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  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  2086  2087  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  2093  2094  Next

Comments 104301 to 104350:

  1. Climategate a year later
    "If the emails were uncontroversial - why bother exposing them??" "If the tobacco were so harmful, why do people still smoke and Richard Lindzen said there was no problem?" Logical fallacy it is.
  2. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    actually thoughtfull: "As the article points out - if Great Britain put wind mills on 20% of their land - that could cover ALL of their transportation (they put a negative, Glenn Beck style spin on it...)." Two points: 1. That will never happen and even if it did, the main issue would be aesthetic. The land 'footprint' would not be 20%, maybe the visual impact would be. They are two different things. 2. There are enough licenses handed out for offshore wind farms in the UK to power the UKs road transport. That equates to 25% of total UK CO2 emissions. The UK is investing in a wide range of energy systems. Wind farms are the biggest sector currently, but there are plenty of others, including tidal turbine farms, anaerobic digestion, energy from sewage waste etc.
  3. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Re #15: I suggest you read a few more climate science papers, or if you live near a university that researches it, maybe pop in for a seminar if you have the time. It's my experience that uncertainties are generally explained very clearly. The Briffa 2000 paper from Quart. Sci. Reviews where the 'divergence problem' (the 'hide the decline' thing) is fully explained is a good example that's relevant to climategate. In terms of the most important part of climate research, calculating the climate sensitivity, there are entire papers devoted to the statistics of the uncertainty in it...
  4. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    RSVP: "As long as we can still be arguing about how CO2 is or is not warming the planet..." Who is arguing? Who is we?
  5. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    RSVP #14 You are aware that the models predict around the 0.15 to 0.2 degrees centigrade of warming per decade aren't you?
  6. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    fydijkstra #15 Let me fix that first sentence for you: Has Climategate changed the understanding of AGW? No! Climategate has revealed what climate realists already knew for a long time: while the broad scientific consensus is solid, much of the detail is in a continual state of refinement. Unfortunately this initial correction of your sentence renders the remainder of your post incorrect, so it must be deleted ;)
  7. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Has Climategate changed the understanding of AGW? No! 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. 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. 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; So: has Climategate changed anything? Yes! It has revealed, that the IPCC hides uncertainties and that not all scientific viewpoints have been considered.
  8. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Marcus #11 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. If there is a "scam" (or bad faith) to be concerned with, it has to do with attempting to make this out first and foremost as a climate issue, and only on a secondary level an environmental issue. As long as we can still be arguing about how CO2 is or is not warming the planet, the very directly measurable and indisputable lowering of oxygen and increase in CO2, and its environmental impacts is being ignored. Perhaps if a year has been wasted, it has been in this sense and no other. Meanwhile, I will lower my thermostat 0.016 degrees.... oh, darn, it only steps one degree at a time...
  9. Climategate a year later
    OK, I just need to comment on Ken's remark that: "If the AGW science was so strong and overwhelmingly correct - the dissenters would not need suppressing - surely they would wilt in the harsh light of open examination." If only, Ken. There are quite a few 'dissenters' who will throw anything at a wall, and just hope something sticks. They know they will be supported by a lot of people, because they attack the 'status quo'/'consensus'. Some may honestly think they are right, and also find support by the same group of people. Some actually believe that *because* they are being 'attacked' or 'ridiculed' they must be right. Of course, there is hardly any suppressing going on. If there would be, quite a few 'dissenters' would be investigated by their university for academic malpractice (plenty of examples for that if requested). It is quite interesting that only 'pro-consensus' people have been dragged in front of inquiry commissions. Moreover, one would wonder where "poptech" gets his list of so many peer-reviewed articles that supposedly go against 'the consensus', if 'dissent' was so actively suppressed. In short, Ken, your argument lacks substance, and indicates some ignorance of human nature.
  10. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Poptech #various Thank you for so comprehensively demonstrating that your position is so thoroughly based on denial. It's very clear to any sensible reader that you have a total inability or refusal to evaluate the evidence properly.
  11. Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    John Kehr, I guess I should also make note that SMB is not the same as the SMB+Discharge. You should check out Van Den Broeke 2009 for that data. I would call that estimate the best available paper for Greenland ice losses because of the multiple methods in one.
  12. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    @Poptech: I suggest you actually read the book instead of automatically siding with scientists-for-hire who defended Big Tobacco. Seitz did say that second-hand tobacco smoke isn't harmful: "In addition to his criticisms of the global warming and ozone depletion issues, Dr . Seitz also addressed the ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] issue. With respect to ETS, Dr. Seitz concluded that ". . . there is no good scientific evidence that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is truly dangerous under normal circumstances." The report will be used to challenge the EPA's report on ETS in domestic and international markets."" As for complaining about moderation, I'd advise against it, but you're welcome to find out where that gets you.
  13. Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    John Kehr, There have been revisions with the surface mass balance data since Wake I believe. Not 100% sure though. Personally I disagree with your interpretation that you do not have to worry about CO2. Some interesting papers to read on the cycles include Viau et al. 2006. I've long been a proponent of millennial scale climate variability contributing to the warming of the early century but the post-1975 warming does have a primarily anthropogenic origin. I think even Pat michaels in his famous speech at the Climate change skeptic conference makes the statement that we are contributing to it. I think you have to be very careful with your interpretation of cycles in this regard. Viau's paper is good for that but I should point out i've conversed with him on this topic and although he does argue for a contribution to the warming from the cycles, he does not deny that the late 20th century warming is likely of anthropogenic origin. I think you should consider that not ALL scientists are as suspect as skeptics like to indicate and even those who may be pretty skeptical are now pretty convinced that late century warming is mostly human caused. I know of a paper being published relatively soon that deals with some of this stuff. There's an interesting methodology employed in it to determine what the maximum natural contribution could be but until it is in press my lips have to stay sealed. All that being said. There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest the post-1975 warming is anthropogenically caused and much of it can be found on this website. There are also many studies of spectrometry which show that climate models have the radiative forcing of CO2 pretty accurately defined. I think as you investigate this stuff further, you will eventually come to the realization, like most of us who start out skeptical of many claims, that the future climate really will be dependent upon CO2 emissions regardless of what occurred before 1975.
  14. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    #42: "Cap and trade is an idea that is dead in the US." Sounds like the old MP dead parrot routine: 'This parrot Cap and trade is deceased. It is a late parrot.' No, it's not dead yet: Barclays Capital announced today the first forward trade of Carbon Allowances created under California's Cap-and-Trade program, the California Climate Solutions Act But for California, real Americans will no doubt be proud to watch Europe leave us in our own carbon dust. America’s only nationwide carbon trading market will shut its doors next month, a tacit acknowledegment that Republican gains in Congress spell doom for any sort of federal greenhouse gas regulations. But other countries — even mega-polluter China — are ready to fill the void.
  15. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Camburn #10 - approximately 100% of the warming over the past 40 years and approximately 80% over the past century is anthropogenic. Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
  16. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    @42: What is it exactly that you oppose about "Cap and Trade"? I would think that you'd be in favor of market-based solutions... Personally, I'm for legislated limits, but then again I'm not a Laissez-faire proponent and I believe markets should in general be regulated.
  17. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    @Camburn: you might want to check out the It's not us page.
  18. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    Cap and trade is an idea that is dead in the US. Thankfully.
  19. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Camburn, our 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. This would strongly suggest that-if anything-our planet should have gone into a period of cooling. Yet instead we had the fastest warming rate (+0.16 degrees C/decade) that we've seen in at least the last 2,000 years-possibly longer-& certainly about twice as fast as the 30 year warming period of 1910-1939 (which was underpinned by a significant increase in sunspot numbers). Based on that information, would you like to hazard a guess for yourself as to what proportion of recent warming is attributed to humanity?
  20. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 14:50 PM on 18 November 2010
    Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
    Robert, Sorry for the delay. It has been a busy day. Thanks for those papers. They are interesting. Wake and ARC. Since the concern is for the overall behavior of the ice in Greenland, the first step I took was to look at the overall accumulation in the Wake data. Here is the last 150 Years of the SMB. I am still working on analyzing all the data, but there is an interesting difference between the SMB data in the Wake paper and the Arctic Report Card (ARC). The Wake paper shows less variability over the matched periods of 1958-2005. In addition the ARC paper shows 2,300 GT more accumulation between 1958-2005 than the Wake one. That is very significant. In addition the total period accumulation for the ARC SMB is approx -600 GT at the end of the hydrological 2010. So while the loss rate is significant post 2005, it was preceded by significant accumulation that is not present in the Wake data for the same period. This is the problem with focusing on the short term. The ARC data for the SMB shows near constant change, but over the past 40 years there has been little overall change in the mass of Greenland according to the Arctic Report Card SMB. In addition the standard deviation of the ARC data is ~125 GT/yr. So even the most drastic years barely exceed 2 sigma. That is hardly OOC behavior. The Wake data which ends in 2005 only exceeded 2 sigma low in 1968 and 1998. So where does that leave us. The Earth is going through cycles. I do not believe we have deciphered all of the ocean cycles yet. Much like the Taylor Dome shows some interesting cycling in the past 1,000 years, so do many other proxy reconstructions. There are many reasons why I am not concerned about CO2 and its impact on radiative heat transfer. That is the main reason why I am not concerned, but it does leave me free to look at the data to try to understand the Earth's cycles. Since the Earth is always changing.... I thought it might be a good idea to figure that part out. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic
  21. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Quick question: How much warmth of the current warm period is attibuted to humanity?
  22. Climategate a year later
    Ken, if I may comment, as one of the "unwashed" readers of this and other climate blogs including WUWT. You have made no scientific argument at all, and remain completely unconvincing to me. I did notice the emails were undoctored, and authentic. I also noticed that they were cherry picked, taken out of context, and willfully misinterpreted in the worst possible way. Despite all that, independent expert observers concluded no dishonesty, no intent to deceive, and no fault with the underlying science. So, your only arrow is to try to convince me that 10s of thousands of scientists worldwide, in competing scientific and academic institutions, using independent and different means of scientific inquiry, all coming to the same conclusion that CO2 is causing global warming, are all either in conspiracy, or that all have exactly the same sort of incompetence. Good luck with that.
  23. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    John and readers, Kate also has an excellent summary here. Stephen Leahy, Do you plan to write something about the latest shenanigans of Mr. Harper?
  24. actually thoughtful at 14:39 PM on 18 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Daniel Bailey, AKA "the Yooper", AKA the "one person": We also need acidmail (for the oceans), droughtmail floodmail faminemail and probably chainmail to survive the wars for food, energy and water.
  25. actually thoughtful at 14:30 PM on 18 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    Mike, That article is kind of like an educated Glenn Beck - there are true facts, but very weird conclusions. The facts are: China is innovating and doing faster than the US (of necessity) Coal, worldwide, provides 50% of the worlds electricity The weird, and probably not true conclusions: We therefore cannot get rid of coal for decades Clean coal is possible/likely America CANNOT innovate If America puts a tax on carbon, we will put coal out of business in 20 years - and grow the economy. Instead of China figuring this stuff out, and profiting from selling it to the world, the US will. People are stuck by what they know - dirty coal makes electricity and they can't see beyond to a new energy strategies, massive reductions in demand, and full scale production and installation of ALREADY known and proven technologies. [But...but what does that look like? How about LED bulbs that are 10-20 TIMES as efficient as incandescents? Motors that are 2-3 times as efficient, insulation that is 1/3 as thick and twice as effective (aerogel) - all these things exist now - without any particular financial incentive. Once the free market is providing incentives for reduced energy usage (instead of dis-incentives (can you say "SUV"?)) - these savings will sky rocket.] As the article points out - if Great Britain put wind mills on 20% of their land - that could cover ALL of their transportation (they put a negative, Glenn Beck style spin on it...). This article is actually scarier than the typical denial-ism we see (which is readily identifiable and can be ignored or pilloried). This article is, in fact, defeatism - the tyranny of low expectations of America and Americans.
  26. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Mann laments that it is up to the media to establish fact from fiction in the climate debate... Not going to happen, most of my fellow science and enviro jurnos have been let go and are working in PR or not at all.
  27. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Re: Stephen Leahy (5) Given the changes in the power structure in America recently, Dr. Mann induces wisely. The Yooper
  28. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Whoa, Mike Mann thinks the climate scientist witch hunts have just begun in the US. From Harvey Leifert a highly experienced science jurno:: Climate scientist Michael Mann thinks that the US is in for a period "where climate science is likely to be subjected to the sort of politically motivated inquisition that we frankly haven't seen in this country since the 1950s" http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44339
  29. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Re: actually thoughtfull (3) "Hotmail" The Yooper
  30. actually thoughtful at 12:55 PM on 18 November 2010
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    I am still waiting for one person to explain how an email went and melted the glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet. And waiting.
  31. Climategate a year later
    KL #20 If the two pillars of your argument are firstly in assuming that measurements that you admit have poor precision are actually precise enough to draw strong conclusions about the earth's energy balance and ocean heat content, and secondly continuing to magnify the poorly chosen words, and lack of political astuteness displayed in a very small proportion of a large corpus of stolen emails, then your position is clearly in very deep trouble indeed.
  32. Climategate a year later
    Albatros, JMurphy et al.. Well one man's heroic whistleblower is another man's thief. If the emails were uncontroversial - why bother exposing them?? Notice that none of the participants ever claimed that they were fakes or had been doctored. The critical lesson of the Climategate affair is that the most prominent AGW scientists (Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Briffa et al) clearly felt it necessary to obstruct and suppress dissenting views - no matter how inept or unfounded or vexatious. If the AGW science was so strong and overwhelmingly correct - the dissenters would not need suppressing - surely they would wilt in the harsh light of open examination. A better explanation is that Jones et al really felt the science was weaker than they had portrayed it to the public (which is well documented in the leaked emails); and that dissenters were a real threat to that rather weak edifice. Interested amateur skeptics on this very good blog have shown up many of the weaknesses in both theory and measurement. SS's mission statement is to more or less demolish the skeptical arguments about AGW - but when robust free discussion reigns - that mission is looking seriously undone.
    Response: "one man's heroic whistleblower is another man's thief"

    There is no evidence that the emails were leaked by a whistleblower. On the contrary, the current evidence available (which is scant because the investigation is ongoing) is that the emails were stolen from an external hacker. Combine this with the fact that the first public introduction of the Climategate emails was the Real Climate server being illegally hacked and the emails uploaded to their server - hardly the work of a heroic whistleblower. There were also attempted theft of other climate lab's servers at the same time. The coordinated nature of the Climategate smear campaign indicates this was an external job.
  33. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Good summary, John and that's why I didn't report on it - I'm an enviro jurno covering global issues like CC. I just covered the real story that resulted from the media frenzy: Violent Backlash Against Climate Scientists
  34. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Poptech #91 There's plenty of evidence around for Seitz' role in manufacturing uncertainty about tobacco health effects, you're just chosing to ignore it and/or deliberately avoiding doing research on the topic. It's not my (or anyone else's) job to help you with your ignorance or ideological blindness, but it's perfectly fair to point it out to others. This part of the wikipedia page on Seitz is a perfectly good place for anyone interested to begin the research process.
  35. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    "The real scandal of 'Climategate' is the illegal smear campaign designed to distract people from the scientific reality of global warming." Smear campaigns are rarely illegal, particularly here in the US. I think the "illegal" bit is restricted to the theft of the e-mails ... Of course, denialists wouldn't be denialists if they didn't argue that the theft itself was illegal ...
    Response: Fair point. I could've reworded it to clarify, saying something like "the smear campaign that included the illegal hacking of the University of East Anglia server and the illegal hacking of the Real Climate server to upload the email contents" but well, you get the general idea. It should not be overlooked that illegal activity was an integral part of 'Climategate', while 6 enquiries have found no evidence of illegal activity by climate scientists. And yet 'Climategate' is painted as a story of scientists doing something wrong - an inversion of reality.
  36. Climategate a year later
    Rob Honeycutt, if I may ask, what's the story with Lindzen and his smoking?
  37. Berényi Péter at 11:34 AM on 18 November 2010
    How significance tests are misused in climate science
    #65 Dikran Marsupial at 05:02 AM on 18 November, 2010 No, creationism is not unequivocally contradicted by any observation, but it isn't a scientific theory. According to Popper the *possibility* of falsification distinguishes scientific theories from unscientific ones. Creationism is non-falsifiable as the deity may have buried dinosaur bones as a test of our faith etc. You are correct. I should have added to "not contradicted [by data, observation, measurement, whatever]" possibility of falsification as well, that is, the theory also have to be able to specify under what state of affairs it is considered to be contradicted by facts. This is precisely one of the most serious drawbacks of CO2 induced warming theory. In the above sense it is not falsifiable, because 1. The concept of "forcing" does not have a proper definition. This fact is shown by the existence of an arbitrary fudge factor attached to each kind of forcing, called "efficacy" (for example according to some studies the same forcing expressed in W/m2 in case of black carbon on snow is supposed to have more than three times the efficacy of atmospheric carbon dioxide - but should measurements indicate polar soot pollution is high enough to explain recent warming at high latitudes, this fudge factor is always malleable enough to leave room for significant CO2 effect, enhanced of course by some supposed water vapor feedback). 2. "Climate sensitivity" does not have a sharp enough definition either. We have no idea about either the shape of the response function (if it is a first order one or has some more complex form) or the time constant(s) involved, that is, in what time climate is supposed to attain equilibrium after a step change in a particular "forcing". According to a bunch of studies just about anything is consistent with AGW theory, including increased or decreased storm activity, multi-year flat OHC, drought, flood, warming or cooling, more snow, less snow, increasing or decreasing sea ice. One only wonders what state of affairs would constitute a falsification of this theory. I mean if century scale climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is in fact less than 1°C (negative feedback), is there a climate indicator that would show it beyond reasonable doubt in significantly less time than a century? The literature is distressingly silent about it, although exactly this kind of study would have the capacity to make propositions about AGW scientific, therefore it is indispensable to any level of credibility. A recent study goes as far as claiming severe continental scale winter cooling is not only consistent with "global warming", but it is a consequence of it, kind of proof. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH VOL. 115, D21111, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2009JD013568 A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents Vladimir Petoukhov & Vladimir A. Semenov "Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it" At the same time they do not bother with elaborating on other effects of a supposed partially ice free Barents-Kara sea in winter, like where this oceanic heat lost to the arctic winter atmosphere is supposed to go or how this loss influences overall OHC. If they would, I suppose we could see a strong local negative feedback at work, barely consistent with positive feedback. The meticulous PR transition from the original buzzword "global warming" through "climate change" to "climate disruption" does not help building public confidence either. It is not only the case we do not have a definition of "disruption" that is sharp enough to be falsifiable, but it is also utterly impossible to define what is supposed to constitute climate disruption as opposed to natural variability. Questions like these have nothing to do with confidence tests directly or the way they are used, the failure to explicitly define Bayesian priors, etc., except if anywhere, in a honest falsifiability study these ingredients would find their proper place.
  38. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    It is a testimony to the sad saga that this thread has become that none of the usual "skeptic" habitues of SkS have chosen to weigh in. The Yooper
  39. Climategate a year later
    It was amazing watching the hyper-ventilating outpourings of the so-called skeptics, when this all came out, and I could just imagine many of them hugging themselves with false glee - thinking that they were witnessing the final (final) nail in the coffin of AGW. Unfortunately for them, though, reality eventually returned and they had to move onto more diversions, hopes, dreams and disappointments. Any unbiased observer would have watched all this, seen the outcomes of all the enquiries, understood that the science still stood, and moved on. Not the so-called skeptics. No, they have to regurgitate the same old disinformation and keep gnawing at the old bones of broken dreams (if I can mix my metaphors). Ken Lambert, you need to read more to understand the banal (and non-conspiracy) meaning of the words you have quoted and posted : What does Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline' mean? Real Climate George Monbiot Memorandum submitted by Dr. Timothy J. Osborn to the Science & Technology Select Committee As for Lindzen's comment : he is a desperate, desperate man.
  40. Climategate a year later
    I find it gratifying that science and scientists have been vindicated and the contention that the IPCC should be infallible or discredited as totally ridiculous. On the other hand I respect the right of anyone to honestly and genuinely question scientific findings and theories and to do so publicly. By honestly and genuinely, I mean without resorting to the deceptions employed by those who describe themselves as sceptics but are more accurately climate change deniers. Journalists have a responsibility to write on such matters in an informed and balanced way and editors to ensure the accuracy – rather than the “newsworthiness” of what they publish. Of concern is that journalists who are neither knowledgeable or informed nevertheless produce articles which, to be kind, are less than balanced and editors, particularly those employed by Rupert Murdoch.
  41. Climategate a year later
    Albatross... Ironically, though, just today Richard Lindzen was in front of a congressional subcommittee making this statement: "Climategate is proof of overt cheating by climate scientists." This after there have been numerous, in depth, independent reviews into the matter. It's almost like Lindzen and his smoking. No amount of evidence can sway his opinion.
  42. Climategate a year later
    The "skeptics" really do need to move on. "Climategate" was the mother of all ad hominem attacks on the climate science community. They will debny it of course, but Climategate was also an epic fail for them, and history will not document it in the way they would like to. It has also afforded us a scary insight into the tactics and behavior of "skeptics", namely their willingness to distort, misinform and manipulate information to suite their own ideology and further their campaign of doubt and confusion. Not to mention highlighting the desperate lengths they will go to to come by that information. Dismissing six investigations as whitewashes just does not cut it. The skeptics are in fact very lucky that, until now at least, criminal charges have not been brought against those who organized and oversaw vexatious FOI campaign or those who were involved with the theft of the emails. Posts by some "skeptics" here just go to prove the points made in the above post-- sad that they fail to see that. Also, it seems that said "skeptics" have not taken the time to read the reports from the various inquiries, especially the comprehensive (and at times rightfully critical) report by Sir Russell. But instead insist on parroting long debunked myths and misinformation that have done the rounds on various internet blogs and in misguided elements of the media. For example, as for the fallacious claims being parroted here about fudging code and numbers, please read this. Did "climategate" undermine the validity of the theory of anthropogenic climate change? No, not one bit. Now that is a very inconvenient truth for the "skeptics". And here is another, the extremely troubling revelations concerning the Wegman report.
  43. It's the ocean
    Just noticed your other notion in #21: "should have selected the alleged additional heat flux from anthropogenic global warming as comparison." Yes, the 'alleged' GHG forcing, as shown here still trumps this 0.087 W/m2 from geothermal 30 or times over. What was your point?
  44. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    In comments 65 and Berényi Péter refer to papers by R. Dewar. A new comment on two of Dewars papers is online. The comment apparently show that results of two his papers are based on an physical unrealistic assumption. The comment discuss the following papers by Dewar: Information theory explanation of the fluctuation theorem, maximum entropy production and self-organized criticality in non-equilibrium stationary states [R. Dewar, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003), 631–641] Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorem [R. Dewar, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (2005), L371–L381].
  45. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    KR, thanks. You haven't demonstrated that my pre-Newtonian physics example above is not "universal" or "complete" (nor have you defined those). Next I will read Salmon since he seems to have the best counterargument.
  46. It's the ocean
    #21: "the data that is referred to are from a paper published in 1993" The paper I cited was published in 2009. Do you think those authors knowingly used the 1993 data (which has been cited by 167 subsequent papers through 2010) without some consideration of whether or not they were still appropriate? More to the point, do you think the earth's geothermal heat flow into the oceans varies by a 3 orders of magnitude (we're talking watts vs. milliwatts) over the course of 17 years? Everybody would have noticed that!
  47. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #30 scaddenp Your statement "However, this has nothing to do with chaos. Albedo is straightforward and well-behaved." Does not seem valid in the material I have looked into. Wonder why you believe this statement to be true. I have another calcualtor for you. It is on a site you probably do not like but the calcultor is still valid. It includes the atmosphere and the Greenhouse effect in the calculator. Small albedo changes can cause large climate changes. This seems to fit the concept of sensitivity into the climate system. Very sensitive to small changes and the changes to climate can then effect the albedo, very nonlinear effect. Global Temp calculator that includes atmophere for scaddenp.
  48. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Moderator I am still working on the possibility that Climate is indeed chaotic and the reasons I feel it may be so I think I am still on the correct thread. I have read your intermediate version of chaos and see you do not include albedo as a means to induce a chaotic climate. Here you state "If the sources and sinks of CO2 were chaotic and could quickly release and sequester large fractions of gas perhaps the climate could be chaotic." Forget about CO2, what about albedo? A change of 1% in the albedo is equal to the effect of CO2 doubling. The reason I still suggest climate may easily be chaotic is because the major climate variables (temperature and precipitation) will have an effect on albeo and albedo in turn can easily change these two variables so it makes for a very unstable situation.
  49. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    Poptech wrote : "Quality and validity are subjective. I consider the papers to be of high quality and valid, you don't. None of this changes the fact that they are all peer-reviewed and published and support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm." No, no, no : no matter how many times you try to convince yourself (well, you can't convince anyone else but those who want to believe in your little list), those 'papers' 'support' YOUR own rather convoluted arguments against AGW alarm (whatever that might be) - even using papers whose original authors have told you that their particular papers do not support skepticism against AGW alarm, no matter what you think.
  50. Philippe Chantreau at 06:47 AM on 18 November 2010
    Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
    To all: it would be wise to stop feeding the troll

Prev  2079  2080  2081  2082  2083  2084  2085  2086  2087  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  2093  2094  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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