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  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  Next

Comments 103601 to 103650:

  1. Woody Guthrie award to The Science of Doom
    Well, I see that Science of Doom has just passed the award on to Nick Stokes (over at Moyhu). I think that was an excellent choice by SoD.
  2. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Ken Lambert @9.... Hmmm... So, they were "hiding" data known to be erroneous by replacing it with "real temps?" I'm a little confused here. Do you have a particular argument with the real temps? Do you think tree rings present a more accurate indicator of modern temps than do thermometer readings?
  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel #18: "...you can have any insulator you like but it cannot reverse the direction of energy tranferring from a warm surface to colder one." Which would only be relevant if there wasn't this thing called the Sun constantly transferring energy to the planet's surface. Decrease the rate at which that energy leaves the system (by adding greenhouse gases) and you get incoming energy + retained energy... which is obviously greater than incoming energy alone.
  4. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re damorbel: You have me a bit mystified; reading over my comment at 12 and then yours at 18 I fail to see what point you're trying to make. If you have one, please rephrase it so that my slow gray matter can understand it. Thanks!
  5. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    1999 Report...
  6. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel wrote : ""Not true" What's not true? the text isbasically one of a number (no. 23) of distinct conclusions produced by the Muir Review, do you disagree with that?" Sorry I didn't spell it out. When you wrote that "the Russell review concluded that the opus in question was misleading because it did not reliably present the evidence derived by the investigators researches", that is not true. It DID present the evidence. The picture was deemed misleading because, although one of the series was truncated post 1960 and proxy and instrumental data were spliced together, neither of those procedures were made plain, either within the figure itself (as a caption, for example) or within the text contained in the report. The report in fact states that it is NOT misleading to curtail reconstructions or to splice data - just that it should be made clear. Here is a link to the full report, for reference. As for the WMO Report (a short annual document produced within the World Climate Data and Monitoring Programme), the figure in question was the frontispiece of the 1990 Report and it can easily be found if you search. But, to make it easy for you, here it is.
  7. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re damorbel: You were not singled out (else I would have directed you to read the report); read my preface to my comment. But while I have you on the line, #23 makes it clear that the WMO figure was misleading because it should have been better explained. So, other than being taken to task for sloppy record keeping anf for having a kind of crappy attitude, just what do you think the Review found CRU guilty of? (BTW, emails all are backed up on servers, as Wegman is to find out)
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #12 Daniel Bailey, as you say "No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body." And "It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction." It is this "net energy flow" from hotter place to colder one that means that it is losing energy in and cooling down, not just 2nd Law but 1st Law also. Just incase you thinking of saying that CO2 slows down the heat transfer rate like an insulator (which it isn't); you can have any insulator you like but it cannot reverse the direction of energy tranferring from a warm surface to colder one.
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "So far I am unaware that any unidirectional insulator exists or is even possible." (sound of a vinyl record scratching to a halt) 1. Infrared radiation is emitted by the surface. 2. The radiation--or, rather, radiation at certain frequencies--eventually makes it into the stratosphere and is absorbed and emitted in all directions by molecules of CO2, H20, and CH4. 3. Some of the radiation is eventually emitted into space, because that's one direction. 4. Other directions include all versions of "sideways"--and perhaps right into another molecule of CO2. 5. Down is also another direction. The radiation eventually reaches the top of the atmosphere and is emitted into space (the only way it can leave). The visual, though not physical, analogy is the pinball machine. The atmosphere is a huge pinball machine, and GHG are bumpers (gravity has little effect in this machine). The more bumpers the machine has, the longer, on average, the ball takes to reach the boundary. Another analogy is the dam. The atmosphere is a dam. It doesn't block water, because the water eventually reaches the top and flows over, but when the water reaches the point of flowing over, the same amount of water that flows into the lake behind the dam equals the same amount of water that flows over the top. Yet there is the fact of the lake. And if we build the dam higher, then the lake gets deeper, but eventually the same amount of water will once again begin to flow over the top. We live in the lake. CO2 does not absorb UV radiation, so incoming solar radiation isn't slowed by it.
  10. It's the ocean
    I think that any discussion about Bolzmann's law is rather off topic here as it is obviously not about heat transfers which I erroneously assumed. Anyway I am still waiting for a reply on my main point that I outlined in detail at my post #26.
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, almost all incoming solar irradiance is at short wavelengths where the atmosphere is (mostly) transparent. In contrast, almost all outgoing emitted radiation is at longer wavelengths, portions of which are absorbed by CO2, water vapor, CH4, and other greenhouse gases. This difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is essential to understanding how the greenhouse effect works. If you want to know more, a good place to start is Science of Doom, which has an excellent series of posts explaining the fundamentals of the greenhouse effect.
  12. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re #11 JMurphy "Not true" What's not true? the text isbasically one of a number (no. 23) of distinct conclusions produced by the Muir Review, do you disagree with that? "I'm afraid, since this is to do with a picture on the front page of a WMO report from 1999. It in no way affects the report itself" What am I supposed to understand from that? WMO generally do not hide their docs behind a paywall, a link should be available - please! Daniel Bailey #13 What was the point of all that text? You don't make anything of it and links are available. Intellectual snowballs like that indicate to me an unwillingness to engage on the matter under discussion.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    If I get it right the greenhouse effect works as an insulator and diminishes the heat loss of the earth. So far I am unaware that any unidirectional insulator exists or is even possible. Therefore the greenhouse effect has also to diminish the incoming energy from the sun which heats the earth. As a portion of the incoming energy gets converted into forms of energy that are not radiative (kinetic, chemical, electric) that is not trivial the logical conclusion is that the incoming radiative energy needs to exceed it's outgoing counterpart. As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth.
  14. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "And “one more” conclusion: if the CRU had obviously, in some cases, such defective data (it is not their fault?), why they work (errors ?) As easy pass "screen" review process? ... and why these works - papers; have become the basis for the IPCC report ?" I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here but if you have some information about that "defective data" and those "errors", or those "papers", could you be more specific and clearly state what they are.
  15. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:09 AM on 23 November 2010
    Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    And “one more” conclusion: if the CRU had obviously, in some cases, such defective data (it is not their fault?), why they work (errors ?) As easy pass "screen" review process? ... and why these works - papers; have become the basis for the IPCC report ? According to me, these errors are not the result of "natural scientific process" (which tries to convince us here) Their cause lies in the lack of knowledge of scientific methodology, indeed: "go for shortcuts." When something good "fit" to our theory, We simply verify this theory a less; or do not accurate ... Professor Weiner known in Poland and the U.S. expert on the "theory of scientific research", says that for the “sake of science”, the skeptics in the process of falsification of scientific theory (in each case) ..., really: They can do EVERYTHING (!), that: History of Science teaches us, that any attempt to restrict this process: they were ALWAYS to the detriment of science ... (note particularly good for # 11 and # 12) Dear supporters of AGW theory, if you're right, you have to its just enough to "accurately" to prove - it's easy ... No more "shortcuts" and "tricks" - literally and figuratively.
  16. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    It has become evident from the dogma of many commenting here that the findings of the Muir Russell Commission, as documented in The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, July 2010, has gone unread (as well as the rest of the report, in all likelihood). Just so no-one can claim furthermore to be unawares: 1.3 Findings 13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. 14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. 15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. 1.3.1 Land Station Temperatures 16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis. 17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable. 18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU's responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive. 19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU's work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication. 1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis 20. The central implication of the allegations here is that in carrying out their work, both in the choices they made of data and the way in which it was handled, CRU scientists intended to bias the scientific conclusions towards a specific result and to set aside inconvenient evidence. More specifically, it was implied in the allegations that this should reduce the confidence ascribed to the conclusions in Chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th Report, Working Group 1 (WG1). 21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). 22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers. 23. 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. 24. On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, CRU did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their publications relied, was archived in a more timely way. 1.3.3 Peer Review and Editorial Policy 25. On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication. 1.3.4 Misuse of IPCC Process 26. On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld. In addition to taking evidence from them and checking the relevant records of the IPCC process, we have consulted the relevant IPCC review Editors. Both the CRU scientists were part of large groups of scientists taking joint responsibility for the relevant IPCC Working Group texts, and were not in a position to determine individually the final wording and content. 1.3.5 Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance. 1.3.6 Other Findings on Governance 28. Given the significance of the work of CRU, UEA management failed to recognise in their risk management the potential for damage to the University's reputation fuelled by the controversy over data access. 1.4 Recommendations 29. Our main recommendations for UEA are as follows: Risk management processes should be directed to ensuring top management engagement in areas which have the potential to impact the reputation of the university. Compliance with FoIA/EIR is the responsibility of UEA faculty leadership and ultimately the Vice-Chancellor. Where there is an organisation and documented system in place to handle information requests, this needs to be owned, supported and reinforced by University leadership. CRU should make available sufficient information, concurrent with any publications, to enable others to replicate their results. 1.5 Broader Issues 30. Our work in conducting the Review has led us to identify a number of issues relevant not only to the climate science debate but also possibly more widely, on which we wish to comment briefly. 31. The nature of scientific challenge. We note that much of the challenge to CRU‘s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt this approach. 32. Handling Uncertainty – where policy meets science. Climate science is an area that exemplifies the importance of ensuring that policy makers – particularly Governments and their advisers, Non-Governmental Organisations and other lobbyists – understand the limits on what scientists can say and with what degree of confidence. Statistical and other techniques for explaining uncertainty have developed greatly in recent years, and it is essential that they are properly deployed. But equally important is the need for alternative viewpoints to be recognized in policy presentations, with a robust assessment of their validity, and for the challenges to be rooted in science rather than rhetoric. 33. Peer review - what it can/cannot deliver. We believe that peer review is an essential part of the process of judging scientific work, but it should not be overrated as a guarantee of the validity of individual pieces of research, and the significance of challenge to individual publication decisions should be not exaggerated. 34. Openness and FoIA. We support the spirit of openness enshrined in the FoIA and the EIR. It is unfortunate that this was not embraced by UEA, and we make recommendations about that. A well thought through publication scheme would remove much potential for disruption by the submission of multiple requests for information. But at the level of public policy there is need for further thinking about the competing arguments for the timing of full disclosure of research data and associated computer codes etc, as against considerations of confidentiality during the conduct of research. There is much scope for unintended consequences that could hamper research: US experience is instructive. We recommend that the ICO should initiate a debate on these wider issues. 35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance. This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised. 36. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century. 37. Role of Research Sponsors. One of the issues facing the Review was the release of data. At various points in the report we have commented on the formal requirements for this. We consider that it would make for clarity for researchers if funders were to be completely clear upfront in their requirements for the release of data (as well as its archiving, curation etc). 38. The IPCC. We welcome the IPCC‘s decision to review its processes, and can only stress the importance of capturing the range of viewpoints and reflecting appropriately the statistical uncertainties surrounding the data it assesses. Our conclusions do not make a judgement on the work of IPCC, though we acknowledge the importance of its advice to policy makers. The Yooper
  17. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    KL #9 "'hide the decline'. It means what it says [...] Jones mindset was simply that tree ring data which ran contrary to the theory (which means generally warming) would simply be hidden." This interpretation is clearly utterly incorrect, as noted by the fact that you do not properly define what is meant by the 'decline' - I'm guessing that you are aware that doing so would be an explicit acknoledgement that your case does not stand to scrutiny. The 'decline' is the divergence between the proxy record and the instrumental record for a particular point in the time series. While alternative data could be used for this point in the time series, typically this would take more space to explain in the paper, and distract [1] from the findings, which are clearly pretty robust. On the other hand your post is an excellent apologia for the intellectually bankrupt so-called-sceptic mindset. Why are you wasting your time with this? Is it because you like wasting other people's time, or is it a deep seated psychological denial? [1] Some time ago I worked for someone who likes to spell everything out in mind-numbing detail in the papers that he writes . His acceptance rate is pretty poor, his writing is turgid, and generally it's difficult to understand the message that he's trying to get across because of his obsession with dealing with every minuted detail. Much better to deal with more condensed works where the reviewers have an understanding of the kinds of tricks needed to keep work to a manageable length.
  18. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel wrote : "Since the decline was neither "made plain" nor "clearly described in either the caption or the text", it is clear that the Russell review concluded that the opus in question was misleading because it did not reliably present the evidence derived by the investigators researches." Not true, I'm afraid, since this is to do with a picture on the front page of a WMO report from 1999. It in no way affects the report itself. One example of this was the cover art on a WMO 1999 report which, until last November, was completely obscure (we are not aware of any mention of this report or this figure before November in any blogospheric discussion, ever). Nonetheless, in the way of these things, this figure is now described as ‘an icon’ in the Muir Russell report (one of their very few mistakes, how can something be an icon if no-one has ever seen it?). In retrospect (and as we stated last year) we agree with the Muir Russell report that the caption and description of the figure could indeed have been clearer, particularly with regard to the way proxy and instrumental data sources were spliced into a single curve, without indicating which was which. The WMO cover figure appears (at least to our knowledge) to be the only instance where that was done. Moving forward, nonetheless, it is advisable that scientists be as clear as possible about what sorts of procedures have gone into the preparation of a figure. But retrospective applications of evolving standards are neither fair nor useful. Real Climate
  19. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:06 AM on 23 November 2010
    Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Professor Phil Jones sums up (by “one sentence”), today, Climategate: “Hopefully they will remember me for the scientific papers I have written rather than the emails.” Errors must not be "intentionally manipulating" - in such an important case - simply should not be at all. I recall only the most important, what Professor Jones said earlier ( BBC. February, 2010): “He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.” “... not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.” “He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made. But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.” [Here I added: “Scientists agree that the past 40 years of tree-ring data are unreliable temperature proxies, and some argue that using them in older temperature reconstructions, as Jones has done, could understate past warm periods, including the MWP ... (Nature News)”] “He said many people had been made sceptical about climate change by the snow in the northern hemisphere - but they didn't realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed it had been the warmest January since records began in 1979.[!??]” “His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that.” “He strongly defended references in his emails to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.” “These phrases had been deliberately taken out of context and "spun" by sceptics keen to derail the Copenhagen climate conference, he said.” So much more or less significant errors, however, claims (not just a "trick"), as usual, Professor Jones (and “by” the professor - Sc. S.) was (to today) only to skeptics - guilty ! ...; and: “I [Jones] did wonder why they [scientists - colleagues] didn't go to the media and say the same things they were saying to me.”
  20. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Original Post Another apologia intended to rationalize the clear meaning of 'hide the decline'. It means what it says. Jones mindset was simply that tree ring data which ran contrary to the theory (which means generally warming) would simply be hidden. Tricks, techniques, massaging; whatever - the intent was to hide the decline. The worth of the tree ring data was dubious in any case - and the bizarre antics of 'our man in Siberia' about payments reported in the NP articles is more Gilbert & Sullivan than Jones & Briffa.
  21. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re 4 Marcus, which "double standards" are you referring to? Fine that you should doubt dendrochronology as a climate change indicator but it was accepted by the IPCC which clearly does not share your doubts. I have never seen a reasoned analysis that isolates dendrochronology as a reliable indicator of CO2 based climate change from other possible causes, instrumental record, being essentially sparse and subject to many inaccuracies, is certainly no better.
  22. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re #3 "rather than continuing to concentrate on this sort of thing?" I'm not concentrating on "this sort of thing" at all! I am responding to the assertion by James Wight that the CRU scientists have been cleared by the Muir Russell Review.
    Moderator Response: The inquiry criticised a single graph on the cover of an obscure report few had heard of before the release of the CRU emails. As I explain above, the Review found nothing wrong with the overall picture painted in the literature or in the IPCC. - James
  23. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    For the record, James, I was under the impression that the divergence was the result of increasingly common drought conditions over the last 30-50 years. The whole point of tree-rings as proxies is the assumption that "warmer temperatures equals thicker tree rings". Of course prolonged drought will cause significantly smaller tree rings-no matter how *warm* it is-& so the reliability of tree rings as a proxy becomes less certain. That's why its always good to have past rainfall data to cross-check your tree ring data to!
  24. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Me personally, I feel that they *should* have retained the divergence in full-to back the argument for the need for more proxies in determining climate change *before* direct measurements were available. Of course, we have those tools at our disposal now (like Ca/Mg ratios, Hydrogen & Oxygen Isotope Ratios, changes in plant seed types, boreholes etc etc) & they all say the same thing-that NH temperatures over at least the last 1300 years were almost certainly *cooler* than they have been over the last 30 years. Nothing the Contrarians say can alter that simple fact, yet still you here them parroting the phrase "Hide The Decline", instead of actually *thinking* for a change!
  25. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel, are you aware that John MacLean recently released a paper in which he "Hides the Incline" in global temperatures-by splicing together the temperature anomalies for weather balloons & satellites (which operate off a different base-line: 1961-1990 for weather balloons, & 1979-2000 for Satellites) without informing the readers that he had done so. Yet still skeptics hold up this paper as "proof" that global warming is simply the result of ENSO. Funny the double standard they apply. What matters here is that the decline in temperatures supposedly "revealed" by the Tree-ring data says more about the unreliability of dendrochronology-alone-as a determinant of past climate change (as tree rings can be impacted by things *other* than temperature). It most certainly shouldn't supersede the direct measurements we have at our disposal-from both ground based & satellite sources-all of which are telling us that the planet is warming at an *accelerated* rate!
  26. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn, essentially you are saying that because all the indicators we are currently able to track to a relatively high degree of accuracy indicate human driven global warming they must all be wrong and we need to use a different indicator... which would require a new network of global monitoring stations to be installed (which 'skeptics' will simultaneously fight against as part of the evil scientist conspiracy to get research money by lying about 'global warming') and then take a few decades to gather enough data to show a trend. It should be obvious that this is an unreasonable position, but in any case... atmospheric heat content HAS been examined (as noted by others above). We don't have a global monitoring network, but general trends can be determined from satellite readings. This data supports human driven global warming too... so if you really want to lobby to spend the money needed to get precise totals of global atmospheric heat content all you will achieve is further confirmation of AGW. So please, by all means... push for massive increases in funding for climate research. I'm all for it.
  27. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel: just supposing for a moment that you're right - do you not think your energies might be better spent pursuing some of the massively misleading misinformation about climate science that's been put out over the last year, rather than continuing to concentrate on this sort of thing?
  28. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    fydijkstra wrote : "The S&B paper was the first in a series of papers that questioned the attempt by the hockey team to rewrite history, denying the Medieval Warm Period. In 2003 that was so shocking for the climate community that six editors of the journal resigned." I see you have resorted to desperate, illogical and unsupportable assertions like the rest of the so-called skeptics here. What is going on ? Are things really that bad a year after 'climategate' ? You were hoping that the emails would reveal the final nail in the coffin of AGW - and now you have to admit that you have nothing but interpretations of emails and scientific papers ? Oh well, just in case anyone else is interested in the facts, the MWP is shown in : Both of the above contain Mann reconstructions. Does anyone notice anything about the MWP, i.e. that it is warmer than any other time apart from the most recent period ? Not very well hidden, is it - just not contemporaneous in all areas at the same time, which is what the so-called skeptics would like to believe. You should try reading the Wikipedia page on SB03. It includes the following : According to the climate skeptic Andrew Montford, the paper had little impact on the prevailing scientific opinion that the Medieval Warm Period was primarily a regional phenomenon and was a "huge disappointment" to the climate skeptic community. Can you confirm that the quote is from his book ? Looks like you are in a dwindling band of those who still see what they want to see, unfortunately. Not good for your reputation, especially on here.
  29. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    In paragraph 23 of the Executive Summary of the Muir Russell Review (section 1.3.2 - p13) it is written:- "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." Since the decline was neither "made plain" nor "clearly described in either the caption or the text", it is clear that the Russell review concluded that the opus in question was misleading because it did not reliably present the evidence derived by the investigators researches.
  30. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    I think I've uncovered evidence of a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to rob the public of taxes and impose a world government. A quick search on Web of Science reveals HUNDREDS of articles using the word 'trick' in the title. A random sampling from a broad range of disciplines produced a 357-long list - here are just a few. So see - everyone from mathematicians to physicists to doctors are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. WAKE UP SHEEPLZ!!! [I'm particularly alarmed by 'a very simple trick to control CO2', number 11... :) ] 1. G Yoneda, H Shinkai, and A Nakamichi, “Trick for passing degenerate points in the Ashtekar formulation,” PHYSICAL REVIEW D 56, no. 4 (August 15, 1997): 2086-2093. 2. DV Vassilevich, “The Faddeev-Popov trick in the presence of boundaries,” PHYSICS LETTERS B 421, no. 1-4 (March 5, 1998): 93-98. 3. DR Chen, “On the splitting trick and wavelet frame packets,” SIAM JOURNAL ON MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS 31, no. 4 (April 4, 2000): 726-739. 4. V King and M Thorup, “A space saving trick for directed dynamic transitive closure and shortest path algorithms,” COMPUTING AND COMBINATORICS 2108 (2001): 268-277. 5. E Dumas-Gaudot et al., “A technical trick for studying proteomics in parallel to transcriptomics in symbiotic root-fungus interactions,” PROTEOMICS 4, no. 2 (February 2004): 451-453. 6. S Echterhoff and I Raeburn, “The stabilisation trick for coactions,” JOURNAL FUR DIE REINE UND ANGEWANDTE MATHEMATIK 470 (1996): 181-215. 7. EB DAVIES, “The Twisting Trick for Double Well Hamiltonians,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 85, no. 3 (1982): 471-479. 8. KS SARKARIA, “A One-Dimensional Whitney Trick and Kuratowski Graph Planarity Criterion,” Israel Journal of Mathematics 73, no. 1 (1991): 79-89. 9. B Scholkopf, “The kernel trick for distances,” ADVANCES IN NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS 13 13 (2001): 301-307. 10. TG Erler and N Mann, “Integrable open spin chains and the doubling trick in N=2 SYM with fundamental matter,” JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS, no. 1 (January 2006) 11. H FIRKET, “A Very Simple Trick to Produce Controlled Co2 Concentrations in Gas Phase Overlying Cell Cultures,” EXPERIENTIA 25, no. 6 (1969): 671-&. 12. AR Champneys and WB Fraser, “The 'Indian rope trick' for a parametrically excited flexible rod: linearized analysis,” PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES A-MATHEMATICAL 456, no. 1995 (March 8, 2000): 553-570. 13. D Vorwerk et al., “A simple trick to facilitate bleeding control after percutaneous hemodialysis fistula and graft interventions,” CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY 20, no. 2 (April 1997): 159-160. 14. Y Fu et al., “Exploiting the kernel trick to correlate fragment ions for peptide identification via tandem mass spectrometry,” BIOINFORMATICS 20, no. 12 (August 12, 2004): 1948-1954. 15. J KURCHAN, “Replica Trick to Calculate Means of Absolute Values - Applications to Stochastic-Equations,” Journal of Physics a-Mathematical and General 24, no. 21 (November 7, 1991): 4969-4979.
  31. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    @fydijkstra, Here we go again ... "Many other papers, books, reports and political inquiries later, there can be no other conclusion than that S&B had a valid point with their pioneer work: the MWP cannot be denied and the current warm period is less exeptional then the IPCC wanted us to believe" The Medieval Climate Optimum or the Little Climate Optimum was known and written about in the 1970s. No one denied that there was a period of relative warmth about the 11th century, in which the Norse colonised Greenland. But there is no historical or archaeological evidence that it was warmer than the present. We have written annals from the period. I notice you use the "Many other papers .." defence, without reference. See: Medieval Warm Period
  32. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    dhogaza (#49): What planet do you live on? The S&B paper was the first in a series of papers that questioned the attempt by the hockey team to rewrite history, denying the Medieval Warm Period. In 2003 that was so shocking for the climate community that six editors of the journal resigned. Many other papers, books, reports and political inquiries later, there can be no other conclusion than that S&B had a valid point with their pioneer work: the MWP cannot be denied and the current warm period is less exeptional then the IPCC wanted us to believe. The S&B-paper was no scandal at all. The real scandal (maybe 'tragedy' is a better word) was, that 6 members of the climate community could be so shocked by reading the truth. And, by the way, with respect to this topic the Climategate e-mails have shown many interesting things about how the hockeyteam was thinking.
  33. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Philippe Chantreau "I am subsidizing the use of inefficient vehicles by paying a price higher than it would be without the artificially high demand." Not too sure about this. The price of pertol/gas is mostly market driven and rises as demand rises (production being limited). Your demand, however minimal, also helps push the price up. The problem with allowing market forces to control the price is that the price is currently far too low for something we cannot replace and currently use profligately. A scarce and non-renewable resource should be used very sparingly or be rationed. At least a higher price will encourage alternatives to be developed and used. Related to this - Economists need to open their eyes and see beyond their growth mantra. Reasonable people can see that continued growth cannot be sustained in a finite world.
  34. The Skeptical Chymist at 18:06 PM on 22 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Ken @ 139 So you have read Kevin Trenberth's papers? Great. Then you will be aware than using his email to suggest he wouldn't agree with the statement "The evidence for human caused global warming is as solid as ever" was not consistent with his views. Aside from his published work, another easy way to "ask" him is to check his website, where he says of the email you quoted: "In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability." (bolding is my emphasis) So no Ken, I don't think you are a dunce, but when it comes to the meaning of Kevin Trenberths' papers, I'll stick with what Trenberth says he means, not what others claim he means.
  35. Climategate a year later
    Re: Albatross (60) I think we all know the answer to that. :) Our usual coterie of "skeptics" were conspicuous by their absence during the recent thread hijacking by The Contrarian. Their typical case of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose. Interesting to see if Congress opens up a can of whoop-a** on Wegmangate... The Yooper
  36. Climategate a year later
    kdkd @59, Thanks for you post, it nicely summarises what seems to be going on here. I wonder what KL et al. think of the revelation that Wegman deleted emails? Note the difference between threatening to out of pure frustration after been harassed and actually doing so. Joe Romm has the juicy details at ClimateProgress. I eagerly await KL et al. condemning the scientific misconduct by Wegman et al. in the strongest terms possible.
  37. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn, Again with the obfuscation. RH is a very unreliable measure of atmospheric moisture content, because it is a relative measure of moisture, not an absolute measure. Dessler et al. and others tend to look at the mixing ratio, or even better the specific humidity when tracking moisture. Globally, the specific humidity in the troposphere is increasing in response to the warming.
  38. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn - See Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, also Urban Heat Island, and Are surface temperature records reliable. These issues are rather obvious, and have been addressed by the research. Your objections are quite simply not valid, but rather contentious, and do not reflect you reading any of the links that have been provided.
  39. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn, This is silly. Your argument is a strawman-- you originally complained that "temperature, by itself, as a measurement of heat of the atmosphere." I suggested that other metrics, you asked for examples and I and others have answered-- your question has been answered. Also, temperature, like other metrics, is not considered alone, but represents part of a bigger picture. Other metrics are used,there are multiple, independent sources of data which are used to to track heat (and heat balance) in the climate system and they are in very good agreement with the thermometers and observed temperature trends from thermometers. Please go back and carefully read the literature referenced in the links that I and other have provided. Murphy et al. (2009) would be a good start, as well as some of Trenberth's recent work. What to do your questions have to do with the "human fingerprint in the daily cycle"? I know, nothing. Rather it seems an attempt to derail the thread and obfuscate. If you have issues with the temperature record, please take it to the appropriate thread. And you still have not answered KR's questions @33...very telling.
  40. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    rh=realtive humidity.
  41. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    KR: Temperatures as presented ARE part of the data. My point is....once again......they are NOT a good measure of HEAT content. WE have the tools at hand do we not? Let's use those tools. We all know that urban island heat effect is real. What we don't know, because of the lack of incorporation, how much actual heat is retained by the micro climate because we are NOT using all the tools available. And some cities are so large that "micro" climate really doesn't apply. There have been papers published about this exact thing I am talking about. There has been no attempt to incorporate the knowledge from these papers...one referenced above...to improve the data.
  42. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn - Rh? Do you mean "pH"? (I actually have a personal connection to the soap opera mentioned in that link...) The pressures are known, so are the temperatures. I still fail to see your issue with long term, highly sampled, multi-decade surface temperatures (air and ocean) as at least part of the data for tracking climate changes. Please point out what temperature records you feel are unreliable. You have yet to clearly state why you doubt temperature records are poor indicators.
  43. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Albatross: I am not worried that warming is happening. That is a given is it not? I am not even worried that it may be partially co2 related. The climate sensativity to co2 will be in question for 10-20 years at least, and potentially longer. My point, once again is: Temperature, as in a mercury bulb reading, is a poor metric of climate heat of the atmosphere and even of the ocean as heat content is relative to water pressure as well.
  44. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    KR@33: With the tech we now have available to us, I would like to see heat content rather than temperature as the metric. We should be able to measure rh and temp, and yes pressure, and extrapolate the heat content. The anomolies should reflect heat content as that is a true constant within verifiable metrics.
  45. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    Nevertheless, this example shows, that there was at least one event that can be considered a conspiracy. Yeah, the theft of the e-mails and the well-orchestrated blitz of accusations against honest scientists. The "skeptics" in this thread are really grasping at straws. Being confused about the science is understandable and forgivable; taking Climategate seriously, at this late date, is an act of sheer self-delusion.
  46. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn @25, Sorry for the late response, have been busy. After reading your response to others who have answered your question, I have reason to suspect the sincerity of your question, but for what it is worth I will also do so. Please read the following and references cited therein. Specifically, the ones found: here, here, here, and here. A consistent and coherent story.
  47. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn - Any reply to my questions here? You've responded to several others since then...
  48. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    camburn 41. Surely if the records are kept night and day, spring to winter, el Ninos and La Ninas, rain and shine, high tide and low tide, these variations in humidity or insolation or precipitation or whatever are all taken into account. We've been measuring what we can. We've got more and more sophiticated and getting more and more measurements and at working out what those measurements tell us. But for global warming, what we do know is that there's a certain amount of energy delivered by the sun and we can measure that precisely. We also know how to measure what's being released at the TOA as outgoing radiation. What you're worrying about is where the energy that's not escaped through the troposphere is at particular moments. Most of it's in the oceans and we're doing our best to catch up with measuring that. What's in the atmosphere is measured pretty well in the large scale and over longer lengths of time. You're just asking for day by day accuracy and precision that just isn't yet available from the systems we've got. But we don't need that level of accuracy. My mum and her peers were able to produce perfect roasts, cakes, bread and scones with wood stoves that had no measuring devices at all. Most of us don't need the baby health nurse to tell us that our precious little one is gaining or losing weight. We can make perfectly reasonable judgments and decide on appropriate actions without pinpoint accuracy all day every day.
  49. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn #41 As well as more humid air containing more heat than less humid air, I'd also expect that air at low pressure contains less heat per unit volume than air at high pressure too. Given that there's a fairly close relationship between humidity and temperature anomaly (the graphs show humidity over time, but it's worth comparing the trend to a temperature anomaly plot over roughly the same time period), then your point seems to be valid and interesting. However, the interest here is that it seems to provide a visualisation confirming that your argument is incorrect.
  50. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    37.muoncounter This paper seems to link UHI with water vapour and identify an urban-specific diurnal cycle (based on the abstract). I wasn't really trying to counter what was written by you, or the references, rather just point out there are other factors involved in the mix. I now notice you mentioned some of them in your following posts. I'd still like to know if the research mentioned in John's article is really specifically a human fingerprint or just the fingerprint of a warmer world?

Prev  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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