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  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  Next

Comments 110051 to 110100:

  1. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    18, Chris Colose: - With regard to carbon-cycle sensitivity: I was thinking of fossil-fuel-based CO2 as an initial input, and the additional CO2 from out-gassing as being part of the system response. This was one reason I didn't discuss the case (in the Advanced version) of a 100% dollop of CO2, which would have invited direct comparison with the usual 2X-CO2 climate sensitivity. - In general, the calculation should not be taken too seriously, as it is intended as a demonstration of self-limiting positive feedback, and not really as a model for CO2 in the atmosphere. The main point was to show that the concept of diminishing returns, in the case of positive feedback, was not just a case of "special pleading". - I will be very interested to see the discussion you & Rasmus post on feedbacks.
  2. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    VTG - are you volunteering?.
  3. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatross and (Moderator) following from this thread an authoritative post on the OHC analysis would be really interesting. Can you suggest someone who might be prepared to do that ?
  4. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    5.gpwayne Zhang - Many but widely used suggests, well, widely used by the arctic science community. I'm still looking for evidence of that. As good as it is, and it's probably the closest thing to climate science porn, does Prof Barber's reportage represent anything more than one data point?
  5. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    ClimateWatcher: The evaluation of the overall feedback for global warming is an active area of research, and will certainly not be resolved here. The main intent of the post was to make the point that a system can have positive feedback without having an exponential blow-out.
  6. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    6, John Cook: Thanks for stepping in. This is my first post in SkS, so I forgot that I have certain responsibilities for my "children". 1 & 8, beam me up scotty: Yes, I was also surprised that Hansen had made that remark. Riccardo and Chris Colose have dealt with the substance of that question already. My impression (formed in large part by some explication, by Chris Colose, on this topic in the RealClimate site; and largely reproduced above at 18) is that Hansen was discussing what could happen if a lot of things go very bad; so, kind of a corner condition. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking and James Lovelock have taken a more apocalyptic stance: My impression is that the science is not with them on this point. 25, MattJ: If you look at the Advanced version (link at the bottom of the posting), you can find an explicit discussion of the "classic" positive-feedback scenario (the squealing sound system), and the difference to the model of the carbon-cycle feedbacks.
  7. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    Putting this up here as an example of what sort of research can be done on, of the heat stresses in natural systems, maybe someone will experiment with higher increases in surface absorption of heat (what was the greenhouse wattage on the surface again? (Further note: the experiment should include producing the higher humidity to the experiment location as well (not really easy to do)): http://www.springerlink.com/content/ebcg4kx5e13q5mdj/
  8. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, I put some time into answering your question quantitatively and with a thought through argument. Your response was "that's fair enough" but you continue to say you do not accept the world is warming. This is contradictory, UNLESS you also share your rationale why. If you're not prepared to do that, then you are trolling - simply putting up provocative questions in order to elicit a response, without having the respect to engage. So please, show you are not trolling, and given the answers myself and others have provided on your specific question as to how long the temperature record would need to show a falling trend, tell us not just THAT you disagree but WHY you do.
  9. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Hey, the loss of ice is nowhere near as scary as that bloke singing...truly worrying! HR - predictable response. Now tell us how many citations Zhang has.
  10. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Trueofvoice: "We accept AGW theory because of the overwhelming empirical evidence which validates the theory. We do not believe in it." Very well put.
  11. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    scaddenp at 07:13 AM, if you have been looking at the BOM site, checking the terrestrial minimum temperatures that we have been discussing, you would have seen that as a rule it is always the same, every day, at every station, including those in Queensland and Northern Territory, the terrestrial minimum is nearly always lower than the station minimum temperature, and only on the odd occasion is it otherwise. Apart from those odd occasions the only difference is by how what magnitude lower is the terrestrial minimum. I assume by your post that you haven't been checking the data as it is updated daily and so are merely speculating. Unless you understand what is actually occurring in the real world then how can you be so sure that you are applying the correct physics principles. The data from these BOM stations is most relevant because this particular theory of back radiation applies over both land and the oceans, the only difference being that the data being collected from these stations is happening under more easily controlled conditions on an ongoing basis and from a well distributed network covering a wide variety of conditions allowing greater analysis. With your understanding of basic physics and studying of the text books, I was hoping that you might be able to correlate what is being measured on a daily basis with the physics theory that applies, so perhaps dispense with the speculation and put forward some credible explanation.
  12. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    HR He's being doing Arctic sea ice for 25 years. If he's not been in that particular area before ..... it's because he couldn't get there by ship before. Be honest, would you want to land a helicopter on that surface?
  13. actually thoughtful at 14:51 PM on 14 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Matt J Excellent post. Beyond the logic and the structured argument, another useful system for understanding why people choose to believe what they feel, rather than accept what the evidence tells them, is Myers-Briggs (M-B). According to M-B, only 16% of humanity is of the type they call "rationals" - for good reason. So those 16% are willing/able to look at the facts and come to logical conclusions. The other 86% MAY come to the logical conclusion, but they probably won't come to it using strict logical analysis. About half will use their feeling - even to decide scientific questions (perhaps Baz is in this category?). For the other half, the issue itself doesn't matter - only how it impacts their life. So you can see that just structuring a logical, fact based argument doesn't get you very far (16% BEST case). One also has to appeal to feelings - "how will you feel when there is no polar bear habitat left?" and to practical concerns - "how will it affect you when all of lower Manhattan is under water?" Hopefully the idea comes through my terrible examples above. Sadly, logic alone won't sway the masses. And the vast majority of the climate scientists are M-B rationals - and they literally don't know any other way to interact with the world. Witness the frustration of trying to communicate with Baz on this site. Tom PS - kudos to Daniel Bailey and pbjamm - Baz I hope you will use the opportunity to actually learn. Get beyond feelings and beliefs and begin to understand the science. We would all like for AGW to be a disproved theory - but if you come at it scientifically - it is very hard to see a path out from under AGW - other than changing human behavour.
  14. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    I've no argument agaist Ingersoll (SKI) limit, but want to point out that as long there's talk of CO2 various responses of biosphere should be taken in account. Clearly there are quite specific limits for a specific ecosystem to be located where they are, as the clines of various species are more an exception than the norm. These ecosystem survival limits could then be a deciding factor on where the temperature of the whole earth will eventually settle. As (generally) plants are more hardy than any insects (they were the first to colonize the land), the question becomes a one of mobility, that is the amount of dispersal of the species. It is the speed of change that does more damage than the (moderate amount) of warming, as insects and decayers(f.e.fungi) are faster in dispersal than the plants. Additionally the increased variability of the system with more energy creates problems, though on this point I'm of the (scientific) opinion that some of this increased variability stems from the location of the GIS, that may well affect the westerlies normally present on the southern Greenland latitudes.
  15. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    cruzn246 - are you try to say that temperature should increase linearly with CO2? (ie CO2 has gone higher, why hasnt temperature?). This might apply on a dry uniform planet, but the climate system here has a lot of internal variability and a vast ocean store to hide energy. If you look at individual model runs, you will notice that huge variability. You can periods of up to a decade with little happening - followed obviously by steep warming. On a decadal scale climate models dont have much skill because they are too sensitive to initialisation.
  16. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    The Barber "empirical evidence" seems to be 2010 ice thickness in an area in one year compared with ............. nothing? There's no suggestion in his reportage that he's specifically experienced ice in that area, at that time in preceeding years. Is this true? 5:37 That graphic looks a little alarmist. Either the MYI is way too thick or the FYI is being depicted as way too thin. I'm going with the second. Such graphics should be scientifically accurate. 6:10 "Widely used model PIOMAS" Is it? There isn't much evidence in the literature that the PIOMAS model is used beyond the authors of the model. Anybody want to justify that statement with peer-reviwed literature that doesn't include Zhang and his team?
  17. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    Re: cruzn246 (26, 27)
    "Could someone explain why we aren't seeing the warmest temperatures ever?"
    Sigh. You must really learn to be more patient. Here you go: "NASA reports hottest January to August on record; August tied for hottest in UAH satellite record". Do try to get more sleep. It's good for the body; and the soul. The Yooper
  18. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    Could someone explain why we aren't seeing the warmest temperatures ever?
  19. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, The word "believe" belongs in a church or a masjid, not in science. Belief is based on faith, not on observation and analysis. Scientists do not "believe" in a given theory; they "accept" the theory given a preponderance of evidence. We accept AGW theory because of the overwhelming empirical evidence which validates the theory. We do not believe in it.
  20. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Just finished watching this over at Neven's blog & ran over here. To find Scott beat me... Good to see a repost of the Barber video. The Yooper
  21. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    All this analysis is very good, but I think the reason "positive feedback" is so widely misunderstood is still being overlooked. The reason people think that "positive feedback" always leads to runaway is because they are all familiar with one example where it DOES lead to runaway: the PA systems that squeal loudly instead of amplifying normally. This is because the feedback to the amplifier is positive, and positive feedback to an amplifier DOES lead to runaway (unless it is narrowband and at just the right phase); now if you dampen the runaway by tuning the phase, you can use this to turn an amplifier into a (crude) oscillator. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback puts it, "Positive feedback often leads to exponential divergences or exponential growth of oscillations." But even here, they were careful to say 'often', not 'always'. So all we really need to point out is that the familiar example is a special case: only in such special cases does positive feedback necessarily lead to runaway. In general, it leads to large but not necessarily divergent values (usually of oscillations).
  22. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Hi Badger @211, Yes, I too am frustrated by the lack of explanation for them (NODC)adjusting the data in back January 2010. Please do let us know if and when they get back to you. Hopefully they provide a substantive answer.
  23. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    Upper left at 6:26 :)
    Response: A gold star for Scott :-) (the graph comes from here)
  24. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    HR, No worries. Re the temperatures in the lower stratosphere. Those data seem at odds with the long-term trend in the RSS data. Not sure what is going on there. That said, RSS tend from circa 1995 is pretty flat...a response to the recovery of ozone perhaps?
  25. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    Albatross, that's a great tool thanks. this is probably off topic but they show a recent warming trend after the latest volcanic activity in the stratosphere (clearer in the bottom graph). Does that matter?
  26. Polar bear numbers are increasing
    CBDunkerson (#10), thanks for answering on this old thread. The study group says that the Davis Strait population has grown over the past 30 years (as have most populations), that the growth rate is now just under the replacement rate without considering hunting and that along with hunting the decline is due to "short-term and local density dependence, stabilization of harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) numbers and declining ice conditions" Ice is the 800 pound gorilla knocking at the front door and is all the lead article in this thread talks about. Nothing about the elephant in the living room. You say it is "correctable" but have you asked the Inuit who get income (up to $20k) from selling the tags even if a bear is not killed as a result? Hunting impacts a huge percentage of bears, up to 10% of some populations, I don't see how you can say it is small. In any case, I fail to see how the general public is served by leaving out that important context (along with the local "density dependence" also known as "too many bears in one area").
  27. Polar bear numbers are increasing
    All of the above arguments seem to be well researched and effectively made. However, can anyone truly hold stance on a certain side of this argument unless they have actually experienced and seen the possible increasing or decreasing numbers of polar bears? And the statement of "no sea ice means no seals which means no polar bears" seems to be logical. Yet doesn't this statement contain a fallacy of composition? I see it unfit to make such a series of conclusions so cut and dry. There must be many other factors that affect the population of the Polar bears and to limit there existence to a dependence upon just one of those seems to me to be slightly frivolous. I hope I didn't offend anyone, I was simply offering my view upon the arguments thus given.
  28. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: pbjamm (146), Baz (many comments)
    "I have been lurking on this site for 1+ years now and have never felt the need to make my voice heard before. Now I am going to defend Baz."
     I'm going to take a cue from Chris Canaris and agree with you. While I certainly feel Baz is mistaken in his beliefs WRT the science of AGW, and that his position that 5 years is enough time to consider AGW having stopped is not supported by the evidence, being wrong and under-informed should not be enough for the "Troll" appellation to be hung on him. Skeptic, yes. Skeptic-transitioning-to-denier, maybe. Troll, not yet. If, in forthcoming comments, he cannot iterate a science-based foundation to his skepticism, I will reconsider this judgment. For now I will continue to consider him a seeker of knowledge. Unless he ceases seeking. Until that time, I will welcome any science-based interpretation of the available evidence. But I also expect someone presenting what they consider a robust, physics-based alternative to the current thinking on AGW to forthwith seek publication of their postulate in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The Yooper
  29. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    "The Paltridge paper is a re-analysis product, it's not observations." The re-analysis is re-analysis of observations. No one really thinks that these are appropriate to use to diagnose water vapor trends, which suffer from changes in instrumental over time. Yes. But that is the only data set we've got, and it indicates drying aloft. To be sure there are differing hygristors and humidity is even more difficult to measure than temperature. But if it was instrumentation causing the trend, one would expect the trend to change in recent decades as sondes became more consistent and better. But the trends appear consistent, even through the 2000s. "Trenberth, K. E., J. Fasullo, and L. Smith, 2005: Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Clim. Dyn., 24, 741-758" In should be noted that drying aloft but increasing humidity near the surface is not inconsistent with a trend of increasing total column water vapor which this paper refers to. That is significant because, while CO2 is well mixed, water vapor decreases rapidly with height. CO2 forcing at a given level is then based on the temperature profile. H2O on the other hand causes forcing based on the temperature profile and the change of humidity with height. A steep lapse rate of humidity causes more cooling than a uniformly mixed amount of humidity for a normal temperature profile. "Note also that other reanalysis products show different results." All the reanalysis I have seen indicates drying aloft. Do you have a reference to any which indicate otherwise?
  30. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    #173 Moderators comment (Graham) and #200 Badgersouth My interpretation of Graham's comment is that it reflects an underlying thinking that there is a linear relationship between scientific findings and political action. The argument being put there is that Pielke snr should not report on the science of global warming because his comments might be used by climate change deniers for other purposes. But if we take the point of view as argued by Pielke jnr in The Climate Fix that the science and politics ought to be more separate than that then the logic of Graham's moderator's comment is not valid.
  31. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz #106 I did answer your question, but rather than framing an explicit answer, I answered in terms of other questions. This was an attempt to encourage you to clarify your position (Socratic Method if you like). At the moment, with the information you've given me, I fear that your point of view is subject to inconsistencies, and/or shallow thinking. (Nothing personal, this is the kind of language used in scientific debates from time to time).
  32. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatross, As it turns out, I had already been to the NODC webpage that you provided the link to. The only narrative provided on this webpage is a link to: “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,” S. Levitus,1 J. I. Antonov,1 T. P. Boyer,1 R. A. Locarnini,1 H. E. Garcia,1 and A. V. Mishonov1 Received 31 December 2008; revised 26 February 2009; accepted 18 March 2009; published 11 April 2009 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009 As best I can tell, this paper does not provide answers to the questions I had posed in #208. I have a contact in NODC and will pose the set of questions to him.
  33. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatross, Thanks for the link. I posed the questions in #208 because there are two basic issues about the OHC as computed by the NODC embedded Dr. Pielke's hypothesis. One is the slope of the trend line and the other is the "missing heat." Most of the discussion on this thread appears to be focused on this issue. Everything else being equal, if there are undetected flaws in the methodology used by the NODC to compute the OHC of the upper layer, those flaws could very well produce underestimates of the OHC. If this were the case, the "missing heat" may not be missing after all. Personally, I believe that most of the “missing heat” is in the lower layers of the oceans.
  34. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    I see this article has generated a lot of comments. No surprise there. But where there is a surprise is this: none of the comments home in on WHY the 'skeptics' rest content with such glaring contradictions. The answer is all too simple: stark and simple. The 'skeptics' have figured out what eludes many readers of Skeptical Science": they have figured out that their target audience doesn't care about the contradictions. "How can this be", the reader may justifiably wonder? The answer to that is also stark: the average citizen/voter in their target audience has never learned the value of logical/critical reasoning. Instead, to the extent that they think about it at all, they think that illogical arguments are perfectly OK, as long as they mesh with your feelings. It doesn't matter to them that their feelings are uninformed, and formed in an uninformed environment. They never read the saying of Ben Franklin, "He who rides a passion rides a mad horse". Nor does it matter to them that entire industries have arisen to take advantage of the gullibility such an acceptance of the illogical implies. Nor did they ever read about the theorem Aristotle first proved concerning the vanity of allowing contradiction: if you allow one logical statement to be both true and false, then ALL of them must be both true and false. But without ever leaning of either of these two principles, is it really any wonder they are content to remain in their fantasy lands? It is no source of wonder to me. The ideas of the "Age of Reason" never really did sink that deeply into the larger society's consciousness, and that Age is long over now anyway. We are now in an age of a new irrationality. But that is exactly why I gave the link a few weeks back for one of the first 'scientific' works on the subject of persuading such an audience, The Rhetoric of Aristotle. For despite being such a supreme logician himself, having practically invented the first Logic single-handed, he understood that the rhetorician's target audience is highly illogical -- and ironically, did a brilliant job of logically analyzing their psychology and the techniques to persuade them of the truth. There were, of course, other authors on rhetoric who taught their readers how to persuade of whatever conclusion -- true or not. But I won't mention their execrable names here;) So yet again: if you REALLY want to write persuasive articles to defeat the propaganda campaign, you MUST read this book -- and others that have built on his insights ever since.
  35. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badger, go here for more information: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
  36. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Anyone, How did NOAA/NODC develop the methodology for computing OHC from the data collected by the ARGOS buoys? Was it done in-house, or through contract? Was an advisory committee of outside-the-agency experts involved in the development process? Has the methodology that was produced and used since been reviewed in a published paper? Has the methodology been tweaked since it was first used?
  37. How Monckton got his IPCC predictions wrong
    Thanks for all the hard work Alden! The AOGCMs are actually doing quite well Christopher: Image from RealClimate
  38. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, This is getting tiresome. The 0.1 decrease on the pH scale is what has been observed to date for a 40% (or so) increase in CO2, and we are easily going to double CO2 this century. The pH is going to continue to decline, a concern given that the impacts stemming from that relatively small decrease are already being felt . The lowering of pH is going to be yet another stress on marine life (i.e., cumulative impacts). There are plenty of useful resource son the web from reputable groups doing research into this issue. There are also some helpful links on this very site. I encourage you to get past your dislike of the term (as I did) and view the science with an unbiased eye. It took me quite some time to formulate my questions to you on global records, please do reply when you have a chance. If not, fine, but you should know that most of your objections/complaints etc. have been addressed by John and others on this very site, so there is no need to deal with them on this thread b/c as far as I can tell they are off topic.
  39. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    what WOULD be acceptable for those that believe in man-made warming HadCRUt is made up on land and sea temperature measurements only. Even if the temperature stayed level or cooled over a statistically significant period, but measurements of, say, ocean heat content continued to increase, I'd find that unconvincing. The case for anthropogenic warming is based on multiple converging lines of evidence. It simply does not follow that looking at a limited subset of one measurement can throw the whole thing into question. I know you're not claiming to be rational, so this critique is not aimed at you. You asked; I'm answering.
  40. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    VeryTallGuy @206, I concur. I would also add that while practically everyone here agrees that OHC is a good metric, it is only so if it can be measured properly/accurately. The disagreements amongst the various analysis techniques of the Argo data suggest that there are issues that preclude making definitive statements. Dr. Pielke has still not stated why he has chosen the NODC data over the other datasets available (e.g., Hadley, PMEL, von Shuckmann et al., Lyman et al., Trenberth).
  41. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz wrote : "To answer your question (as I have done above plenty of times - even when people didn't answer mine) I have learned that some of you think that if warming doesn't continue for 15-20 then you will change your mind. As I said (again) I chose to after only five years - my choice." Actually, you haven't really answered any questions except by stating what you believe and what you reckon. Nothing substantial and no detail as to why you believe such things. Your response shown above gives a good example : It has been pointed out how one needs a longish period of time (you give it as "15-20" but I would say it should be more like 20-30 years - there's a good explanation why, here) to determine a valid climatic trend, but not in isolation - the reasons behind such a trend also need to be understood. Your response ? "I chose to after only five years - my choice". How can anyone respond to an assertion like that ? How can you possibly, rationally, arrive at such a position ? Actually, maybe the best response to you is this : "I choose to believe that you are not being totally honest and credible. My choice." But I do have some back-up to my assertion, which is another sentence of yours : "I did want to engage to get some answers on what believers in warming think." So, did I imagine reading you saying you used to be a 'believer' ? And you don't know what 'believers' think ?! Pull the other one...
  42. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, a "straw man" is an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It's a descriptive term. Unless you provide some evidence that your accusation is correct, I'd ask you to let it go.
  43. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Also, you have yet to provide the correct term for lowering the pH of oceans...
  44. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz :"archie, yes I can prove that - I have the emails!" You don't get it. The fact that a conversation with Phil Jones should not be a valid reason to distrust GISS in itself. Anyway, that's irrelevant, since the CRU data shows a warming trend for the last 10 years. Logically, this should convince you we are still in a warming trend. "We've had "troll" now "strawman"." Well, since AGW theory-proponents are not certain this is what will happen (only that it is highly probable), then it's fair to say claiming they are *is* making a strawman argument. So, you really have only two choices here: either you take back your assertion that AGW proponents are certain of what's going to happen, or you have to accept the fact you are making a strawman argument (a logical fallacy).
  45. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Greetings everyone. I have been lurking on this site for 1+ years now and have never felt the need to make my voice heard before. Now I am going to defend Baz. Baz at 07:06 AM on 14 September, 2010: "If I don't change my views based on a few replies, that most certainly doesn't make me a troll either." This is a perfectly reasonable stance. You can not expect someone to change their mind instantly. It will take time to digest the info you have presented. If he is really interested in the data (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then he will be back to learn more. Pressing him to reverse himself now is only going to push him away from this resource.
  46. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archie, yes I can prove that - I have the emails! Paul. For the third time I did not say that I have theories about what WILL happen - I did not. We've had "troll" now "strawman". Sorry, but it's very poor Paul. There's only "ad hominem" to go and we'll have the set! From my observation of the HadCRUt data I see no reason to be alarmed at postive feedbacks. 10 years of reasonable stability (you'll not that I didn't include: 0.29 0.27 ...to show 12 years! Now, that's 'unscientific' - granted. But you'll remember I was trying to tease out what WOULD be acceptable for those that believe in man-made warming.
  47. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Albatross, it IS a valid reason for dismissing it. I work with acid. If we change the value from 8.1 to 8.0 we would NOT say that we have "acidified" it! Although it's logarithmic, it's too small a change to justify the term. Not sure about RSS and UAH. I've read a bit on it, and there could be satellite drift, so I'm not at all sure. Are you asking me about HadCRUt? If so, then the answer is that it excludes much of the Arctic.
  48. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz "archiesteel. Going from 8.1 to 8.0 isn't "acidification". It's simply the wrong term, but is used so much now." Sure it is. It is making the water less basic and more acidic, therefore it's acidification. I don't understand your opposition to that term. I'm curious, though. What would be the correct term for that phenomenon?
  49. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    For the third time, my point is that you do have some guesses or ideas or expectations about what you think may happen. You base those guesses in, as you've said, a reading of the HadCRUt temperature data. You allow for uncertainty in those guesses. Except for a certain rigor, this is exactly the position of mainstream scientists. Your accusation of certainty is a straw man. Please either provide an example of any such assertion or move on to a different argument.
  50. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "If I don't change my views based on a few replies, that most certainly doesn't make me a troll either." True, however if you present opinions that are not supported by a rational argument on a science-based site, then chances are you are, in fact, trolling. For example, we've explained why you shouldn't make up your mind on a five-year time frame. You haven't put forward any rational argument as to why you should. Considering this is a science site, you kind of have to if you want to be taken seriously, or admit you were wrong (there's nothing wrong with that). "And no, not "wild-ass guesses" just observation - of the HadCRUt 10 year data, as I have explained." Looking at the HadCRUt data for the last 10 years shows a positive warming trend. So, I guess you'll go back to being a believer now? (I mean, if you're consistent with yourself.) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.5 "my distrust of GISS relies on a email conversation with Phil Jones" That's hardly a valid argument - especially since you can't prove such an exchange ever took place. It's usually a bad idea to use such unverifiable claims as arguments in a scientific discussion...

Prev  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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