbalance** which was taken from Hansen's model in the first place. A circular science argument!!
  43. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    JMurphy, You have the patience of a saint. Thank you for your efforts!
  44. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Damorbel, My last post to you-- then as far as I'm concerned you can keep yelling about conspiracies into space. Please very carefully read the post by JMurphy here. The critique has been acknowledged. The splicing refers to the front cover schematic from a single obscure WMO report back in 1999. It has nothing to do with the IPCC assessment reports as you falsely claim. Why do 'skeptics' have such a horrid time applying the correct context and with fact checking? Please actually read some of the scientific literature published on the divergence issue with certain dendro chronologies in the last 20th Century (e.g.., Yamal). I provided a hyperlink for a Google scholar search here. Actually your attempts here to fabricate a 'debate' on a non-issue (the WMO cover schematic) and insistence on making multiple unsubstantiated accusations of wrong doing continues to undermine what little, if any, credibility most self-professed 'skeptics' have. So perhaps I should be encouraging you to continue....either way you are wasting both your time and that of others. Sorry for the terse comment, but I've simply run out of patience.
  45. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    The decline of the number of station argument is wrong per se. If the remaining stations (although gridded) are not representative of the temperature of Canada, they could be wrong either side; no one could tell if the bias would be on the high or low side before actually check the numbers. I'm sure scientists are clever enough to know and check before publishing the data. Thank you Ned for sharing these results for future reference.
  46. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    HumanityRules writes: If that's the case then your title is a little mis-leading. The doubling of Canadian sites and the result in Fig1 are two unrelated facts. I think you're missing the point. Nobody (outside Canada) is particularly interested in a new reconstruction of Canada-only temperatures. The implied claim that people make is that the decline in the number of Canadian weather stations in GHCN is distorting temperature reconstructions like GISSTEMP or HADCRU or what have you. The region where this effect would be expected to be most extreme would be in the high latitude northern hemisphere (i.e., the Arctic). If there were any region where doubling the number of Canadian weather stations would show any effect, it would be this region. The fact that there's essentially no detectable change in Arctic temperature trends tells us that the original claim (missing Canadian weather stations are biasing GISSTEMP) is clearly mistaken.
  47. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel wrote : "Perhaps my copy and past isn't working! Do tell me what I should have seen." All you have to do is look at the report, do a search for the word 'unacceptable' (or any similar word) and see how the results relate to your claim that Muir Russell says that "substituting the instrumental (thermometer) record without identifying the substitution is unacceptable". What do you find ?
  48. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Thank you, drj! Your blog and your work on Clear Climate Code have made an incredibly valuable contribution to people's confidence in the results of global surface temperature reconstructions.
  49. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    5.Ned HumanityRules writes: I see the whole Canada station number has doubled but there is no mention in the station number change for the Arctic. Ned writes: Yes, that's true. If that's the case then your title is a little mis-leading. The doubling of Canadian sites and the result in Fig1 are two unrelated facts. (Just to clarify drj over at the CCC website has pointed out that Fig1 isn't even arctic Canada but "the entire Arctic zone")
  50. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel #63 I believe that you are insinuating that the use of the 'Nature trick' has major consequences for the conclusions that we should draw from the larger body of scientific knowledge. Do you have evidence for this, or is this just more pointless bluster from a so-called sceptic?

Prev  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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