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  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  Next

Comments 107601 to 107650:

  1. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Johnd @22, I get back to you tomorrow, have plans tonight.
  2. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    It is difficult to evaluate global water cycle based on observational data. The achievement of Syed et al. is great. (I am a bit ashamed that I have not published original results though I am purported as an expert in this field of science.) But it is a piece of science in action and it should not be considered as something definite. There is asymmetry in the situation of climate science. From theories, it is easier to discuss global phenomena. From observations, it is easier to discuss local phenomena. *** In the world of numerical climate models (which are based more on theories than on observations), the situation is clearer, but again somewhat confusing. I have watched simulations by all global climate models which participated in "CMIP3" collaboration (the same as which was used in IPCC AR4) in a certain scenario (A1B) of greenhouse gas emission for the 21st Century. As the global mean surface air temperature rises, global mean precipitation and global mean evaporation (which are nearly equal to each other) increase in all models. But the relative rate of increase is slower than that of global mean water vapor content in the atmosphere. Accordingly, the mean residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere becomes longer. In terms of mass flow per unit time, the water cycle accelerates. But in terms of efficiency of recycling, the water cycle decelerates. The results seem robust as far as the current generation of climate models are concerned. There is a small possibility that all models err similarly, because all models use hydrostatic approximation and (various kinds of) cumulus parameterization.
    Moderator Response: Not to cause embarrassment or red ears, but let's acknowledge how privileged we are to have Dr. Masuda pay us a visit. We can best do so by applying our very greatest effort in formulating any questions we may have regarding the topic of this thread, the global hydrological cycle.
  3. It's the ocean
    A paper by Mojib Latif predicted that changes in ocean circulation in the Atlantic could cause the rise in global surface temperatures to stall for a decade or two. How exactly would changes in ocean circulation cause global warming to temporarily slow for a decade? Is this related to the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillion? Would this have any effect on ocean heat content? I've been curious about this for a long time. Please explain this.
  4. It's the sun
    "You claimed that a graph showed that "the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700" That was a highly misleading statement, since the actual graph showed it not even rising up to 0.3 -- the bottom end of your claimed range for the past three centuries -- until the 1930s." You are exaggerating and splitting hairs Ned. Some of the proxies are higher than the black line average and some naturally below. The highest is about 0.4W/sq.m circe AD1750. I can dig up the actual numbers from the site and check it - but for now 0.2 - 0.5 is good enough. My point about the area under the curve being the total energy is the critical one. "Ken, there is no unique "equilibrium TSI where the Earth neither warms nor cools due to Solar". No such number exists! There are infinitely many possible values of TSI which would produce neither warming nor cooling of the Earth. I keep making this point and you keep ignoring it." Again - such a number MUST exist for the pre-industrial (unforced by AG forcings) Earth. Conservation of mass would indicate that the Earth has a constant amount of dirt, water (in ice of liquid form) air etc etc. There would be an overall function which takes into account the specific heats, latest heats etc of the whole Earth system subject to warming by external forcings. "I assume you are also not including the climate response forcings (IR cooling and WV feedbacks) in this analysis which net currently is -0.7 W/sq.m and would give a significant energy loss area under its curve to add to the Solar and All Other above." I have already mentioned S-B IR cooling plus feedbacks as being added to the other forcings which will bring the system toward equilibrium. S-B cooling is currently -2.8W/sq.m and proportional to T^4 so will rise rapidly with actual temperature increase - closing the forcing gap (unless WV and ice feedbacks rise faster) The S-B IR + WV response curves should be included in these 'AG Radiative Forcing' charts with Solar so the viewers can get the real picture of the overall warming curve for the planet. Try harder next time Ned.
  5. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    I agree entirely that humans are causing global warming, and that solving the problem should be our highest priority. However, I am very skeptical of the accuracy of climate models and their global temperature projections for the 21st century. I think a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius is a bit wide of the mark. Since 1880, global temperatures have only risin .8 degrees celsius.In order for global temperatures to rise by 3 degrees celsius by 2100, global warming would have to undergo a very rapid acceleraton. Apparently this isn't showing any signs of happening. Global temperature increases over the past decade have been on the low end of climate model projections. I'm not saying that warming has stopped, but I am saying its falling short of climate model projections. I find it very hard to believe that we will have a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius by 2100. Could you please explain this to me?
  6. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Albatross at 09:53 AM, these maps from BOM perhaps best illustrate the difference. Note that it is E as measured by pan evaporation that is charted. I think that pan evaporation should exceed rainfall is something that should be self evident. Given that pan evaporation appears to be the only actual standardised physical measurement, at some point all other calculated values of evaporation under defined conditions such as Evapotranspiration (ET) must at some point be referenced back to such physical measurements. I note in the explanation you provided, it is E that is referred to, not ET, so I assume that it is being used to define the same E as BOM do, though that is not clear.
  7. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    @ TimTheToolMan adelady asked you @40: "Where exactly will the heat to drive the next el Nino come from?" @43 you respond: "In answer to your question or rather to put it into perspective, the heat you speak of could accumulate in a matter of days if not hours." If this is so, then why does it not at all times? You say @47 that only a tiny portion accumulates per day. Please take the time to explain the mechanism at work here.
  8. The Skeptical Chymist at 11:09 AM on 8 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    @ Chris There are some ~500-600 comments on that Realclimate thread making it hard to find the relevant exchanges, but the Climate Progress post linked to by JMurphy @ 57 is a copy/paste of guts of it.
  9. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Ahh, after having a bit o a better read o the comments, i see Goddard didnt apply inverse barometer, so apple n apples then...
    Response: The data with the inverse barometer applied is a "better" signal - if you don't filter out the atmospheric pressure effects, you get a much noisier signal with lots more ups and downs (much better for cherry picking). In this case, Goddard opted for inverse barometer not applied so I thought rather than get bogged down in discussion of inverse barometers, I just plotted the same data he used.
  10. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Should also add, over longer time scales, conduction and mass transport can store heat deeper into the ocean. These processes are slow movers of heat however so surface just warms first, limiting how much you can store in a day.
  11. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP: I have seen no scientific arguments that we should ban gasoline, or even coal, if they figure out a way to keep the CO2 (and other pollutants) out of the air. I think carbon sequestration is unlikely to be economic for coal use, but if it is more power to them. Your argument is absurd on its face- look at it being compared to cigarettes. You need to rethink what you are trying to achieve. Your claim, on a scientific blog, "It doesn't take facts; just common sense" makes you appear a fool. Changing to "why don't we label coal a pollutant" is no better. We all remember your previous similar arguments and your lack of understanding of the basic science. If you want to convince anyone to consider your arguments they need to be fact based to succeed on this blog. Perhaps if you understood the science you would change your opinion. The information you need is on this site if you choose to read it.
  12. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TTTM - I was thinking about heat capacity, conductivity etc. Irradiate a surface and it heats till temperature is such that blackbody radiation matches incoming radiation. You arent asking me to prove that? The storage of energy for a material before that temperature is reached depends it heat capacity. Straightforward for land, but for sea, convection, transport of heat by mass flow, etc. will also affect this (the nebulous thermal properties). Conduction also moves heat away from the irradiated surface so this also has be figured in.
  13. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TimTheToolMan at 07:36 AM "So you say but what proof/mechanism do you offer that energy gained over a day cannot be retained whereas the same energy can accumulate over months or years?" The oceans are the main reason, energy (LW&SW) will be absorbed during the day(LW reduces loses, SW "heats"), at relatively shallow depths, because the SW heats down through a shallow column of water, and "heat" is lost at the surface(through LW, evaporation, conduction), convection kicks in through the column that is absorbing shortwave and brings the energy to the surface, whilst mixing this area through turbulence, when the sun goes down. And "heating" stops, this surface layer will fall back to a stratified profile, due to the fact that its still loosing "heat" at the surface, but there is no "net" input of energy going below the surface. So looking at it "extremely simply", conduction is the means that energy is stored in the deeper ocean, and its not a very efficient mover of energy, and it would take a lot o time, to move energy down into the ocean this way, due to the way that the surface interacts with SW/LW, to keep moving energy to the surface... but the oceans have some 1300 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. P.S. it may have been asked... but why isnt the inverse barometer applied in the sea level graphs?
  14. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    JohnD, From the paper: "Global-ocean evaporation estimates for the period 1994–2006 are obtained from SSM/I (2), OAFlux (23), and the Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite data (HOAPS; 42) version 3, which is available only through 2005. All the evaporation datasets estimate the latent heat flux using the bulk aerodynamic formulation in order to compute ocean evaporation (2). Satellite observations of surface wind speed at the reference height, sea surface temperature and specific humidity of air near the sea surface are the key variables used in the formulation. Despite, the greater variance in the E estimates (see SI Text 2 and Fig. S5), the temporal variability of these datasets is consistent, with all monthly estimates within one standard deviation of their monthly ensemble mean. The average values of global-ocean evaporation ranges between 400,200 km3∕y (for SSM/I) and 415,900 km3∕y (for OAFlux)." Even allowing for this uncertainty E is still greater than P over the global oceans. "If the pan evaporation data was to be used directly, then over land E>P also, by a large factor." Not that I do not believe you, but which paper is that from?
  15. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    I was asking why not label petro and coal biproducts pollutants rather than go after CO2? What's the byproduct of industrial application of petroleum and coal we're speaking of here? Are internal combustion engines designed to produce C02? Is the objective of a coal fired generation plant to produce C02, with the grid and load simply a big resistor to get rid of the pesky energy byproduct? This is beginning to resemble one of those Oliver Sacks situations, a weird inability to perceive some particular thing.
  16. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Handwaving "thermal properties" may fool some but you've not answered the question.
  17. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Albatross at 08:36 AM regarding E>P over oceans, do they indicate how E was determined? If the pan evaporation data was to be used directly, then over land E>P also, by a large factor. The trend is perhaps the most reliable indicator.
  18. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP #|15 "Maybe you can explain why refined petrolium products or coal havent received this qualification " Maybe you cant, or simply didnt understand the question. I was asking why not label petro and coal biproducts pollutants rather than go after CO2? Or is this part of the CO2 sequestering business agenda?
  19. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    DSL at 08:12 AM, that study is looking at the effects of droughts which are short term and regional events. Both the lead article here, and the first paper referenced by LukeW at 06:59 AM indicate general increases in rainfall globally.
  20. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    LukeW, Good points. Yes, a lot is happening. I would not trust the pan evaporation rates much (they do not reflect what happens over vegetated surfaces, and are notoriously error prone). Anyhow, the authors here specifically talk about increases in global-ocean evaporation as the SSTs increase (see their Fig. 2). Over land modeling ET is incredibly difficult and observing it using EC systems is not much easier, and data from the global FluxNet network are probably the best data that we have for ET from various biomes. Not sure if they have looked at trends-- they only have about 10 years of FluxNet data though. Yes, factoring in land use change is problematic. But don't forget that man made dams can also reduce run off by holding back some water. Fig. 2 in the Syed et al. paper shows that there is evidence of the hydrological cycle over the oceans/seas which cover about 70% of the planet (by only considering the oceans one avoids problems with land use change). Also, P - E < 0 (from their Fig. 2, E > P) over the oceans, which suggests that there must be increased precipitation over the land areas (b/c globally P-E should be ~ 0).
  21. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    And factor in Zhao and Running (2010) who show that plant growth actually appears to be declining slightly.
  22. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    LukeW at 06:59 AM, I was about to post something on evaporation trends but see you have already taken care of that. The link below adds to your reference and sets out to try and correct some commonly held assumptions. River runoff is really only a by-product, it is dependent on a number of other factors, and anyway is only a calculation rather than an actual measurement. On the other hand, rainfall and evaporation are actually measured and any modeling can be verified by real data, but more than that they are the two critical components without which the hydrological cycle simply would not exist. Agro-ecological implications of change to the terrestrial water balance
  23. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    To create the imbalance in energy in/energy out (where Planck's Law does the energy out), you have to have storage of energy within the planet that is not yet expressed as surface temperature. This is matter largely of thermal properties (though melting ice also contributes). Once surface temperatures increase of course then energy balance is restored and no further accumulation occurs.
  24. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    So you say but what proof/mechanism do you offer that energy gained over a day cannot be retained whereas the same energy can accumulate over months or years? And I say cannot in the same way you said could... Now is a good time to mention Plank's Law when dealing with the accumulation. You need to account for that.
  25. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Lots of messy confounding issues here: (1) Pan evaporation rates have been reported to be decreasing not increasing, a reduction in windiness being a key driver - Roderick ML, Rotstayn LD, Farquhar GD and Hobbins MT. (2007) On the attribution of changing pan evaporation. Geophysical Research Letters VOL. 34, L17403, doi:10.1029/2007GL031166 (2) El Nino has changed position and intensity increased - Lee, T., and M. J. McPhaden (2010), Increasing intensity of El Niño in the central-equatorial Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14603, doi:10.1029/2010GL044007. (3) Gedney et al initially postulated increased transpiration efficiency – more CO2 less water use – Gedney N, et al. (2006) Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature 439:835–838. (4) Then Piao et al 2007 suggest both climate and land use change affect global runoff, with land use being half the increase. They refute Gedney et al. on CO2 saying increase in vegetation growth compensates for the CO2 anti-transpiration effect. (Shilong Piao, Pierre Friedlingstein, Philippe Ciais, Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudré, David Labat, and Sönke Zaehle Changes in climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on global river runoff trends PNAS 2007 104 (39) 15242-15247; doi:10.1073/pnas.0707213104) (5) So we have a mixture of reduced evaporation, stronger El Nino hydrological cycle in Modoki mode position, CO2 anti-transpiration effects and land use change (clearing) ? How much is AGW? hmmmmmm
  26. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    fdijkstra: Do we see here the confirmation of the pause in global warming since 1998? "Pause?" In the satellite data, the trend since 1998 is almost identical to the previous trend, except a little bit steeper: Figure 1. Satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures, 1979-1998 (blue) and 1999-2010 (orange). Courtesy RSS.
  27. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Re: Ned (123) "Waste Heat" thread(s) Glad I kept my nose out of that one. :) I have 2 basic responses to skeptics; which response I use depends upon the approach taken by the skeptic: 1. The skeptic posts a thoughtful, well-reasoned and intelligent question or observation. I respond with as helpful a reply as is possible (I once spent a half-day looking up an answer for someone). Makes me happy to help. 2. The skeptic, clearly suffering from a terminal bout of Dunning-Kruger Disease, leaps into a thread post with an unsupported, non-factual opinion (usually based on "common sense" or what the animal entrails look like, etc.) and says the science is wrong "because". Curbing my natural inclination to flame (or at least track down & throttle) them, I compose 2 or 3 replies, all incendiary, before settling on something acerbic that may or may not pass moderation. I then go have 2 or 3 beers to blow off steam (or repeat as necessary). Re: dana 1981 (124)
    "Personally I think it's common sense that CO2 is obviously a pollutant. But then again, I've put in the time to learn some basic climate science. Common sense, when based on ignorance, is usually wrong. "
     Well said, sir. Well-said. The Yooper
  28. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TTTM - you claimed that the heat "could accumulate" in days if not hours. No it could not. Just because there is a lot of energy coming in does not mean it can accumulate that fast in the real physical world and reasons why are the important key issue in the OHC questions.
  29. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Re: mfripp (5) Thanks for pointing that out. Given the global nature of the datasets required, and that controls were made via satellite measurements (GRACE goes back to 2002, for example), it is of no surprise that this study focuses on the period it did. The availability of regional data, as you point out exists, does not help extend coverage into the global arena. Even if enough spacial coverage existed, too great of a separation in time from the control period covered by the satellites would diminish the accuracy of the portion greatest removed in time from the controls. I.e., the data needs to have a temporal vicinity to the satellite era. Great thought, though. This will be a nice tool for future monitoring usage. The Yooper
  30. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    I was wondering a little bit about your principal component retention in Figure 1... I would like all your raw data, code, house address and phone number and copies of all your emails pertaining to this subject. If you refuse I will start a blog called "commentaudit" and I will prove that you had a slightly more elevated comment amount than you showed in your graph...
  31. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    I would enjoy somebody doing an integration of this information w/OHC over the same time period. Somebody qualified to do so, that is.
  32. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Further to Albatross' remarks it's worth looking at the abstract, just as a reminder of the modesty of the claim made in this paper: Freshwater discharge from the continents is a key component of Earth’s water cycle that sustains human life and ecosystem health. Surprisingly, owing to a number of socioeconomic and political obstacles, a comprehensive global river discharge observing system does not yet exist. Here we use 13 years (1994–2006) of satellite precipitation, evaporation, and sea level data in an ocean mass balance to estimate freshwater discharge into the global ocean. Results indicate that global freshwater discharge averaged 36,055 km3∕y for the study period while exhibiting significant interannual variability driven primarily by El Niño Southern Oscillation cycles. The method described here can ultimately be used to estimate long-term global discharge trends as the records of sea level rise and ocean temperature lengthen. For the relatively short 13-year period studied here, global discharge increased by 540 km3∕y2, which was largely attributed to an increase of global ocean evaporation (768 km3∕y2). Sustained growth of these flux rates into long-term trends would provide evidence for increasing intensity of the hydrologic cycle. I suppose for those of us obsessed w/this subject the excitement lies in this being another phenomenon consistent w/expectations. For my part I would enjoy somebody doing an integration of this information w/OHC over the same time period. That might address possible overreach as exemplified by fydijkstra's remark.
  33. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    @fydijkstra: "By the way, 1998 is also the year that had the highest global mean temperature, according to HadCrut. Do we see here the confirmation of the pause in global warming since 1998?" The fact that 1998 was exceptionally warm does not indicate a "pause" in Global Warming. To suggest as much indicates a weak understanding of statistical significance in trends. Even HadCRUT makes it clear the warming is still there, and didn't pause:
  34. The value of coherence in science
    Doug_B's and Phila's comments are both excellent.
  35. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Well the second graph looks a little familiar.
  36. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Figure 1 does not show a very clear trend. The average from 1994-2006 might be a rise of 1.5 % annually, but I see two phases: 1994-1998 rising, and 1998-2007 slightly decreasing. By the way, 1998 is also the year that had the highest global mean temperature, according to HadCrut. Do we see here the confirmation of the pause in global warming since 1998? Not only global warming has stopped, also the monthly river discharge. This is also evidence, that the GISS-data (having hotter years after 1998) are exagerated.
  37. gallopingcamel at 04:37 AM on 8 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Albatross (#127), That Lindzen quote is from my (admittedly suspect) memory. Lindzen was being interviewed on TV and one of the topics was what trends should be expected for global temperatures for the rest of this century. Lindzen said that the state of climate science was not sufficiently advanced to make such predictions with any confidence. By not radiating unjustified certainty Lindzen impresses me as someone who has humility and an open mind. Berenyi Peter, Thanks for that paper submitted to the GRL. It mentions problems raised by Trenberth and others before setting out to correct them. Clearly Lindzen is big enough to admit mistakes.
  38. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    I encourage everyone to look at Fig.2 in their paper. The trends in global freshwater discharge and global-ocean evaporation between 1994-2006 have p-values <0.001, while for the same period the trend in global-ocean precipitation has a p-value of 0.01. Nevertheless, the data are noisy, with the trends more than an order of magnitude less than the standard deviation of the data. They may be onto something, but IMHO there is simply not enough data (given the noise)to state unequivocally that the global hydrological cycle is accelerating-- and they do not do that. In fact they state that “Sustained growth of these flux rates into long-term trends would provide evidence for increasing intensity of the hydrologic cycle.” This paper is not the first to determine that there are indications/evidence that the hydrological cycle has been accelerating, and their findings seem to support previous work to that effect (e.g., Labat et al. 2004). So perhaps one should consider it as yet another piece of evidence that the hydrological cycle may be starting to accelerate. That said, they have developed a useful and novel technique that can be applied as more data become available-- therein probably lies the greatest contribution of this paper, the technique.
  39. The value of coherence in science
    #54 chriscanaris As far as tribalism is concerned, I have observed that those most firmly immersed in tribes/subcultures be they political parties, religious minority groups, recent immigrants to a new land, special interest groups, and the like all too often cannot see the mob mentality permeating their behaviour. Membership of a 'tribe' discourages the requisite self-reflection. True enough, but this is just as applicable to viewing oneself as a centrist, an individual, "rootless," "non-clubbable," or what have you. Hopefully, there's no intentional implication here that your stance is comparatively unique in being the result of "the requisite self-reflection," but you've definitely left some room for that interpretation, which is troubling. The discussion of "tribalism" and "post-normal" science is all very interesting, but it does nothing to resolve questions like whether Curry or Schmidt is correct about, say, "IPCC deadlines." In many public arguments relating to AGW, a fact of the matter can reasonably be said to exist and to be accessible to us; at such times, the retreat into airy meta-discussions about the psychology and sociology of science seem less like "the requisite self-reflection" than an attempt to muddy the waters in a case where one person is clearly right and another is clearly wrong. Again, science is a group project. This means that tribalism comes into play, of course, but it also means that conveniently timed accusations of tribalism are part of how the game is played, and are just in much in need of deconstruction as tribalism itself (if not more). Real self-reflection isn't a matter of patting yourself on the back for "understanding" the tribalist motives of your critics; it's a matter of considering whether the things they're saying are demonstrably true, even if you'd prefer them not to be. That's what's missing from Dr. Curry's account of the matter, in my view, and that's why I wouldn't call her views on "tribalism" coherent, let alone constructive.
  40. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    From eyeballing the graphs it seems likely they are talking about a simple 'area under the curve' trend line... basically, if you were to draw a line through the data such that the area between the line and the data lines above the line equals the area below the line that line would be increasing by 1.5% per year. Given the extremely noisy signal and the large number of uncertain measurements going into the results I'd agree that it isn't clear how robust that result is. I think their surprise was that the data should show anything other than a near zero trend over such a short timeframe. This result suggests that the total river outflow of the planet will double within 50 years if current trends continue... which certainly seems extreme.
  41. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    I've found that when people form incorrect conclusions and you ask them what they are based on, one of the most common answers is "common sense." Personally I think it's common sense that CO2 is obviously a pollutant. But then again, I've put in the time to learn some basic climate science. Common sense, when based on ignorance, is usually wrong.
  42. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Apologies for the lack of a citation and actually that was Church 2008, BP. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the nut of your objection seems to come down to a hypothesis that, overall, continents are sinking below the waves, but you don't offer any details to support this remarkable claim.
  43. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    The US Geologic Survey has been measuring water flow for a very long time. Seems like a longer data trail could be obtained.
  44. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Yes the moderation on this site is very much appreciated by those of us trying to digest and understand the science. It is a welcome oasis from the gibberish and vile on other sites. The comment climb i guess may be the result of two things. The first being that this site is getting more attention and second that the rate articles are posted seems to be increasing. Both of those factors of course are nice to see.
  45. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    We could wind up fighting another denier argument.
  46. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    I also don't see a trend, especially since the start point is pretty low, and it looks like the end point is lower. It seems to me without knowing any the parameters for the period before 1993, there is no discernible long term trend. I assume that there is something I am not understanding from just eyeballing the chart.
  47. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    michael sweet writes: Remember, people on this site spent over 200 posts trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand waste heat. Please don't remind us all about that. I'm still angry about that episode. I can't say what I really think about those two threads (one, two) without blowing the comments policy to smithereens. Let's just say that my opinions of the entire "skeptic" community on this website were strongly influenced by that thread. I suppose in one sense that's not fair. But that thread seriously made me question whether there's any value whatsoever in trying to engage in reasoned discussion with "skeptics" on this site. I would probably feel quite a bit differently if Sensible Skeptic A and Sensible Skeptic B and Sensible Skeptic C had stepped forward in that thread and tried to help out. Didn't happen, though. Yes, I am bitter. Sorry.
  48. Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
    Yes, too noisy to say anything very strong about a trend; the statistics must be marginal. Too soon to declare this another sign of AGW, it would be embarrassing if a couple years from now the trend turns down...
  49. The value of coherence in science
    Chris, good comment, more than just a comment. We could wish that most people using the term "post-normal science" in connection with climate science bothered to look it up, as you did. What I find disturbing about employment of the term by folks tossing it around on climate blogs is-- again-- that they label climatological research as well as research in other fields as "post-normal science" based not on the content of the research itself but rather on whether it is connected with anthropogenic climate change, particularly if it happens to lend support to the notion of anthropogenic climate change as a threat. Reflexive categorization itself is presumed to be a negation of the worth of research, but it's not. It's reasonable to claim that the course of inquiry leading to some particular finding was inspired by reaction to a perceived threat; I'm sure we can agree that in myriad cases, concern about an emerging situation may well motivate choices about where to expend research effort, as in the case of HIV. However, categorizing research in that manner does not explain results, doesn't invalidate findings. Regardless of the reasons for why particular questions are answered or attempted to be answered, answers themselves can and must be assessed for reliability outside of motivational frameworks, leaving aside the impetus driving any particular actors. Tagging collective or individual work with labels such as "post-normal," "selection bias" and even the celebrated "cargo cult science" doesn't answer any questions about the validity of things dropped into those various identification buckets. To be useful, criticism of scientific findings must offer detailed and cogent arguments against specific results. Actually constructing a case for why any particular research finding is worthy of dismissal requires unraveling the work in question at a level of intricacy so divorced from sweeping terms such as "post-normal science" that I'm left wondering, what's the point of using these categorizations at all? I've a feeling the answer to that question as it stands in connection with anthropogenic warming usually lies with rhetorical impressionism, has nothing to do with making productive contributions to research. As a case in point, Christy et al have just published a paper discussing observations versus model predictions as they relate to the troposphere. Christy and his coauthors refer to the general context of the importance of improving models, the relevance of their own research in relation to matters outside of the particular matter of the science itself. I sincerely doubt we'll see any charges of Christy's work being "post-normal science" leveled by the contrarian community.
  50. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber, I have replied to you at Does cold weather disprove global warming?/It's freaking cold! as requested.
    Moderator Response: Thank you.

Prev  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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