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  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  Next

Comments 110201 to 110250:

  1. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    Spencer and Christy get a lot of flak from many quarters but the UAH data set and satellite data sets generally are proving a really usefull tool for analysing the climate. While I disagree with their conculsions they have produced some really interesting science.
  2. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    barry wrote : "...Watts has been promising for a couple of years now to submit a paper that re-examines the temperature record based on the surfascestations project. Hitherto, his publications (not peer-reviewed) have pointed out the problems but not crunched the numbers. Apparently, the paper is soon to be submitted." Funnily enough, Dr Pielke Sr claims that too : Our paper on siting quality issues with respect to multi-decadal surface temperature trends is nearly complete. I wonder what the problem could be ?
  3. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    There's a good website that shows up the contradictions and hypocrisy of Watts and his followers, here : Wott's Up With That ?
  4. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    A general comment about all the 'Basic' versions... I think they fail to take into account learning styles of individuals that would be interested. Generally the learning styles are visual, audio and kinesthetic. It may be difficult to cover kinesthetic learning styles, but visual and audio should be easier. I think Alden Griffiths presentations show how it should be done, with graphics and audio commentary. http://www.fool-me-once.com/ Text is going to reach a limited audience, although it is obviously important. Text partly covers the visual, but has limitations. Hence I wonder if we could have more diagrams and audio?
  5. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Jeff T, that's a little unfair. WUWT clearly is interested in the scientific arguments. I read it often too. It's far more polite than most, and clearly the contributors WANT to get at the science - they simply don't believe that warming will result (I am sceptical myself, because we don't KNOW it will).
  6. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Just a quick reply to Dana at 46: Oh I fully appreciate the physics behind CO2 warming. In fact, talk to many sceptics and they'll be the same (that's why I am 'disappointed' in the panel on the left). My 'problem' is that we don't know if the positive feedbacks will overcome the negative ones. We DON'T know!
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Hello all. First of all let me apologise. I don't get as much time to surf the net as I would like, so I confess I haven't read all the replies yet (but I will do later). However, let me respond to at least one I did read so far. When I said "who hold the faith" I didn't mean it in a sarcastic way. I merely meant that you have the belief that a positive feedback will occur - and warming will be exceptional. Sorry if it was taken in a way I didn't intend. I should have phrased it better. I'll read all the replies later and come back. Stay nice!
  8. beam me up scotty at 17:37 PM on 12 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    It seems to me that these people use scraps of 'science' in copious amounts to obscure why they are "skeptics". They're really afraid of losing their way of life.
  9. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    I read WUWT frequently, to see what anti-AGW folks are saying. The vast majority of posts ARE anti-AGW and nearly all comments are. To hide behind, "I'm just quoting someone else," is a bit underhanded. WUWT's true slant was revealed on July 14th of this year when it posted Monckton's request that readers contact John Abraham's employer "to instigate a disciplinary inquiry." This invitation to harassment puts the lie to the claim that WUWT is really interested scientific arguments about AGW.
  10. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Steven Mosher @67, "Most people do not understand how content gets staged for WUWT, how it gets approved and what the editorial criteria are." Well, going by Steven Goddard's posts the editorial criteria are not at all high at WUWT. Are you permitted to share what the "editorial criteria" are? I like you use of the word "staged"...very revealing ;) There are contradictions at WUWT Steven, and you are probably going to regret standing by Anthony on that, because anyone here can go to the website and identify the myriad of contradictions there. You gave one example. Here is another. Anthony is only too happy to highlight regional cold snaps, but when it comes to warming, the surface data are allegedly corrupted and can allegedly not be trusted. So in Anthony's world the station data are good enough for him to highlight cold snaps (gotta keep people thinking that the planet is not warming), but not not good for anything else. And not to mention that the long-term trends in global temperatures (not regional) derived from the RSS MSU and Radiosonde (RATPAC)data are in very good agreement with the various SAT datasets. You also say that he accepts the theory of the radiative forcing of GHGs, then why does he have posts on his site which are effectively challenging that theory (e.g., Goddard's posts on Venus)? In a warming planet it is expected that the Arctic sea ice (and land ice) will reduce in extent. That is in fact what we are observing, but Anthony goes to great lengths to assure/convince readers that the Arctic sea ice is doing just fine. That is a contradiction in logic. Anthony claims to have a "science" blog. Well having posts by the likes of Monckton, Goddard, Smith and D'Aleo and others is contrary to what one would expect on a science blog. So yet another contradiction. We are going to double CO2, so going by what you said concerning his understanding of the climate science, Anthony should then accept that we can expect at least 1 C of warming associated with doubling CO2, and consequently the long-term trends in global SATs should be positive as the radiative forcing from elevated GHGs continues to slowly increase. Yet, he spends an awful lot of time and effort on invoking a myriad of reasons as to why that should not happen and to show why the planet is not warming [including cherry-picking short-term windows to avoid obtaining statistically significant warming (thanks to Lindzen)]. That is a huge contradiction right there. I challenge people reading this to go to WUWT and highlight for you Steve ALL the contradictions (and logical fallacies) that have been made in recent years at WUWT. It will require lot of work and but I hope that people are up to the task. While they are at it they can also document the misinformation and distortion of the scientific literature and misinformation made by guest posters. As for the science being settled, well that is a whole different story. What does that mean, and to what aspects of climate science does it apply? Some things are settled, others are close and others are not (e.g., clouds and aerosols). The radiative forcing of GHGs and the greenhouse effect are settled, although many of Anthony's readers have a hard time even accepting the theory of the greenhouse effect. The fact that humans are increasing GHGs is settled (isotopes and all that). Milankovitch cycles...settled, it is not referred to as a theory for nothing. IMHO, the only really important issue left up for debate is climate sensitivity (transient and long term, very important to distinguish between the two), and even there a huge number of independent studies converge over a fairly narrow range. Also, you here have acknowledged that Anthony "plays up" other factors/drivers-- what you did not say is that their role in modulating global temperatures are well understood and have been quantified and which have been shown to be either be of only short-term importance and/or have a minimal impact globally. Anyhow, I'm sure that you feel obliged to defend Anthony and Charles, but maybe it is time for the sake of your own reputation, to distance yourself from the folks at WUWT.
  11. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    dana1981 #31 "Or we can realize that at some point, when there is overwhelming scientific evidence against a certain concept, it's time to acknowledge that it's incorrect and move on." If you are so ready to "move on", why are you writing about what other people think, instead of making sound recommendations based on "overwhelming scientific evidence"? I am still waiting to see an article at this website that maps positive predictions based on the alternative formulas "humanity" is expected to adopt. Is'nt the science good enough?
  12. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Mosh, I've nothing to add to what you said that would be more than quibbles. So let me ask you as an insider: why is it that there are hardly any articles posted there that introduce novel technologies, hypotheses or any cutting edge science, that do not carry the implicit message that AGW is wrong/exaggerated/too difficult to explain? If WUWT were even halfway a neutral platform for weather/climate science that was novel, I'd have no argument with you. But the overall tone, the vast majority of posts, the sniping at the mainstream (by Anthony and others who post) - there's just no argument about the thrust of the polemic there, and what purpose the web site serves. Watts' one-sided preoccupation with 'anonymous cowards' - which doesn't apply when 'JeffID' posts, or when anyone comments in line with the polemic - is but one example. Occasional reasonable posts don't even the balance. The damage is done. Even reasonable postings there by 'skeptics' (like Spencer on the greenhouse effect) get mobbed. Is it that stuff that isn't anti-AGW hardly ever gets submitted there? Has Anthony invited the likes of Gavin Schmidt etc? I might brush up my rhetoric and post on the nature of the debate. Minus characterizations of Anthony's contribution, do you think he'd allow me to post an article a bit like the one here? Would he let me do that under a pseudonym, like JeffID? An off-topic question for you, as you were there - why did the analysis of good stations via the surfacestations project stop happening at climateaudit? I thought that was an excellent demonstration of transparency and collegial investigation between 'skeptics' and and others (like John V). I've long wondered about that. Cheers, barry.
  13. actually thoughtful at 15:53 PM on 12 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Steve I think you are missing my point on Watts. He is the Rush Limbaugh of climate change. Rush will tell you all day long he loves America (science for Watts). But you watch his actions, listens to what he says and you realize: he hates America (science). His actions are antithetical to the success of science (America). The net effect - the gestalt if Rush is he hates America. He wants to see it fail, he wants to see it burn -this drives "ratings" (traffic for Watts). As many, many people have pointed out - Watts has done no science. He cherry picks. Look at his articles on Arctic ice extent (in March), comparing the temperature for first 3 weeks of June (infinitely small data sets to show the trend he desires). Every time I chase a claim back to that site - I find massive cherry picks, broken logic or wishful thinking (sometimes a not-very-entertaining mixture of all three). If this is how you want to communicate in the internet age - go for it. But don't try to peddle it as science. I am not buying that, and no one familiar with the scientific method will buy it. If you want to say he is whoring for traffic - we can agree on that.
  14. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Re #178, Good point, and while you are at it perhaps also contact Dr. Palmer, and the folks at Hadley and PMEL.
  15. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    "actually thoughtfull at 13:10 PM on 12 September, 2010 Steven Mosher @47 Nice try but no dice. It is Watts' site. He has a point of view. He has made it very clear. YOU could tell me his point of view." If you want to know Watts point of view i will hazard a guess at it from talking to him. Its a point of view that makes the articles he posted consistent rather than contradictory. 1. GHGs DO have a warming effect. he believes this. 2. The effect is much smaller than the IPCC holds. 3. the variations we see are the result of A. GHGs (small) B. "natural cycles" see PDO etc C. some unknown sun spot mechanism ( the svensmark effect perhaps) D. corrupt record E. you name it. So, of course he is going to post articles that downplay A (spenser) and play up B and C and D and E. But the writer of this blog made a charge about contradictions. There is no contradiction here. However, There is a 'contradiction' of sorts when Anthony BOTH questions the temperature data and THEN with basil argues that sunspots are correlated with it. cant have it both ways. So there is evidence in the record of that BUT this writer at this blog didnt take the time to ferret that out. I'm more interested in the strong arguments against particular positions than the weak ones. "He doesn't post these contradictory things and say "Well this contradicts what we looked at last month - more research needed."- He post them all as PROOF that AGW isn't happening, or doesn't matter or whatever. " Seriously he posts them as Proof? no he posts them as proof that the science is not settled. And he doesnt post them all. he doesnt even select them all. And when he posts walt meier whats the point of that? Let me give you a clue. Controversy drives traffic. having spent some time at the editorial desk at WUWT I can tell you how I picked stuff. I picked stuff that was contradictory if I could find it. Purely and simply to see how the commenters would fight it out. I picked articles that contradicted what someone had written before. so your critique is that anthony doesnt write: 'more research needed?" that's a tautology nearly. You would actually write so boringly? You'd make a better case by saying that Anthony sows doubt. Just saying. sharpen your skills. "Perhaps you have spent so much time at sites specializing in sophistry that has become your method of debating? " Actually, the sophists were great teachers. I admire their skill and scepticism. In general they did know how to make better arguments. That was the craft.So while I may eschew their relativism i do admire their ability to actually use the right evidence. As for your theory of infection, it doesnt hold up. You would need evidence of what I was like BEFORE visiting these horrible sites and then evidence afterwards to make such a case. do you even consider the kind of evidence you need to support an argument before making it? i think not. "You have a very small pedantic point "Anthony Watts, did not say each of those things, in his own words." But he posted and agreed with those points - so what is the difference in reality?" The difference is this. you actually dont have Watts arguing that the SUN and only the SUN is to blame. If you did, then you might have a case, if anthony then claims that PDO and ONLY PDO was to blame and then if he claimed that CFC were soley responsible.. but if you actually read the papers you can see that the characterization below is wrong and doesnt demonstrate a contradiction. "June 2009: global warming was blamed on the sun July 2009: it turned out global warming was caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation September 2009: back to the sun December 2009: no wait, it turns out CFCs are the major culprit January 2010: hello, we're back to El Niño as the major driver of climate " And dont forget he does point out contrary positions by trenberth for example. All of this falls under the rubric of the science is less settled than certain people claim ( the settled science meme was so stupid for our side to start, bad idea) basically, if you want to be effective with people who don't already agree with you then you had better take some lessons in rhetoric.
  16. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Barry: "barry at 09:33 AM on 12 September, 2010 Mosh, "Anthony ceaselessly throws a lot of contradictory stuff at the wall to see what sticks. In the minds of his readers, as he must surely understand, nearly everything does stick, no matter that it contradicts what they hailed yesterday. In this case, he is the purveyor of contradictions, rather than the muddled idjit that holds them to be true (probably), but that hardly lets him off the hook, and I think the practise even more turgid than simply swallowing the dichotomies." Well wrong. Most people do not understand how content gets staged for WUWT, how it gets approved and what the editorial criteria are. If Gavin wants to post there, he can. Same with Mann or Jones or you. The theme of the blog is What's up with That? in this case scientist A says X, scientist B says NOT X. what's up with that? well, a fun conversation is WHAT. Pieces are slected because they are new, unusual, puzzling, contradictory. What you want is for somebody else, some authority, to settle the controversy. Anthony is happy to let his readers try. blood sport. Since I see it from the inside, since I myself have scheduled articles for publication I can tell you how I picked them. I picked the articles that I thought would start good debates. That means stuff on the edge, stuff making claims not heard before, or revisions of old positions. Watts as Purveyor of contradictions? ok fine. But that was NOT the claim made in the piece. NOT the claims made. This blog writer claims that sceptics contradicted themselves ( and he Picked some of my favorite examples, there are more) BUT he failed to sustain that prove that case in the case of WUWT. Sloppy thinking, sloppy reading, sloppy citatation. F "It doesn't matter how carefully he tries to distance himself from the pieces he posts or promotes, or casts himself as someone who 'muses' on these things - his agenda is patently clear and it's what the regulars go there for. Whether or not he endorses any of the stuff he oversees is a pretty meaningless technicality." To the claim made in this piece "A major challenge in conversing with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics is that they constantly seem to move the goalposts and change their arguments. " My point is this. The citations of Watts posting articles published by science journals DOES NOT make a case for Watt's contradiction. It fails miserably to show Watts changing HIS argument. It is watts, showing other people arguing from different sides of the question. You can however make the case that you made. That Anthony tends to amplify contradictory science or tries to create confusion, or any other such case. but that was not the claim made here. The evidence cited doesnt support the claim ( the singer example is MUCH better). As such, I would have given it an F as an old lecturer in rhetoric. Nice thesis, bad evidence. You cant rescue it by changing the thesis. By trying to, you show yourself even less capable of forceful argument. Since I believe in AGW I like to insist that we NOT be stupid or wrong or careless or lazy when criticizing skeptics. and that we correct our own bad arguments whenever they pop up
  17. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    A few of points Eric. Firstly, as has been pointed out to you, there is no upward-or downward trend in neutron counts (neutron counts in 1965 were about as high as 2008) & certainly seem to have no correlation to delta T-as the neutron count is clearly cyclical in nature, yet delta T is linear. Secondly, I've yet to see a single paper which shows a clear downward trend in global cloud cover-over the last 3 to 5 decades-in order to blame it-& not CO2 emissions-on recent global warming. Thirdly, as was shown by the CERES satellite studies earlier this decade, the *net* effect of cloud cover is almost zero-as albedo effects from clouds are almost completely canceled out by their IR-trapping ability. Fourthly, if reduced cloud cover/reduced albedo were the *real* cause of accelerated warming, then one would expect to see little to no change in stratospheric temperatures (or, at best, a modest warming of the stratosphere). Yet instead we see a consistent decline in stratospheric temperatures-something which can only be adequately be explained by trapping of IR radiation by GHG's. So what we're left with is the simple fact that whilst there is a strong correlation between CO2 & delta T & an historically strong correlation between sunspot numbers per cycle & delta T, you instead choose to dispute these correlations by using some "out of left field" explanation that relies solely on a factor that has no upward or downward trend to speak of & which even its proponents admit has a *non-linear* effect on cloud cover (for the record, Lindzen & Choi have actually shown that increased global temperatures can also reduce cloud cover in certain regions of the planet-the so-called Iris Effect). So wheras sunspot numbers are in fact a *major* element of climate, you instead throw up a red herring with neutron counts-which from any standpoint seem to be having a very *miniscule* effect on global climate.
  18. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    @ Graham Wayne and John Cook: Many contributors to this comment thread have questioned the statistical quality of the OHC computed by the NOAA/NODC for the 2005-2009 time period. I suggest that you distill all of the particulars expressed into a set of questions and formally transmit the set to NOAA/NODC for response. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
  19. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badger @176, I think Eli mean to say "DSCOVR"--Deep Space Climate Observatory. It was a space mission designed to measure the planet's energy budget, but was quietly cancelled in early 2006.
  20. actually thoughtful at 13:10 PM on 12 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Steven Mosher @47 Nice try but no dice. It is Watts' site. He has a point of view. He has made it very clear. YOU could tell me his point of view. He doesn't post these contradictory things and say "Well this contradicts what we looked at last month - more research needed."- He post them all as PROOF that AGW isn't happening, or doesn't matter or whatever. Perhaps you have spent so much time at sites specializing in sophistry that has become your method of debating? You have a very small pedantic point "Anthony Watts, did not say each of those things, in his own words." But he posted and agreed with those points - so what is the difference in reality?
  21. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    What is "DSCVR"?
  22. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    KR at 12:14 PM, the BOM table is generated from measurements taken by means that conform to world standards, so there should not be any mystery there as to how it is compiled. Apart from not understanding how BOM compile standard data sets, you also are not comprehending what I have written. NOWHERE have I claimed that the Terrestrial minimum temperature is the soil temperature, in fact if you read carefully the distinction between air temperatures, soil temperatures and terrestrial temperatures is made quite clear,so please, instead of being appalled at perceived inadequacies of others, address your own. What you fail to grasp is that even though back radiation is not recorded as such, how it manifests itself is. Hence the request that you explain why the terrestrial temperatures fall lower than both the air temperatures, and the soil temperature if back radiation drives the terrestrial temperatures in the manner you have indicated given back radiation is considered most relevant when direct solar radiation is not present.
  23. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus says "sunspot numbers that directly correlate to Total Solar Irradiance". See my previous post, it is a weather and sensitivity argument. TSI is a small incoming energy change like you say but really being used as a red herring for a larger number of solar effects which modulate WV and back radiation.
  24. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    johnd - I don't know how your BOM table is generated, but looking at the notes for it against your issues, differences between min (air) temp and 'Terr min', I see: # Maximum and minimum temperatures, rainfall, evaporation and wind run are for the period to 9 am on the day of reporting. # Soil temperatures and Delta-T are current at the time of observation. ... # 'Terr min' is Terrestrial minimum temperature. It is the lowest overnight temperature measured at ground level. So - 'Terr min' (which is not a soil temperature, contrary to your statements) is from overnight temps, while the min temp is from 9AM? I would suggest you not base your arguments on a chart unless you understand it. Quite frankly, I'm a bit appalled at the argument you just presented. And again - arguing that back radiation isn't important because it's not on a chart made for other purposes is just silly, back radiation is both easily measured and physically derivable as the IR from atmospheric gases at their current temperature, and water doesn't change it's partial pressure (evaporation) until it's temperature changes. For the last, I would suggest looking at a CRC Handbook for some data.
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel (#45): Clouds are correlated with neutron count: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full but are a complex situation, the albedo change depends on what is underneath, the warm low tops may emit more IR to space than what is underneath, see http://www.eas.gatech.edu/files/Webster1981a.pdf The most prominent effect of increases in nuclei is the increase in water vapor removal, see http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=0120419EN&q=&uid=789815111&setcookie=yes for example. This is more important than clouds since it will have pretty much the same effect planet-wide whereas the clouds themselves will not.
  26. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Marcus (60) I couldn't find an exact match for your Pentagon reference but this should be a pretty good match. Pages 44-48 are most pertinent. The Yooper
  27. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    BP, scaddenp is quite correct in his astonishment at your statement that "the physics gets lost in the process. Equations governing averages can't be derived without being able to handle the true equations at all scales." You are suffering from a severe case of naive reductionism. You'd better not take an aspirin for that condition, until the physicists have finished the Grand Unified Theory so they can model from the lowest level up, what aspirin will do!
  28. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    As long as we are wishing for ponies, how about launching DSCVR? Oh yes, in case anyone is still looking, note the subtle change in 171: "Should the upper ocean heat CHANGE observations replace (or more conservatively, complement) the use of the global annual average surface temperature trend estimates as the primary metric to diagnose i) multi-year and/or decadal averaged global warming."
  29. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Berényi Péter @50: You state that "Genuine skepticism is never settled and considers its subject from all possible (and impossible) angles, that's only natural." This is nonsensical. Skepticism represents an approach to science. It's not something that can, itself, be "settled". I, for example, am an ardent skeptic by nature. My usual approach to any conclusion is that "It's wrong.". This does not imply, however, that I am incapable of changing my mind... only that I'm more predisposed than most to doubt established conclusions. I don't believe, however, that my willingness to admit being wrong is very typical. Skepticism can lead to formulation of skeptical hypotheses, but these must be testable if they are to be regarded as scientific hypotheses. I'm afraid that in most skeptical arguments, the hypothesis being tested is not very clearly articulated. You are correct to ask why skeptics should be required to be consistent in their arguments if scientists are allowed to disagree among themselves. This is a valid point if, and only if skeptical hypotheses are refutable. The entire structure of science is built upon proposing new hypotheses, testing them, and progressively improving our understanding. A good deal of the frustration that that many people have with pseudo-skeptics is that we can't ever seem to make any progress. The same arguments keep coming up again and again and again... Let's use your ocean warming argument as an example... (which should not be debated here, but elsewhere in SkS).... If there were relatively new scientific evidence of "Robust warming of the global upper ocean", would your (presumed) hypothesis be falsifiable? Finally, as a scientist, I find your references to a "scare" and your use of the term "debunk" to be extremely offensive. If you have these sorts of views, I wish you'd leave them off these pages. (BTW... Have you ever considered that accusations of a "scare" is itself a "scare"?)
  30. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Well gee, Eric, call me crazy, but the neutron counts seem to be inversely proportional to sunspot numbers. So when sunspot numbers are higher (which has historically correlated with warmer temperatures) neutron counts are lower-& vice versa. So I'm not surprised that record low sunspot numbers would bring about record high neutron counts-but it doesn't change the fact that it is sunspot numbers that directly correlate to Total Solar Irradiance &, therefore, energy reaching Earth-not the neutron count. Seriously, Eric, if you're going to show graphs that "prove" your point, make sure they do first-as your graph actually just reinforces the anti-skeptic argument even further.
  31. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Actually, here we are-those Greenies over at The Pentagon are looking to rank Global Warming as a major destabilizing force: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/pentagon-ranks-global-warming-destabilising-force
  32. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Hey David Walters! I can't find the link but I remember that a few years back those leftie Greenies from The Pentagon were saying that Global Warming was a bigger threat to global security than terrorism! Yeah, but what would they know eh?
  33. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    KL #128 It's actually compost that's been thrown in your direction, given the amount of time it's taken you to fess up about the serious problems with measurement uncertainty in this data. You appear to finally have admitted that we can not draw strong conclusions from existing OHC measurements.
  34. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    BP #50 This seems to be the appropriate thread to bring this up again, given it's about the behaviour of so-called sceptics. The accusation against you of possible scientific fraud is actually quite serious. Why should we take anything you say seriously until you've dealt with it? Answer: we shouldn't. You devalue your contribution by leaving things like this hanging. Cop outs aren't good enough - you were asked to perform an elementary statistica procedure on data that you had analysed, but you refused. If you don't know how to deal with it, pass your processed data on to someone else to do it for you.
  35. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @BP: "That being said I ask you why should so called skeptics be consistent among them?" It's fine if they're not consistent with each other; it's when they start not being consistent with *themselves* that there's a problem. The rest of your post is a big logical fallacy which is just a pretext to push your ideas about ARGO and ocean acidification yet again. It is off-topic, and false: the fact there exists apparent contradictions in research is irrelevant to the fact that denialists often contradict themselves.
  36. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    CoalGeologist, for what it's worth, Watts has been promising for a couple of years now to submit a paper that re-examines the temperature record based on the surfascestations project. Hitherto, his publications (not peer-reviewed) have pointed out the problems but not crunched the numbers. Apparently, the paper is soon to be submitted. But you're right that he has made all sorts of pronouncements without doing a proper, comprehensive analysis, or even a half-arsed one. I think surfacestations.org is a good project, minus the rhetoric, and hope that his paper gets published.
  37. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    It’s very difficult to have this dialog and “dance around” the difference between skepticism and denialism. Skeptical Science has remained committed to discussing scientific evidence, but ultimately we are stymied when criticism of AGW is rooted in dogma. The arguments cited in the original blog (above) are not [self-]contradictory, nor are they correctly described as “skeptical”, if they are in fact “denialist” in origin. While they may appear to contradict one another, they are remarkably self-consistent, as they are all corollaries of the premise that AGW is false. If it is presumed that AGW is false, then ipso facto: a) any argument that appears to support AGW must be wrong, and b) any argument that appears either to disprove AGW, or to offer an alternative explanation, is not only deemed worthy of serious consideration, but is usually presumed to be valid. This is one reason why I’m reluctant to refer to denialists as “skeptics”. Bona fide skeptics should be equally skeptical of all hypotheses of climate change, not just toward a single hypothesis they happen not to like (i.e. AGW). Denialists occasionally have served a useful role in the scientific method, by questioning the validity of certain evidence. Regardless of their intent, their criticisms have ultimately strengthened the support for AGW. For example, Anthony Watts’ criticisms of the quality of surface weather stations motivated Menne et al. (2010) to re-assess the data, which has strengthened our confidence that the warming documented by these stations is real. If Anthony Watts were a skeptic, he would either acknowledge this conclusion or present evidence to the contrary. To the best of my knowledge, he has done neither. At the same time, he continues to infer--without any corroborating evidence--that these suspect stations would produce a large artificial positive bias. It’s far more credible to me that arguments such as these are intended more to create doubt and confusion than to get at the truth. AGW is a testable hypothesis. The scientific evidence either supports it or not…. and the available evidence supports it. Unfortunately, the fundamental premise of AGW Denialism—that AGW is false--is not itself falsifiable, which is what makes it a premise, not an hypothesis. In fact, it can’t be a valid hypothesis, as it represents nothing more than the negation of AGW. As the fundamental underlying presumption of AGW Denialism remains unshaken, AGW Denialists will rarely admit to being wrong about anything... ever!!! They simply move on to the next argument, or “move the goal posts”, as noted by archiesteel Eventually, they get back to recycling old arguments. It would be nice if Denialists would admit to being wrong from time to time, but the best we can hope for in most circumstances is that they simply stop talking (or posting), notwithstanding that they occasionally—even if rarely—actually make a useful contribution to scientific understanding.
  38. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Mosh, Anthony ceaselessly throws a lot of contradictory stuff at the wall to see what sticks. In the minds of his readers, as he must surely understand, nearly everything does stick, no matter that it contradicts what they hailed yesterday. In this case, he is the purveyor of contradictions, rather than the muddled idjit that holds them to be true (probably), but that hardly lets him off the hook, and I think the practise even more turgid than simply swallowing the dichotomies. It doesn't matter how carefully he tries to distance himself from the pieces he posts or promotes, or casts himself as someone who 'muses' on these things - his agenda is patently clear and it's what the regulars go there for. Whether or not he endorses any of the stuff he oversees is a pretty meaningless technicality.
  39. actually thoughtful at 09:33 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    I strongly suspect that Dr. Pielke already knows what is coming in mid-Fall. And I suspect no great change from what we see now. This appears to be a game, so Dr. Pielke can say in a month or two - as I told you 2 months ago - ain't no heating here. So the question becomes - is ALL the other data wrong? We have the preponderance of evidence stating that it is warming, and OHC saying maybe not. How do we bring these two into agreement?
    Moderator Response: [Graham]: We bring these matters to a head only given enough time. That's the point of all 'knowing' denialism - the cynical kind of dissent - to delay efforts to address the problem until every last drop of profit has been wrung from 'business as usual' paradigms. All change in commercial practice costs money. The commercial/political opponents know full well they can't beat nature. They also know that if they can stall measures to address AGW they will make more money short term. So they pay lobby groups to make good use of statements like 'global warming stopped' and 'there's been no cooling' and 'the ice hasn't been melting' and 'the seas haven't been rising, all statements made by people like Pielke, who should know better. So big business carries on grinding out the dividends by disputing the science, right up until they are overwhelmed by the evidence - most probably salt water. By then it will be far too late, of course.
  40. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Re: EliRabett (170)
    "...the trick would be to allow them to answer in a way that did not permit tracking of the vessels."
    The Rabett is wise and (as usual) hits upon the crux of the matter. Any level of spatiotemporal data that allows anywhere near-term tracking of ship movements will not be approved. The precise nature of the data needed (time, datestamp, location, depths, temperatures, salinity, etc) would also allow mission capabilities to be derived. Data passing San Board (security classification review) tends to be older, with capabilities degraded. Not all locations would ever be declassified, due to even the existence of the data being sensitive. International waters data in non-sensitive areas older than 5 years probably would be reviewed with sensitive data snipped before release. In the nice-to-know category; the stuff researchers would need to know (recent accurate measurements) may never see the light of day. FWIW The Yooper
  41. Roger A Pielke Sr at 08:58 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatross - The issues have been discussed extensively [and often very constructively] in the comments on this website and at Watts Up With That [which reposted my original post and permits comments]. I suggest waiting until new information appears (promised to us by mid Fall) on updating the Argo/satellite estimates of upper ocean heating and cooling before we continue this discussion. At that time we can answer the central questions 1. Using the GISS (Jim Hansen's value of 0.6 W/m2 for the upper ocean as the model prediction, what are the estimates of the accumulation of Joules that have accumumlated in the upper ocean since 2004? 2. What is the observation accuracy of the Argo network and associated satellite altimetry measurements since 2004? 3. Should the upper ocean heat change observations replace (or more conservatively, complement) the use of the global annual average surface temperature trend estimates as the primary metric to diagnose i) multi-year and/or decadal averaged global warming.
  42. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badgersouth, Don't be so sure. It might be worth asking, the trick would be to allow them to answer in a way that did not permit tracking of the vessels.
  43. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    BP, "Just one example. The ARGO fleet happens not to measure any accumulation of heat in the upper 700 m layer of oceans since its large scale deployment started around mid 2003. " You are making the same faulty assumptions that Pielke Snr is making. Not only that, but you are also relying on one group's analysis of the data (NODC), and ignoring other (inconvenient?) analyses such as von Shuckmann, PMEL and Hadley. Smacks of confirmation bias to me BP. Either the global sea-level data have serious issues, or the Argo-derived OHC data have serious issues, or both have serious issues. The planet is in an energy imbalance because of higher concentrations of GHGs, and as a result it is accumulating heat and warming (over the long term). And global SL continue to rise at around + 3 mm/yr (with the expected dips and peaks of course) and global SATs (and MSU data and radiosonde data) show robust long-term warming.
  44. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Well the lefty, greenies at Deutsche Bank reviewed the suite of skeptic claims about AGW and here is their conclusion: http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp "The paper's clear conclusion is that the primary claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat. Indeed, the recent publication on the State of the Climate by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), analyzing over thirty indicators, or climate variables, concludes that the Earth is warming and that the past decade was the warmest on record."-Deutsche Bank It seems that there are places where a reasoned, scientifically based argument are listened to....
  45. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Re Daniel Bailey (165): Thank you for addressing the question I had posed to Dr. Pielke about the availability of ocean temperature data from the US Navy. I suspect that this matter has been thoroughly explored by NOAA and by the many scientists throughout the world investigating what's going on within the ocean system.
  46. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Cornelius Breadbasket (23) Apologies. I missed this earlier:
    "When a problem becomes too great, we stop being concerned about it! This is fairly well-known psychological effect, sometimes referred to as "mortality salience".
     Thanks for that. I see that in action every day, but didn't know it had a name. Mainstream America in general, and our leadership in specific, suffers from a massive dose of it. The Yooper
  47. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    we're basically playing whack-a-mole with the favored skeptic argument of the day, which totally contradicts the favored skeptic argument from yesterday Some elementary logic, sir. Suppose you have a hypothesis H which in fact can either be true or false (but you firmly believed it was true). Then there are two others, X and Y, both contradicting H, but also contradicting each other. Does this latter contradiction confirm hypothesis H? Answer: No. I hope you realize the logic is entirely symmetric under permutations of these three hypotheses, therefore if H would be confirmed, so would both X and Y be. Three hypotheses contradicting pairwise, but somehow all being confirmed by these contradictions is a somewhat whacky idea, we should agree on that. The only asymmetry in the situation is that you supposed H was true. In this case of course both X and Y should be false regardless the contradiction between them, just because each contradicts a true hypothesis, H. So the contradiction between X and Y adds nothing to your confidence in H (which is already perfect anyway). On the other hand if we approach the situation with no prejudice, we can only conclude at most one of the three hypotheses can be true, nothing else. That is, either all of them are false or there is a true one the others being false. But from the pairwise contradictions alone we can not tell which one of the four possible cases does hold in fact. That being said I ask you why should so called skeptics be consistent among them? It is not a war where one either seeks protection by choosing a side or gets pillaged by both armies. Genuine skepticism is never settled and considers its subject from all possible (and impossible) angles, that's only natural. On the other hand the science is supposed to be settled. One necessary condition to it being free of internal contradictions. But unfortunately it is not the case, at least not for mainstream AGW communication. Just one example. The ARGO fleet happens not to measure any accumulation of heat in the upper 700 m layer of oceans since its large scale deployment started around mid 2003. As time goes by, the situation is getting ever more inconvenient for the computational climate model suggested hypothesis of an ongoing radiation flux imbalance of the planet on the order of 0.8 W/m2. One possible rescue operation is to suppose the missing energy went below that level and was sequestered there (just to come back later to haunt us). However, heat conductance of water being absolutely inadequate for such a large scale energy exchange, it can not happen without so far hidden material flows between the surface and the abyss. Now, if mixing of oceans is in fact so much more vigorous than we thought, the hullabaloo around ocean acidification is just much ado about nothing. The water going down from the surface would carry not only heat with it, but also dissolved CO2. Dissolved carbon in the entire water column being about 5000 times more than our annual emissions, that is, even if all the CO2 would stay in solution indefinitely (which is not the case), it would increase by 2% in a century, which is unmeasurable on the pH scale (because it is logarithmic). For that matter, it would also debunk any century scale several degrees centigrade warming, because 0.8 W/m2 excess energy flux needs 500 years to increase ocean temperatures by 1°C if the entire water column is heated uniformly (that's 0.2°C/century). Therefore if the scare is to be kept up, we are left with no choice but to suppose the upper 700 m is a good indicator of energy balance after all. However, in this case the heat trapped by atmospheric CO2 has nowhere to go. It can only be radiated out to space, that is, it's not trapped at all. Fine mess.
  48. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke, Are you a) going to allow comments on your blog, and b) answer questions which you have not yet answered here?
  49. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    scaddenp at 14:44 PM, re "Solar is obviously dependent on solar output and orbital factors". That may well be the case, but clouds are a major factor given they provide coverage to about 2/3 of the earth's surface. In fact they would have to be the single biggest factor in determining the amount of solar radiation that arrives at the earths surface.
  50. Roger A Pielke Sr at 07:50 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    I will be posting on the ocean heat budget on my weblog this coming week. Thank you to those who engaged in a constructive discussion on this important climate issue.

Prev  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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