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  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  2086  2087  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  Next

Comments 104201 to 104250:

  1. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    @43: Let China fill that void. It seems that they are building more coal fired power plants every day. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=1
  2. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Norman - Have you read the intermediate version of this topic? Non-linear does not imply chaotic, although all chaotic systems are non-linear. Weather is highly dependent on initial conditions (you can't predict next July 17th's temperature). Climate, on the other hand, as described in the RealClimate links posted earlier, is a boundary condition issue - when does outgoing energy match incoming energy? Feedback, not incidentally, is a geometric relationship (Forcing / (1 - Feedback Gain)), which is linear. There are certainly non-linear transition points, such as vanishing ice in the Arctic, but it's still not a chaotic system. You've repeated your albedo feedback question, but have not established that there is chaos in long term climate. Unless you do, you have failed to raise an objection.
    Moderator Response: Norman, you should give up your assertion that climate is chaotic, and instead comment on a different thread to focus on what seems to be your real assertion that Climate Models are Unreliable.
  3. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Marcus (#35), You call for criminal prosecution of whoever leaked the CRU emails. Where do you stand on the failed prosecution of the people who willfully defied requests for information under Freedom of Information laws?
  4. The Climate Show #2: Merchants of Doubt and Twitterbots
    The results of the Merchants of Doubt-led denial of climate science and global warming? 40 years of news stories on global warming and we're further from action on CO2 emissions than ever. Example, this news article from 1986:
    "Scientists say the Puget Sound region could one day be as balmy as Baja because of the pollution-caused trend in global warming known as the greenhouse effect."
    Even in 1986 CO2 was referred to as pollution. Who'dathunkit? The Yooper
  5. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #38, #40: Norman, It sounds like you are trying to run a climate model without benefit of any computing. That's not particularly helpful, as complicated systems don't simplify so easily. Best left to the pros; we can then read their results and form our own picture with the benefit of educated input. What you describe sounds to me a bit like what happens every year, as we move from summer to winter. That alone is neither a net warming nor cooling. Here's one inconsistency in your scheme: "If the climate cools in the Northern regions (higher albedo from increased snow) like during an ice age but the oceans are still fairly warm (from the previous warm cycle) you may get an increase of cloud formation ... This increased cloud cover acts to cool the Earth more ..." Here's what Holland and Bitz 2003 found: ... clouds reduce the strength of the ice-albedo feedback by shielding the planetary albedo from the surface. Furthermore most models predict Arctic cloud cover increases with warming, which increases the planetary albedo Further, drawing comparisons to glacial stages is too tricky to do on the back of an envelope. Burt et al showed that the increased albedo due to glacial ice is moderated by the accompanying lowered sea level: Although the positive ice-albedo feedback acts to amplify the climate change ... , due to the melting of sea ice and ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere, the ice-albedo feedback is actually negative over large regions of the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in the size of the Arctic Ocean basin. Both of those mechanisms do not enhance change, they moderate change: Cloud cover moderates the increased albedo of surface ice; warming air causes clouds which cool. These act to reduce the 'chaotic' nature that you seem to want to find. There are no sharp changes in temperature in this system. What is needed to explain sharply increasing or decreasing temps? Some other agent: We know its not the sun, as TSI is down while temperature is going up. We have a known warming agent in increasing atmospheric GHGs. Insisting that "Clouds alone roughly double Earth's albedo, from 0.15 (no clouds) to 0.31" is possible and should be put into the calculator makes no sense. We do not go from no clouds to heavy clouds. Look at satellite photos; there are always some clouds. Finally "the net affect of increased evaporation rates caused by global warming are difficult to predict" doesn't mean its chaotic. Repetition doesn't make it so.
  6. Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    An interesting link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/sea-level-rise-the-new-york-times-got-the-story/#more-5386
  7. Climategate a year later
    Re: Ken Lambert (36) As a former DoD employee who held a security clearance above the Top Secret level, I'm intimately familiar with non-disclosure agreements (12 years post-DoD, I am still bound by some of them). However, you appear to be operating under the premise that the aforesaid emails were released by a "whistleblower"; i.e., that it was "an inside" job. More evidence exists to the contrary, that it was an outside job, a "hack". As to the content of the emails: I see scientists being human, exchanging information and sharing ideas in a forum presumed to have a limited audience; that said audience would have a background of knowledge allowing a contextual understanding of the information, ideas and emotions being shared between professional colleagues and even friends. That sometime frustrations get voiced (better out than in, I say), frustrations that were understood to be seen in the context of "venting". Who among us have not had bad days? Said and/or written things in the heat of the moment that, had the brain filter been in "ON" mode, they might otherwise thought twice about letting out? I have. You have, Ken. We sometimes do things that we later regret having said or done. We express contrition. We move on. Once upon a time a while ago in a comment to you I was a little emphatic in my wording. I'd had been a long day. Later, having thought about it, I posted a comment apologizing to you for my earlier vehemence. I'm human, make mistakes. You are and do, Ken. We try to learn from them and move on. As Phil Jones is trying to do. As Rajendra Pachauri is as well. That is the lasting takeaway I get from having read the emails. That this is still an issue with some is telling as to preconceptions and mindsets. Conflating uncertainties into a conspiracy is absurd. I hold you and BP to a higher standard than that; you are both capable of much more. The Yooper
  8. Philippe Chantreau at 12:46 PM on 19 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    The common misconception that some vertuous whistleblower "leaked" e-mails is quite telling of how "skeptics" are poorly informed and how they think of themselves. Any superficial gathering of info quickly reveals that e-mails were hacked, not leaked. But the self righteousness attached to the whistleblower idea sure is comforting, so they hold on to it and foster that misonception in the public. Very revealing.
  9. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Marcus @38, Thanks a bunch!
  10. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    muoncounter, Here is some reading to back up some of my thoughts. Clouds effect on Albedo. Selected quote from the above article link: "Clouds, therefore, are responsible for about 55% of the sunlight that is reflected into space without adding heat to the climate system. Clouds alone roughly double Earth's albedo, from 0.15 (no clouds) to 0.31 (including clouds). In short, clouds are the predominant means by which incoming sunlight is reflected back out into space." Put those albedo changes in the calculator and see what a difference it makes. Another quote that supports my current view that Climate is chaotic: "However, water vapor and clouds play numerous roles in the climate system, and the net affect of increased evaporation rates caused by global warming are difficult to predict" Another article that also talks about the albedo effect. MIT article about Cloud effects. Quote from this article stating how much clouds change Temperature. "Recent observational studies show that these effects almost balance, but that the cooling effect is somewhat more important. From the point of view of global change, however, it is crucial to note that this small difference is about five times larger than the radiative effect anticipated from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the individual components of the difference are orders of magnitude larger. In existing climate models about one third of the predicted warming due to increasing CO2 arises because of the predicted cloud changes. These predictions, however, are highly speculative because none of the models include interactive cloud physics" Another quote suggesting the difficult nature in predicting future climate: "Clearly, without a proper treatment of both layer clouds and convection, model predictions of climate are uncertain. Cloud effects are so much larger than the anticipated effects of added greenhouse gases, that small changes in the cloud picture can easily alter predictions of global warming. In addition, existing methods of representing convection and clouds are crude, and, in some cases, can be shown even to be qualitatively incorrect"
  11. Climategate a year later
    Ken, I agree that 'Can you delete any emails ...' is very poor - do you understand the reasons that the originator may have asked for this? I would like for you to explain to us what the meaning of "hide the decline" is, and "it's a travesty". Just a warning: I'm only asking you this because I'm pretty sure that you'll take these comments utterly out of context and claim that they mean something that they do not.
  12. Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    Robert Way @32 notes that we now have greater ice loss with lower solar irradiance but higher CO2. We know that CO2 in the atmosphere and ice loss in polar regions are both accelerating. Solar activity can not remain quiescent. Pinker (2005) reports increased activity and if that is on-going, would not that explain the reason for both the increase in ice loss and acceleration in the rate of loss, rather than some undefined “natural” warming?
  13. Climategate a year later
    Daniel Bailey #29 All leaking of confidential or private documents could be found to be a crime somewhere. If you are a public servant (or a federal employee in USspeak) then you sign employment documents to maintain confidentiality, take oaths etc etc... Then "whistleblower" leglislation is enacted at some later date to protect you if you find that some malfeasance is happening in your job. This is a fraught matter for your judgement - those who are 'blown' will always cry 'thief' and try to smear the blower. The act of copying documents, leaking internal information is always prima facie illegal - but the leaker might be protected if the malfeasance is proven and the revelation in the public interest. How many scandals have been exposed by prima facie illegal leaking or stealing of documents? My point remains: if there was a boring technical discussion going on in the revealed emails and no jaw droppers like 'hide the decline' and 'its a travesty' and 'Can you delete any emails...', and 'even if we have to redefine what is peer-review' then there would be nothing to talk about. The real deniers in this debate are those who deny that Climategate exposed the leading scientists private doubts about the data and the measurement (and hence the quality of their work) and their attempts to present a 'sexed-up' monolithic quasi-alarmist story to the public.
  14. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Yep, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics, & a copy of the original memo can be found here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/82/GCC_Primer_Draft.pdf It was reported on, in 2009, by the New York Times-but really should have been reported more widely at the time. Not surprisingly, the GCC disbanded in 2002-not long after this document came to light ;)! BTW, another useful quote from the same primer is this: "Lindzen' s hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change.
  15. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Cheers, albatross. I also found some other documents which linked Seitz to Phillip Morris' denial efforts in the realm of environmental tobacco smoke. That post also disappeared when poptech's thread went down the memory-hole. It shows they were planning a 'Seitz Symposium' a year or so before the G. Marshall Institute released the 1994 document on global warming (which included comments on ETS and, as noted earlier, a gaggle of free-marketeer bugbears). And, of course, money. Funds from Jim Tozzi's group were passed to GMI (Seitz being a founder). Tozzi's group were funded by Phillip Morris.
  16. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Marcus @35, Wow. Do you have a source for that memo from the GCC? Thanks.
  17. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    To fydijkstra @15.... Who says, " Yes! It has revealed, that the IPCC hides uncertainties..." This was what I would consider stupid work (something I'm quite adept at) but here is what I find. From the IPCC AR4... In WG1 - chapter 1, I find 53 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 2, I find 207 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 3, I find 56 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 3, Supplementary materials, I find 9 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 4, I find 38 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 5, I find 36 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 6, I find 21 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 6, Supplementary materials, I find 0 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 7, I find 81 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 8, I find 60 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 8, Supplementary materials, crashed my browser. In WG1 - chapter 9, I find 295 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 9, Supplementary materials, I find 14 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 10, I find 248 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 10, Supplementary materials, I find 0 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 11, I find 252 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 11, Supplementary materials, I find 2 instances for the word "uncertain." Total for WG1, the words, "uncertain," "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" occur 1,372 times. In a 940 page document that make the occurrence 1.45 times per page. I would suggest if the IPCC were trying to hide something about the uncertainties in climate change they are doing an incredibly poor job of it. Please don't make me do the other working groups.
  18. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Mela @102, That was brilliant!
  19. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Poptech, you might remember these quotes from an RJR document I found for you before that forum thread magically went poof (we never did find out what happened)... 1. "respond directly to fundamental attacks on our business", "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". 2. "Science really knows little about the causes and development mechanisms of chronic degenerative diseases imputed to cigarettes" 3. "The purpose of the RJR industries biomedical research program is to focus on the support of basic and applied scientific research regarding human, degenerative diseases." Smokin'! This was during an introductory speech by an RJR executive. Who were they introducing...(have a guess). As I outlined to you, RJR had more than one arm of their obfuscatory research. The CTR funded by most american tobacco companies funded direct research (to cast doubt) on the tobacco-health issue. The RJR research which Seitz oversaw had a slightly different slant, but a similar aim (cast doubt). As the quotes show, degenerative conditions were being linked to tobacco. Seitz research focused on such conditions. And RJR were keen to 'refute criticisms' of tobacco use. Cheers
  20. Climategate a year later
    Ken Lambert, the reason these uncontroversial e-mails were released is abundantly clear. By releasing this information-out of context-during the Copenhagen Climate Summit, they were able to sow just enough immediate doubt to give International Leaders an excuse to not fix any targets for future emissions reductions. This agenda fit in very nicely with the goals of the fossil fuel industry-which makes them the most likely source of the hack (either them or one of their front organizations). Of course, once everyone had time to analyze the e-mails-in their full context, it became blindingly obvious that there was no evidence of deceit or conspiracy within them.
  21. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    fydijkstra. Whoever "leaked" those e-mails was not a whistle-blower, he/she was a computer hacker-i.e. a CYBER CRIMINAL. As such, the only thing they deserve is a nice long stint in a Federal Prison. Or can I assume you'd have no problem if I hacked your e-mails & leaked them online for all to see? (Given your desire for anonymity, even here, I'm guessing you'd hate it) Also, you want a real scandal-it was the failure of the press to report on the following Internal Memo (obtained *legally*, via an FOI request) of the Global Climate Coalition (a skeptic organization) which said-& I quote "The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow's hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither solar variability nor anomalies in the temperature record offer a mechanism for off-setting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were to double or quadruple." This proves that, like the tobacco industry, the Denial Industry doesn't *believe* its own denial!
  22. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #37 Tom Dayton I did look at the Real Climate explanation of chaos. They do not talk about how temperature can effect albedo. If the only effect on temperature where GHG then the point would be valid. Small changes in albedo (the sensitivity response to determine if a system is chaotic) also have a large effect on temperature. As far as I have read the effect of increasing temperature on albedo is not worked out. There will be more water vapor in the air...will this form more clouds and increase albedo a few % points driving temps down?
  23. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    fydijkstra: "Yes, there is broad consensus about the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But there is no consensus about whether the feed backs by clouds and water vapour are positive or negative." Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, it has a positive feedback.
  24. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Poptech, #50 The Marchall Institutes's alleged "rebuttal" of the Oreskes-Conway book has a sort of "No, we didn't .... Oh, yes you did ... No, we didn't" back-and-forth flavour about it. they virtually repeat Oreskes-Conway's account of the facts, but putting a benign spin on every action. As a reader, admittedly with my own bias, I find the Oreskes-Conway descsription to be the more credible.
  25. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #34 muoncounter I agree with your statement: "So can small GHG changes, as this calculator clearly demonstrates. And this calculator demonstrates that temperature response to albedo is nearly linear -- systems described by linear function are hardly chaotic." Temperature response to albedo is linear as is temperature response to GHG levels. Look at it the other way, that is where I see the nonlinear and chaotic response. How does temperature effect albedo? This is a harder question to answer. Cooler Northern climate generate the snowfall that is highly reflective and will drastically increase the local albedo in the local area. Globally it may decrease the albedo by 1%. However the bigger albedo effect would be with the clouds. If the climate cools in the Northern regions (higher albedo from increased snow) like during an ice age but the oceans are still fairly warm (from the previous warm cycle) you may get an increase of cloud formation all around (still plenty of water vapor from the warm oceans but now a lot colder air to lift the moisture up to form clouds as a cold front moves through). This increased cloud cover acts to cool the Earth more and the decline in temp becomes steep and drops several degrees in a relative short time frame. As the Earth's overall temperature goes down the oceans begin to cool. Due to the heat capacity of water, the time lag is long. Once the ocean's are cool enough, less water evaporates and cloud formation really becomes significantly less and the albedo drops to much lower levels allowing much more solar radiation in to be absorbed by oceans gradually warming them and ending the ice age. When the oceans get warm enough the cloud formation reaches levels we see today and the albedo averages out to around 0.3. I am not saying this is what happens or takes place, I am using the above scenerio to point out how temperatures could have a nonlinear and drastic effect on albedo, which then will feedback and greatly effect the temperature.
  26. Climategate a year later
    Re: Berényi Péter (33) Your comment was deleted because it was deemed in violation of the Comments Policy; specifically due to your implication that because Dr. Rajendra Pachauri lived in a home that you perceived to be beyond the means of his current income that he therefore must have "missed" declaring a "hidden" source of income. I find that insinuation of dishonesty repugnant; a man of your intellect should be above conduct of that sort. As far as the moderated comment you question, I was moderating at that time & wrote that comment; a comment which you still have left the terms of which unfulfilled. SoundOff noticed the missing of the kerfuffle noise surrounding Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and summarized it, replete with a link to Monbiot's post from which SoundOff derived his quote. I have read and re-read both SoundOff's comment and Monbiot's post several times and fail to see to what you are taking issue with. So, please share the details of why you feel SoundOff's comment violates the Comments Policy, because (call me slow) I'm not seeing it. In the future when moderating, I shall identify myself so that others do not blame John for my moderating. The Yooper
  27. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    fydijkstra #22 ..."no consensus about whether the feed backs by clouds and water vapour are positive or negative"... And absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the substantial negative feedbacks required to offset the effect of increasing CO2 levels. What was your point again?
  28. Berényi Péter at 08:06 AM on 19 November 2010
    Climategate a year later
    Re: Moderator Response to #28: Please demonstrate how comment #1 in this thread is in error; as always, provide a linked source proof. Thanks!
    As far as I can see no one has demonstrated in any way how my deleted comment, which had links in it, was in error. And that with a linked source proof of its fault not even on the wish list. On the other hand, it was a clear demonstration of how #1 misrepresents facts. If I may ask, do not use double standards, please. Thanks.
  29. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    RSVP wrote: Ironically, the only way for AGW proponents to ultimately "prove" their theory is for global warming to actually happen. It must be very frustrating therefore to only be detecting +0.16 degrees C/decade, or +0.016 degrees per year, a value that competes hardily with measurement noise.
    You used "hardily" on purpose, don't you? You forgot to tell it is +0.0013 degrees per month, +0.000044 degrees per day, 29 degrees Fahrenheit per millenium, +0.000000005 degrees per second, 5,500 years away of hypothetical boiling oceans and so on? What do you meant by that. Say it clearly -what includes quantifying noise-.
  30. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    "Climategate" summarized: When papers containing errors that scientists would flunk their undergraduate students for are published and used as political weapons against them, said scientists are likely to get very cranky. That's pretty much all that the hacked email messages proved.
  31. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele - To be more specific, the thermal radiation from an object is: P = e * s * A * T^4 Where: P: Power e: Emissivity (fractional power relative to a theoretic black body) s: Stefan–Boltzmann constant A: Object Area T: Temperature Kelvin There is no neighbor term, no incoming radiation term in this relationship.
  32. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele - Your statement "it feels the presence of the other bodies and it changes his behavior" is incorrect. Outgoing thermal radiation is only dependent upon the object temperature (scaling as T^4), emission spectra, and the size and shape of the object. There is no neighbor effect, and no surface EM interference that affects the thermal radiation. Please read the Wiki Thermal Radiation page for a good overview.
  33. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele, one body "feels the presence" of the other body? Halloween has passed already....
  34. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    KR, Yes, if the emitting body is alone in the vacuum, No if it isn’t more alone because it feels the presence of the other bodies and it changes his behavior that’s tied to resultant EM at any point of its surface. The temperature change occurs only if the integral(resultant_flux*dt) isn’t zero. You aren’t allowed to add two or more fluxes of components waves because the energy carried is proportional to square of field. Doing so the energy would be destroyed as is always (SumEi)^2 > Sum(Ei^2).
  35. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Norman, see RealClimate's Chaos Theory and Global Warming, and Butterflies, Tornadoes, and Climate Modelling.
  36. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #35 DSL I am not promoting the webpage. But the calculator is probably sound. It matches well with the one I linked to. I have that one for scaddenp because it includes atmopshere as well as GHG effects.
  37. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Argus, you are essentially recommending that scientists are to be dishonest in their correspondence. Note that I myself have a journal on my blacklist: I will not review papers for it, nor allow any paper with my name on it be submitted to that journal. Petty? Perhaps, but I do not accept the unprofessional behavior of that journal with respect to my earlier submissions. I am most certainly not helping that journal improve its scientific stature by submitting my papers to it. I know plenty of other journals that do handle papers professionally. The same story is obvious in the UEA e-mails: several scientists unhappy with the unprofessional behavior of a journal, publishing so obviously flawed papers (and being pretty bad at allowing comments to such papers, it should be added). Your final quote is due to frustration. I think there are quite a few people who have once said "I'd rather be dead!", without coming even close to seriously implying they would kill themselves!
  38. Climategate a year later
    Ken, as I noted, you are apparently rather ignorant on human nature. Scientists can get pretty fed up with continuous attempts to harass them, and taking everything they say out of context. If anything, climategate is very obvious evidence of taking things out of context by the 'dissidents'. McIntyre went as far as removing the middle part of an e-mail which completely destroyed his argument, put it back when called out by Deepclimate but kept his claim, but hardly any of his accolytes called him out on his narrative being wrong. Regarding human nature: when humans are very frustrated, they sometimes come with rash remarks, which they do not necessarily have thought through. It's not a matter of wishing to hide bad things, it's a matter of being frustrated with one harassing request after the other. Jones is just one of those scientists who wants to be left alone, and not continuously be accused of dishonesty, cooking the books, and whatnot.
  39. Climategate a year later
    KL, Readers here, for the most part, are learned and well informed on the issues of the day. Yet you insist in making baseless and at times false accusations. Personally, I find it offensive and insulting that you would be here, at SS of all places, continuing to smear the scientists with long debunked spin, despite six inquiries ruling (mostly-- there was some valid criticism) in the scientists' favour. Please don't try and argue that they were all "whitewashes", we've quite had enough of the conspiracy theories the past year. "The best layman's summary I have read is by Terence Corcoran of Canada's National Post. Posting that was a strategic error on your part. Corocoran clearly has an agenda against climate scientists, and frequently smears them. In fact, Dr. Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post (including Corcoran) for libel (and for fabrication) for that very reason. The National Post is, it seems, only accountable to the courts, they do not even make their code of practice available, and they are not a member of any professional print media association-- so it is hopeless trying to challenge their misinformation or hold them accountable. So you, quoting Corcoran here in your defense, is not doing you any good. It shows that you would rather take the word of a second-rate journalist with an ideological agenda, over the findings of six inquiries. Why? Perhaps it is because they are telling you what you wish to hear? Now is there any of the science discussed in the illegally released emails which you claim refutes the theory of AGW/ACC? Keeping in mind that issues with the science have all been discussed openly in the scientific literature already (e.g., divergence problem and "missing heat")?
  40. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Interestingly, Norman points us to a website--junkscience.com--that was created by tobacco money to promote industry-friendly "science." At the same time, Frederick Seitz is under fire in another thread for his role in promoting the idea that tobacco use is healthy.
  41. Climategate a year later
    The only noticeable change that I have observed one year on, is that so-called skeptics are being more desperate, wilder in their accusations and shallower in their arguments. Is it because they put all their faith in these emails, expecting AGW theory to come tumbling down in revelations of hidden secrets, forbidden knowledge and furtive conspiracies between scientists, governments and the UN ? Strangely, it would appear so !
  42. Climategate a year later
    Re: Ken Lambert (26)
    "Did not quite work out that way - and so the hackers crimes in exposure of these emails was on balance in the public interest. "
     So if a crime was committed, but deemed by even one person to be acceptable, said crime becomes an act of public service...? Interesting. By that logic, if a hypothetical "hacker" were to hack SkS and delete every one of your comments you've ever made at this site because they disagreed with a few of them, that would be OK, right? Quite frankly, you ceased to contribute anything substantive to discussions here some time ago. It didn't used to be that way; but that's the way it's worked out. The Yooper
  43. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele - The outgoing thermal flux from an object is strictly a property of the object emission spectra and temperature, not a gradient. Changes in temperature, on the other hand, are due to the differences between outgoing energy and incoming energy, and that incoming energy differs depending on surroundings, which is where relative positioning and nearby objects matter.
  44. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #33: "Small albedo changes can cause large climate changes." So can small GHG changes, as this calculator clearly demonstrates. And this calculator demonstrates that temperature response to albedo is nearly linear -- systems described by linear function are hardly chaotic. Do you have any idea what it would take to change the planet's average albedo by a few percent for a significant period of time? Even the Pinatubo eruption produced only a short term climate effect. While the global cooling after Pinatubo was not surprising, the observed winter warming over Northern Hemisphere continents in the two winters following the eruption is now understood as a dynamic response to volcanically produced temperature gradients in the lower stratosphere from aerosol heating and ozone depletion, and to reduced tropospheric storminess. To obtain the kind of albedo change you keep postulating, how many Pinatubos would you need? On the other hand, we have measured the increase in GHGs. The junksci calculator you reference shows how effective that is as a control know on global temperature, as do articles here. What part of this isn't clear?
  45. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Argus wrote : "... Academics should not be criticised..." "I think that quote pretty much sums up the reaction from the scientific establishment and their 'independent enquiries'." Shocking misuse of a quote, which anyone can see the truth of by simply going to point 6 in the main body above : Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. That's right : according to some, this comment from the UK Government's response to Muir Russell means that all the enquiries were biased and part of the conspiracy against so-called skeptics. Not.
  46. Berényi Péter at 01:48 AM on 19 November 2010
    Climategate a year later
    As correction attempt was deleted promptly, I request #1 to be deleted as well.
    Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Please demonstrate how comment #1 in this thread is in error; as always, provide a linked source proof. Thanks!
  47. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    fydijkstra wrote : "Climategate has revealed what climate realists allready knew for a long time: the science is not settled at all, and even the hard core of the IPCC supporters is highly in doubt." I don't know about "climate realists" (whoever they might be - at a guess, those who don't accept AGW ?) but anyone with even a passing interest in this subject knows that not everything is settled - after all, why does anyone bother bringing out related papers on the subject any more ? If everything was settled (apart from the physics, of course), so-called skeptics would have to look elsewhere for their political kicks. But who are these "hard core of the IPCC supporters" who are "highly in doubt" ? Do you have any concrete examples that don't include interpretations of emails ? fydijkstra wrote : "Climategate has certainly changed the understanding of how these hard core climate scientists do their utmost to hide the uncertainty and to prevent that other views are published" Oh no, not back to the conspiracy theories again, are we ? Again, do you have any concrete examples that don't include interpretations of emails ? fydijkstra wrote : "And that fits perfectly to some of the recommendations of the IAC report about the IPCC: "3. Characterizing and communicating uncertainties, particularly with regard to the level-of-understanding and likelihood scales used in the IPCC reports; 5. Increasing transparency, including explicit documentation that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered;" Unfortunately not. That fits perfectly the interpretation that is given at a site called Moose and Squirrel. Or was it wilbert1755 ? Or did you copy it from somewhere else ? Perhaps you should actually read the report and come to your own conclusions, in your own words ?
  48. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:27 AM on 19 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    ... skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate' The answer is simple: Skeptics - scientists simply do not deal with the scandals and ... science. For example, Marcus wrote: ... Sun has just recently come out of the deepest solar minimum for over 100 years-after a 30-year period of general decline in the sunspot trend. Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current, Lockwood, 2010: “Solar outputs during the current solar minimum are setting record low values for the space age. Evidence is here reviewed that this is part of a decline in solar activity from a grand solar maximum and that the Sun has returned to a state that last prevailed in 1924.” 2010 - 1924 = 100 years !? In addition: Activity on multi-millennial time scale (Usoskin, Solanki, Kovaltsov, 2010): “The Sun spends ~3/4 of the time at moderate activity, ~1/6 in a grand minimum and ~1/10 in a grand maximum state. The modern solar activity is a grand maximum.” The sun is still so much more active now than at any period of at least 7 thousand. years ...
    Moderator Response: The Sun's maximum, which was reached decades ago, cannot be responsible for the more recent warming. Evidence is that the Earth's energy imbalance has continued to increase. See the "It's the Sun" argument's green "Response" box under this comment by Barry. Or skip directly to the detailed post titled Climate Time Lag.
  49. Climategate a year later
    Ken Lambert, you are getting more and more desperate in your attempts to see conspiracies everywhere. The reason the emails were leaked was to sow discord and disinformation, by the selective release of certain emails, often without the follow-ups or responses from those they were sent to. There was no attempt to suppress so-called dissenters : just a desire to see correct scientific practice being presented - something I would imagine you would agree with...as along as it doesn't go against your anti-AGW beliefs, of course. There is no hidden weakness in AGW theory, which you seem to believe is presently out of reach (due to that conspiracy against the heroic dissenters) and just waiting to be magically revealed; and, despite what you believe about yourself, I have yet to see anything on this site which does any damage to a theory which will need more than a few blog posts to even barely scratch. Try to stick to facts, not what you need to believe - and emails taken out of context are not facts to anyone but those who wish to deny AGW. As Gavin Schmidt has written : There is an ill-advised suggestion [to delete emails], but there is no evidence that any email that was responsive to a FOIA request actually was deleted. Keep chewing on the same old bones if you want to, but don't expect to be taken seriously anymore.
  50. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    ...(Pielke Jr and Harold Brooks) informed you that THEIR papers did not do for your little list what you thought they did...
    Moderator Response: OK, this is enough (or more than enough) discussion of Poptech's list of papers. Further comments on this subject from all sides will be deleted.

Prev  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  2086  2087  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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