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  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  Next

Comments 103851 to 103900:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Here's a breakdown, h-j-m.
  2. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    damorbel wrote : "The IPCC adopted the thesis that the planetary temperature was rising monotonically "as demonstrated by the dendrochronological records", this wasn't (and isn't) true. The dendrochronological records showed a decline of the temperature as measured by this method." The only part of that paragraph that is in any way correct is "this wasn't (and isn't) true". "The IPCC adopted the thesis that the planetary temperature was rising monotonically..." No they didn't. "...as demonstrated by the dendrochronological records..." Is someone supposed to guess where this quote comes from ? If so, after a GOOGLE search, I have discovered that it comes from you here. Or did you have another source ? "...this wasn't (and isn't) true." Correct. "The dendrochronological records showed a decline of the temperature as measured by this method." What all the records ? Are you sure ? Perhaps you'd better post a few links to some.
  3. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Ken Lambert: "Another apologia intended to rationalize the clear meaning of 'hide the decline'. It means what it says." Nothing ever means what it says. Why? Because when we read something, we impose our prejudices on it.
  4. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    JMurphy @25, I second that. But mark my words, they wil be screaming "censorship" from the rooftop. These zombie arguments seem, IMHO, a form of passive-aggressive trolling.
  5. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Damorbel, You really need to please, please read up more on this. You completely misunderstand the role of the dendro data, what it constitutes, and what is represents. The multiple inquiries all figured it out, what is preventing you from doing so? I can post links to some papers if you like.
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ah, perhaps you were confused by the label "infrared" on that graph? It's referring to the near-IR and shortwave IR range. Not the thermal part of the spectrum where the Earth and its atmosphere emit radiation.
  7. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Phila wrote : "A lot of "skeptics" seem to feel that assertion is the same thing as evidence. It isn't. In fact, the statement in question "means what it says" within a context and tradition you refuse to understand, let alone acknowledge, because doing so would rob you of the flimsy weapon you're waving around." You could almost understand the so-called skeptics getting excited and flustered, etc. when the emails first came out, because they are easily excited and flustered and they thought they had just discovered the silver bullet that was going to kill the scary AGW monster. Most people reserved judgement, of course, but we had to give the so-called skeptics the opportunity to blow off a bit of steam - in the hope that, after the event, they would realise there was nothing to get excited about and, maybe, that they would feel embarrassed about the fuss they made. Maybe, even, it would make some of them more careful, and less trusting of those who were making wild claims. Sadly, most of them took it in their stride and either tried to ignore what had happened or diverted onto other myths and legends they still believed in. In the end, though, those who are still trying to make capital out of this (even after all the explanations and enquiries) are either too deep into denial to be able to come out and admit that they will never accept AGW, no matter what; or they are taking the p**s, not acting in good faith, or wilfully trying to subvert and divert any argument just for the hell of it. I think this website should be more aware of such tactics (maybe you are ?) and not allow false and baseless assertions be made time and again by the same posters. PS This is not a call for censorship, before any poor, unfortunate, conspiracy-believing skeptic thinks it is : it is a call for honest, good-faith, credible debate.
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, that graph doesn't even show the longwave infrared region -- it only goes to 2.5 micrometers. The wavelengths corresponding to emitted thermal radiation from the Earth are in the 8-14 micrometer range.
  9. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Phila @21, I think it is time to start ignoring KL and the other 'skeptics' here...really what is the point? They are not making any substantive contributions to these threads, but just parroting myths and fallacious contrarian speaking points. Is it really almost 2011? Their minds have clearly long ago been made up, and a truck-load of facts would be unable to sway their belief system by even an infinitesimal amount. I suppose directing the 'skeptics' here to articles published in the scientific literature of the divergence problem.......and the fact that is, IIRC, limited to one set of dendro data (Yamal) from Eurasia. I can provide some references if others are interested. This exercise is a fascinating, but scary, insight into denialism and the propensity of "skeptics" to entertain conpsiracy theories. Not sure whether or not that was the intent of Wight's posts, but it sure is working beautifully. It is also illustrating beautifully how the 'skeptics" are desperately clinging onto long-debunked myths to reinforce their misguided beliefs. Quite sad really.
  10. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Re #18 "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." That really isn't good enough. The IPCC adopted the thesis that the planetary temperature was rising monotonically "as demonstrated by the dendrochronological records", this wasn't (and isn't) true. The dendrochronological records showed a decline of the temperature as measured by this method. In order to maintain this dendrochronological fiction, the instrumental records were substituted for the dendrochronological ones in the 20thC part without identifying that they were quite different since the method and location of the measurements were different; like was not being compared with like. This sort of 'stuff' is wildly unscientific since the method of doing measurements is just as much part of the record as the actual measured values in any scientific research. The Muir Russell inquiry was bending over backwards not to cause damage to fellow academics by giving them as much benefit of the doubt as possible but they could not in conscience fail to note the glaring inconsistencies in the work of CRU and by extension the reports of the IPCC. The inquiry members knew full well that the consequences of such an omission would have destroyed their own reputations, they were only too aware of what would happen if the did not cover all aspects of the affair should their report be examined in detail like I am doing now.
    Moderator Response: It was right to give the CRU scientists the benefit of the doubt. The accused is always innocent until proven guilty. - James
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ned, what I am seeing is this: Solar Spectrum Though I don't know what you are looking at.
  12. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Berényi - From the John Stewart Mills reference you provided: "We have found that all Inference, consequently all Proof, and all discovery of truths not self-evident, consists of inductions, and the interpretation of inductions: that all our knowledge, not intuitive, comes to us exclusively from that source." and: "We shall fall into no error, then, if in treating of Induction, we limit our attention to the establishment of general propositions. The principles and rules of Induction as directed to this end, are the principles and rules of all Induction; and the logic of Science is the universal Logic, applicable to all inquiries in which man can engage." Mills quite correctly limits the purest use of "induction" for generalization from the particular to the universal. He also notes a major limitation on induction, the question of "enough proof": "Why is a single instance, in some cases, sufficient for a complete induction, while in others, myriads of concurring instances, without a single exception known or presumed, go such a very little way toward establishing a universal proposition? Whoever can answer this question knows more of the philosophy of logic than the wisest of the ancients, and has solved the problem of induction." Perhaps significance testing? Darwin did a great deal of data collection - look up "Darwin and snails" for some examples. There is indeed a metaphysical difference between our approaches, Berényi - you seem to treat the universe as a purely mathematical problem, with the idea that we can have exact knowledge, and that induction is somehow not part of science and our investigations. I, on the other hand, feel that we but see through a glass darkly, one that sometimes has bugs spattered on it, and our science is a series of improving approximations of what goes on in the universe, complete with averages, parametric expressions, and other methods for handling complexity without complete knowledge. And hence significance tests (just to tie this fairly wild excursion back to the topic) are useful to determine how confident you are in what you think you know. Just remember - deduction is exact within the limitations of the premises. But it cannot teach you anything you don't already know. For that, you must use induction to create new premises. Only induction can teach you something new.
  13. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    #14 (Arkadiusz): since you are on the topic of tricks, do you or professor Weiner have any comments on the fact that Spencer and Christy for years used a trick (not compensating for drift) to understate the warming signal in the satellite data, in order to fit their theory of no warming. (they later claimed it was by accident, but seing how the 2010 data are again being tweaked repeatedly to bring anomalies down, that seems less likely than before).
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, only a tiny fraction of exoatmospheric solar irradiance is in the thermal infrared range. The vast majority of it is visible and near-IR. I have no idea what you think you're seeing, but if it differs from what I just said, then you're probably misunderstanding something.
  15. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    Ken Lambert: Another apologia intended to rationalize the clear meaning of 'hide the decline'. It means what it says. A lot of "skeptics" seem to feel that assertion is the same thing as evidence. It isn't. In fact, the statement in question "means what it says" within a context and tradition you refuse to understand, let alone acknowledge, because doing so would rob you of the flimsy weapon you're waving around. Clinging to this absurd narrative in 2010 requires logical contortions, wishful thinking and misinterpretations of data that go far beyond anything in the stolen, cherrypicked Climategate e-mails. It's also funny how "skeptics" always seem to ignore the Nature part of this "trick." Presenting one's methodology clearly in the pages of the world's foremost science journal seems like a pretty careless way to run a global conspiracy. As I see it, beating the dead horse of Climategate is simply an attempt to "hide the decline" in respectable counterarguments against AGW. It's a more aggressive, and sillier, way of saying "I got nothin'."
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ned and DSL, Before writing my post I checked the irradiative composition of sunlight. I would advise you to do the same before posting a reply.
  17. Berényi Péter at 04:02 AM on 23 November 2010
    How significance tests are misused in climate science
    #75 KR at 10:33 AM on 21 November, 2010 that is how the theory of evolution came about, and it is inductive reasoning You do not have to believe every single word Darwin had put down in his Autobiography like "I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale". In fact he did not do such a thing, he was much more the follower of John Stuart Mill in this respect. Here is the first paper on (Darwinian) evolution. You can check for yourself how much of it is based on sheer induction as opposed to a quick hypothesis deduced from a few undeniable universal facts like creatures, given the opportunity, are capable to increase their numbers exponentially in an ever changing environment with finite resources and they are similar to (but not identical with) their progenitors. That's all. Jour. of the Proc. of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 3 (July 1858): 53-62. On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection Charles R. Darwin & Alfred R. Wallace In a sense Erasmus Alvey Darwin, Charles Robert Darwin's brother was right in his letter of 23 Nov 1859 stating "In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts wont fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling" (upon reading Origin). The plethora of facts in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life supporting this theory can all be considered failed falsification attempts. That is, they're not needed for the derivation of the theory, but turned out to be consistent with it. The original factual base of the theory stands unchallenged to this day.
    1. We still have not found a single species that would not increase its numbers exponentially in a favorable environment
    2. No environment is known that would be stable on a geological timescale
    3. No environment with infinite or exponentially growing resources is found (except the environment of human society, due to ever shifting technological definition of "resource").
    4. No species is found where offspring and progenitor are either strictly identical or dissimilar (if the entire life cycle of the species is taken into account)
    In this sense the empirical basis of the theory is not falsified. Problems discovered later have nothing to do with this quick-and-dirty inductive step, it is still a masterpiece. Problems arose not because of hasty induction, but some vagueness and much hand waving in its deductive structure (in the ratiocination phase, using Mill's term), some of which is due to sketchy definition of basic concepts, some to lack of rigorous formalism. The issues centered around point 4. above. He was sticking to the idea of blending inheritance until the end of his life, although he would have the chance to read about Mendel's results in Hermann Hoffman's book (1869), had he not skipped page 52 due to lack of mathematical training and interest. Therefore the important difference between phenotype and genotype along with the quantized nature of inheritance was unknown to him (and, understandably, also recombination, as it was discovered later). However, even with the tremendous advance in formalization and the description (and utilization) of the standard digital information storage and retrieval system encapsulated in all known life forms, Evolution of Complexity is still not understood (although this is the single most important aspect of the theory as far as general human culture is concerned). Even a proper widely agreed upon definition of complexity is lacking and while there is no way to assign probabilities to candidates like Kolmogorov complexity, it makes even less sense to talk about the probability of individual propositions dependent on this concept being true, either in a Bayesian context or otherwise. Current status of AGW theory is much the same. It is also highly deductive, based on the single observation carbon dioxide has a strong emission line in thermal infrared. It is the only inductive step, other than those necessary for launching general atmospheric physics of course. Otherwise the structure of the theory is supposed to be entirely deductive, relying on computational climate models as devices of inference. However, according to Galileo, the great Book of the Universe is written in the language of mathematics, not computer programs. The difference is essential. Mathematical formulae as they are used in physics lend themselves to all kinds of transformation, revealing hidden symmetries or conservation principles, making perturbation theories, equivalence proofs (like Schroedinger's exploit with matrix and wave mechanics) or analysis of general properties of a dynamic system (like existence and geometry of attractors) possible, etc., etc. On the other hand, there is no meaningful transformation for the code base of a General Circulation Model (other than compiling it under a specific operation system). Move on folks, there's nothing to see here. There is a metaphysical difference between our viewpoints. In unstructured problems like spam filtering Bayesian inference may be useful. As soon as some noticeable structural difference occurs between spam and legitimate email, spammers are fast to exploit it, so it is a race for crumbs of information. Stock rates work much the same way, from a strictly statistical point of view. On the other hand as soon as meaning is considered, it is no longer justified to attach Bayesian probabilities to propositions concerning this meaning. One either understands what was being said or not (if you take your time and actually read and understand each piece of your incoming mail, it is easy to tell spam and the rest apart, even for non-experts). To make a long story short, I think Galileo's statement about the hidden language is not just a metaphor, but there's more to it. There's indeed a message to be decoded, written in an utterly non-human language. It is a metaphysical statement of course and as such, has no immediate bearing on questions of physics. Nevertheless metaphysical stance plays an undeniable role in the manner people approach problems, even in their choice of problems as well. More so in their assessment what constitutes a proper solution.
  18. It's the ocean
    h-j-m - Your questions and proposed experiments (here and here) specifically attempt to disallow circulation and current effects. Currents (wind driven, salinity/thermal density driven) are primary mixers of the oceans, and redistribute surface temperatures elsewhere at varying rates. Studying a system without currents will not tell you much about the oceans. The oceans receive solar radiation and back IR, giving up energy via conduction/convection, evaporation, and IR (in increasing order of magnitude). The atmosphere is heated by conduction/convection, evaporation, solar and surface IR. At the top of the atmosphere all exchange is via EM, where the atmosphere is optically thin enough to actually radiate the IR to space. I'm failing to see what your issue with ocean heating is. Perhaps you could restate your concern?
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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!
  23. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    1999 Report...
  24. 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.
  25. 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)
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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.”
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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!
  42. 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!
  43. 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!
  44. 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.
  45. 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?
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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.

Prev  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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