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  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  Next

Comments 110251 to 110300:

  1. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    #88: "the more important effect of increased GCR is less water vapor and more uneven water vapor." How do cosmic rays reduce water vapor? If water vapor is reduced by cloud formation, the GCR=>clouds science is far from settled. The 2002 article you cite discusses geomagnetic variability; that is the earth's magnetic field: "We have suggested a link of processes generated by geomagnetic forcing that is followed by dramatic shifts in the atmospheric circulation patterns." If so, there is a long geomagnetic record in the seafloor; was there any attempt to correlate the two over the long term? The magnetic field affecting GCR flux is the solar/interplanetary field, which is not the same as the geomagnetic field.
  2. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    OK, let Eli again put on the bunny believes Roger Pielke Sr. deelybobbers, take a deep look at the OHC record which tells all, and ask, where is the last solar cycle?
  3. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    @ Ken Lambert Re my posts 153 and 181, strike the 2nd and 3rd questions I had posed. I had erroneously read “land” instead of “land ice.” Speed reading has its drawbacks.
  4. Using Skeptical Science to improve climate literacy
    Politicization has transformed the climate change debate from one based upon scientific evidence and reason to one that is strongly influenced by political and social ideology. I may eventually encounter an ardent AGW “skeptic” whose politic leanings are not evident, but it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps you’ve written off certain people as being beyond the powers of reason, but even if you have, I’m still concerned about the ones in the middle, who are legitimately confused by [apparently] contradictory information. I don’t know what sorts of techniques you are teaching for finding reliable information, but as in so many other aspects of politics, many people seek out information that will tend to confirm the beliefs they already hold, and they tend to trust sources who share and express their particular world view. It strikes me that any effort to improve the level of understanding of scientific issues must at minimum identify the intrusion of politics into science as a problem, and ideally find ways to minimize its impact. I feel that if people are alerted to the risks of political ideology influencing scientific interpretations, they will be better able, and more inclined, to distinguish real science from political ideology-based science. I realize that this potentially cuts “both ways”, but there’s actually very little evidence of politics in real climate science. Unfortunately, one element of the “world view” that lies at the core of much AGW “skepticism” is an inherent mistrust of “ivory tower” intellectuals and the “government” (where the term government refers to an entity that is something other than of, by, and for the people). This attitude has filtered down into our culture to such a degree that even some of those who don’t fully subscribe to it are not prepared to reject it outright. In other words, the notion of conspiracy between scientific community and the government, or the notion of scientists as incompetent bumblers is credible enough that it has some traction. This tends to tip the scales against science from the outset. Finally, I think it’s essential to separate the treatment of climate change into four sub-issues: 1) documentation of contemporary climate change and it’s impact on both human civilization and natural ecosystems, 2) attribution of climate change (What is the evidence that contemporary climate change is being caused—either largely or partly—by human activities, 3) climate forecasting (What is the future impact of climate change likely to be if we take no action? and 4) response and remediation (What can and should we do to address this problem. What will the costs be? Can we afford it? etc.) These topics are all interrelated, but tend to become hopelessly muddled in how this topic is approached. Notably, it the first three topics fall within the domain of science. Only the fourth belongs in the realm of politics. Unfortunately, considerations regarding response & remediation (#4) tend to color scientific treatment of #1, #2, & #3. Your statement, "Of course, it has been shown many times over that presenting an audience with a graph of increasing global temperatures is not overly successful in motivating action on climate change." indicates that you tend not to distinguish these issues. I think it's important to do so.
  5. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    @ Graham Wayne and John Cook: Recommend that you invite the authors of the two papers cited by Daniel Bailey in post 189 to participate in this comment thread.
  6. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    wingding, when a scientist says that creationism is more scientifically grounded than evolution I'm sorry, but it is just NOT "baseless" to suggest that they might not be entirely objective. Consider Spencer and Christy in their own words. The one indoctrinating Sunday school kids in 'anti environmentalist' rhetoric and the other arguing that evolution is unfounded science pushed by non-Christian religions. Yes, when presented with overwhelming evidence of errors they have adjusted their results. Yes, other than the evolution bit, they accept the basic fundamentals of science. That this makes them 'the reasonable skeptics' is a very sad commentary on the nature of the debate.
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    "Regardless of the linear CO2 increase, temperature is not increasing linearly nor is it "accelerating"." What time frame are you using to make that assertion? Looking a temperature graph that goes to the beginning of the 20th century makes it clear the temperature increase is indeed accelerating. We also know that, during this time period, the only factor that has consistently gone up (and not followed a cycle) is CO2 concentration. We understand the mechanics CO2 plays in the atmosphere, and you even claim that you believe AGW is happening. I guess I'm just trying to see your point. It seems to me you're focusing on small areas of uncertainty in order to discredit the potential threat caused by man-made climate change, but perhaps I'm wrong...
  8. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel (#84), I'm not obfuscating, just trying not to oversimplify. I have never argued against AGW ever and argued for it many times at other forums. What I am arguing about since my first post on this thread is oversimplifications and unsupported extrapolations on the part of CAGW advocates. One of those is that temperature is increasing linearly or greater in large part to CO2. Regardless of the linear CO2 increase, temperature is not increasing linearly nor is it "accelerating". Another is that sensitivity to CO2 warming is a constant, it certainly is not. It is controlled by weather which in turn is externally controlled to some extent. Essentially what happens is the small warming from CO2 creates a temperature increase and the potential of a water vapor increase. What happens with water vapor is controlled by evaporation (increasing, but nonlinear) and weather (anything but linear). The evenness of water vapor determines the amount of increased back radiation (more = more). That's all that really matters, not clouds (except as weather), not the ideal and local C-C relationship (not applicable). The evenness of water vapor depends on things like UV (more UV = less even). muoncounter (#87), yes, although low (warm) cloud tops are generally cooling the more important effect of increased GCR is less water vapor and more uneven water vapor. Other magnetic effects like this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X1W-4636620-5&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=332603dbc7afa1ed28d75a9191d575f3&searchtype=a are linked seasonally to NAO. For example last winter's strongly negative AO and NAO and low solar activity are probably linked. One of the primary climate sensitivity results is more uneven water vapor. The presence of these external factors is why paleo studies can't bound sensitivity unless these factors are also measured through proxies.
  9. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Couple of recent papers (published online today in Nature Geoscience) that provide further evidence that a greater level of uncertainty exists in the quantification and transport of OHC than is perhaps being characterized by RPSr. Opposing decadal changes for the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
    M. Susan Lozier, Vassil Roussenov, Mark S. C. Reed & Richard G. Williams Published online: 12 September 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo947
    Available (ok, paywalled) here. "But this simplified picture of what is known as meridional overturning circulation (MOC) has been brought into question by a paper suggesting that, in the past 50 years, ocean circulation closer to the Equator has grown weaker, whereas the northern waters have flowed more strongly." "They found that, rather than the rate being the same everywhere all the time, as was expected, the rates in the subtropical and subpolar regions were different and showed distinct changes over the 50-year period. Synopsis here. Oceanography: Sea change
    Agatha M. de Boer Published online: 12 September 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo963
    "The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation delivers warmth to high latitudes and carbon to depth. Historical temperature and salinity records call into question the traditional view that these waters form a single coherent conveyer system of currents." Available (also paywalled) here. The Yooper
  10. Same Ordinary Fool at 05:12 AM on 13 September 2010
    A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    ...Which leads to...We should be grateful that two climate skeptics are in charge of a set of global temperature measurements. Other skeptics and deniers are compelled to accept that global temperatures are increasing, because they're saying it.
  11. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    #81: "The rest of the time and space, the cloud effect from GCR might not have much affect." But the GCR->clouds => cooling is the core the Svensmark argument. Are you saying that might not have much effect? "and other magnetic effects other than GCR. Although complex it is not useful to say since there is no linear trend in the past we have to ignore them or consider them to be random fluctuations. " What does that mean? Magnetic effects (ie, solar and interplanetary field strength are fundamental parts of the GCR model. What are the other magnetic effects, linear or otherwise, on climate?
  12. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    General thoughts not aimed at this article or anyone in particular: Roy Spencer and John Christy are real skeptics and real scientists - a far cry from greenhouse-disbelieving psuedo-skeptic blog types. They argue that climate sensitivity is low. That's perfectly valid if they can argue the case scientifically. Spencer published a paper recently on the matter so his ideas cannot be obviously wrong and he must be contributing to the field. Yes there was a UAH satellite correction, but records sometimes encounter large errors. That's science. You shouldn't read conspiracy into it. As such their honesty is unquestionable. I disagree with them on climate sensitivity, I think the charney sensitivity range is more likely because that is what model and paleoclimate studies of sensitivity invariably show. But it's perfectly fine for scientists to challenge this with new ideas. If they can convince countless scientists that their idea is right then I would inevitably change my mind too. Spencer and Christy fit this role. All I am saying is that bashing Spencer and Christy is baseless and resembles the typical scientist-bashing behavior seen at WUWT imo.
  13. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Pielke says, "his metric (the OHC) is accepted by most climate scientists (including Jim Hansen) as a robust measure of global warming." No-one here is necessarily disagreeing with that Roger, you are arguing strawmen again-- the real problems are measuring OHC it properly and over a sufficiently long period and depth, not to mention merging the XBT and Argo data. Also, it should not be viewed in isolation or panacea of data observations at this time, especially given the caveats and know issues with the Argo data. I also recommend reading DrTom's post @150. Dr. Pielke, maybe you could influence/lobby some policy makers to get DSCOVR launched?
  14. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Dana1981, More contradictions can be found here (and in some of the in-line links): http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/03/contradictions.html
  15. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Dana1981, I have read your post again carefully, and the examples from WUWT that you cite are under the label of 'flip-flopping', not contradiction. I concur with you labeling them as that. DOn;t be intimidated by the uncritical WUWT followers-- you have a solid case, that is very easily supported by even a cursory perusal of WUWT. What they also do not point out at WUWT is that many of these factors are oscillations (PDO, ENSO, AMO, solar cycle etc.) and while some of them can certainly modulate global temperatures on a short to intermediate term, they are now essentially noise superimposed on a long-term warming trend arising from enhanced GHG forcing. Those internal climate modes cannot alone explain the marked warming that the globe has seen, nor can they explain the planetary energy imbalance. The hypothesis at WUWT and by most skeptics is to throw out a myriad of (often weak) hypotheses and see what sticks. While all of WUWT's arguments may not be contradictory, there are certainly many logical fallacies, contradictions and flip flopping going on. I find it laughable that Mosher claims Anthony believes that some kind of hitherto undiscovered "Svensmark effect" exists that will counter the increasing radiative forcing of higher GHGs. What is remarkable about that statement is that if the stated effect is/was indeed so important/critical, why is it not detectable or not manifested itself in the data? Sounds more like wishful thinking than science to me. Anthony certainly has a lot of unscientific posts in the "you name it category" I would like to know what the connections are, if any, between WUWT and FoS. Maybe Steven Mosher can help in that regard?
  16. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Eric: "The also have and will easily override CO2 warming and may make it moot at some point in the future." That is opinion (one that is biased against AGW theory) and not fact. You failed to address the point that there has been no increase in GCR or neutron count. Ergo, this cannot be the cause for the current increase in temperature. Most of your argument is simply an attempt at obfuscating the issue. It is not too different from Baz's "we simply don't know," i.e. an argument against the possibility of knowing due to the complexity of the system. This misses the point, however, that we *do* know an increasing amount of energy is being redirected downwards by AGG in the atmosphere, as shown by satellite and ground-based observations. Learning more and making more precise analysis is a good thing, and in that sense you are contributing to the debate. However, to claim that AGW isn't happening because we don't know the workings of all the minute details is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. It's like ingesting a toxin and claiming that you may not die because we don't understand all the inner workings of the body's immune response...
  17. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    The reason the troposphere is not warmoing as quickley as the rest of the atmosphere is because it contains the methane gas layer within it. gas distribute in opur atmosphere according to weight. methane lies right next to water vapor and is at the required prssure to get its leg on with oits ability to take up heat into its moleclues in order to form its hydrate in the sky. this hydrate formation is what causes lightening they discovered in 2007. During hydrate formation of ice crystals or hail if the moisture in the clouds(water vapor) is great enough, it grabs all the positive ions and this creats electricity. All our DOE money should be going to devlop this source of power . . .water and methane and pressure and in te interim tidal power to replace fossil fuel until it can be im[plmented. That's the plan and the only plab that can save us.
  18. Philippe Chantreau at 02:18 AM on 13 September 2010
    A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    No Robert, please don't. That's the kind of garbage spewing all over from sites like WUWT or CA, we don't need that here. Everybody should refrain from implying or suggesting anyting. I've been guilty of it in the past myself and I'm not proud of it, it should not be welcome on this site. This posts does a decent job of presenting some facts, let's leave it at that. Each can have his/her own opinion as to what the deeper significance is, keep it to yourself until you have something really solid to substantiate. What's more interesting, IMO, is that it provides an instance of models vs data in which the models were right. That is one characteristic of models based on physics. When data don't agree, it is ground for looking more closely at both, but well established physical models must not be considered worthless only because on set of data comes along that happens to disagree with model expectations.
  19. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    I'm not going to make any accusations pertaining to the reasoning behind the error not being discovered... but I have to say that I bet mears et al. off the record had some very interesting things to say...
  20. actually thoughtful at 01:59 AM on 13 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz @77 - if you are used to posting/reading at WUWT you might think "We just DON'T know" is a valid statement. However, this site is dedicated to an honest scientific debate, and very knowledgeable people post and comment here regularly. And of course the key - all posts here refer back to the peer-reviewed science that is the gold standard for scientific knowledge. Statements like "We just DON'T know" may be valid for you and your pet mouse. But not for the poster/comment writers on this site. So please, ask a question or two about what YOU don't know and follow through on the reading you are directed to. You too can KNOW what is happening to our physical world, and why (and know where there is some uncertainty too - no where near as much as the ideological propaganda coming out of sites like WUWT would have you believe, but some around the edges - thus the need for more research).
  21. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Who are the world's leading experts on ocean dynamics? Have any of them reviewed Dr. Pielke's assumptions about the distribution of heat within the total ocean system?
  22. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    Their first report, with the rubric ”Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites”, was published in Science in March 1990, and showed a rather high level of self-confidence. Here are some interesting quotes: ”Our data suggest that high-precision atmospheric temperature monitoring is possible from satelite microwave radiometers. Because of their demonstrated stability and the global coverage they provide, these radiometers should be made the standard for the monitoring of global atmospheric temperature anomalies since 1979.” ”Various computerized climate models, which predict future changes through time-dependent equations representing physical processes, can now be evaluated with accurate global temperature measurements.” ”These improvements should facilitate more informed policy decisions concerning the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas production.”
  23. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus@58 Try here as well: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/deutsche-climate-threat/
  24. Roger A Pielke Sr at 01:21 AM on 13 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    actually thoughtfull - The new information this Fall, so I have been told, is an updated best estimate of ocean heat content changes by specialists working in this research area, presented as close to the present as possible. This metric (the OHC) is accepted by most climate scientists (including Jim Hansen) as a robust measure of global warming.
  25. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    A man walks 10 miles on day 1. He walks 20 miles on day 2 and stays in place on day 3. His average movement was 10 miles per day, but it is not WRONG to say he isn't moving on day 3. Climate is a complex chaotic system which is very difficult to measure. Even if there is a long term average warming due to CO2 emissions it is perfectly reasonable that timelags and the nonlinear natures of the feedbacks and forcings can cause short term cooling or cessation. Global warming as measured by atmospheric temperature is a relatively small signal in a complex noisy and chaotic system. Atmospheric measurements of temperature are indirect measurements of global warming and require complex modelling and tremendous effort to determine. We can only see the global warming signature as an average over a long time period. Dr. Pielke is simply pointing out that warming is a measure of net heat into the system and that an accurate measure of heat can directly measure global warming on a much shorter time scale. You can argue as to whether the ocean data is sufficient or accurate enough (just as the skeptics due about the atmospheric data) to draw conclusions which are robust without casting aspersions on Dr.Pielke's integrity. Dr. Pielke's statement that according to the data he was analysing, a 4 year period of time shows NO warming of the globe is a scientific statement based on a reasonable assessment of the scientific data being analysed. I believe that a scientific paper is generally written with the assumption that the reader has knowledge of basic concepts and terminology. Dr. Pielke is really being e castigated for saying that global warming stopped for 4 years when he should have said (for the sake of those with limited english profficiency) that the globe did not warm during those 4 years.
  26. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    181. Ken Lambert: For everyone’s convenience, I am repeating my post of Badgersouth 153. You state, "Dr Trenberth reckons on a yearly imbalance of 145E20 Joules. He puts 2E20 Joules into land heat up, 1E20Joules into Arctic sea ice melt, and 2-3E20 Joules into Total land ice melt." Have Dr. Trenberth's "reckonings" been peer reviewed? In the contest of your statement, does "land" include both the lithosphere and the bioshpere? Does "land" also include surface freshwater? My first question was specific to the specific data “reckoned” by Dr. Trenberth. Let me rephrase the question to remove any ambiguities. What is the source document for Dr. Trenberth’s “reckonings? Has this document been peer reviewed?
  27. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus (#66), on your first point, no linear trend in neutron counts, the effect of neutron counts on clouds is highly nonlinear, see my first link in #63. You also claim "delta T is linear" while neutron counts are cyclical. Delta T is not linear thanks to many natural internal and external factors, but the lack of cycles in delta T is a valid point. More on that later. On your second point, the highly nonlinear relationship between clouds and neutron count along with other nonlinear relationships between clouds and other natural factors particularly ocean current cycles will eliminate the possibility of a linear change in clouds. Your third point, the "net effect" of clouds is zero, is a red herring. In my second link in #63, the effect of clouds varies mainly according to what's underneath them. What you didn't address is the lowering of water vapor by GCR-induced clouds. Global average water vapor depends mainly on sea surface temperature and the annual cycle. Local water vapor is diurnal and there are many local factors. Here's one paper on water vapor: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281996%29009%3C0427%3AIVOUTW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 In it the 1983, 1987 and 1992 El Nino peaks show up clearly. The 1987 peak is suppressed even though the El Nino was strong than in 1992. A plausible reason for that is the uptake of excess water vapor by GCR nuclei in 1987. There could be other reasons for the difference as well. The sea surface temperature dominates and the neutron count effect, being nonlinear, will only show up at some latitudes under some conditions. The rest of the time and space, the cloud effect from GCR might not have much affect. Other effects come from UV (various including ozone) and other magnetic effects other than GCR. Although complex it is not useful to say since there is no linear trend in the past we have to ignore them or consider them to be random fluctuations. The reason is that since they influence weather nonlinearly they influence sensitivity to CO2 and will do so differently as CO2 warming increases. The also have and will easily override CO2 warming and may make it moot at some point in the future.
  28. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (76)
    "My 'problem' is that we don't know if the positive feedbacks will overcome the negative ones. We DON'T know!" Where to begin... IF positive feedbacks were overcoming negative ones, then we would expect to see indicators of a warming world, right? And we would then expect to see a warming signal in the data, right? We would also like to see a physical response by millennial repositories of ice located around the world, right? Like these, maybe: Glacier visual evidence 1 Glacier visual evidence 2 Glacier visual evidence 3 This becomes tedious. Much further evidence regarding yearly multi-gigatonnal mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet, The West Antarctica Ice Sheet and even the East Antarctica Ice Sheet exists elsewhere on this site alone. Multiple examples exist that demonstrate that the warming forcings have been, and continue to this day, exceeding the negatives by quite a bit. There is no "If" or "We DON'T know!" So to pretend that "We DON'T know!" becomes a specious argument refuted by simply opening one's eyes and looking at the totality of the available evidence. I have a higher opinion of you than that, based on reading some of your comments. Perhaps I missed some emoticon thingy (Poe's Law). If so, deepest apologies. The Yooper
  29. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    argh, "first sentence should read "this calculations only takes into account ..."
  30. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    Ken Lambert #47 this calculations only takes not account the impact on incoming short wavelengths. As far as energy balance is concerned, the net effects is what matters.
  31. A history of satellite measurements of global warming
    John Christy and Roy Spencer have been quite vocal on the web with theories and never-proven affirmations which really cast a big shadow of doubt on their scientific intentions - their mistake described above has fueled the denier movement for like over 10 years and they are now promoting (on the web) equally strange theories, so I would also recommend this post - Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?
  32. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    andreas #42, ClimateWatcher #44 andreas - not a silly question at all. The Earth's warming imbalance from a combination of AG CO2GHG warming and cloud and direct albedo cooling is supposed to be +0.9W/sq.m. Your calculation of a 1% change in albedo (say 30 to 31%) makes a difference of 1366/4 x (0.70 -0.69) = 3.4W/sq.m. - much greater than the purported CO2GHG forcing of 1.66W/sq.m (IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4). What this does to GCM's which are cycled forward to predict in 2050 or 2100 is a very good question.
  33. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Ken #182 Your argument above is sound but it can not yet contribute to the conclusions we can draw about anthropogenic global warming, even with the better sampling post 2004. The best we can say is that there are still large uncertainties relating to both measurement and understanding. However this has no effect on the other indicators that anthropogenic global warming is a serious and pressing problem.
  34. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    kdkd #174 Pursue this elsewhere kdkd. You are thinking wishfully by posing that there is any 'fessing up' on my part. I have been critical of the potential inaccuracy of Argo for OHC measurement in many posts on this blog and elsewhere, and suggested an ideal system of tethered buoys. The issue is how close Argo comes to this 'ideal' measurement. The point is 3500 Argo buoys must give a more accurate picture that XBT and other ad hoc measurements prior to 2004. The problem was the splicing of XBT records to Argo in the transition coinciding with impossible leaps (2.1W/sq.m) in global upper 700m OHC when the purported figure is 0.9W/sq.m leads the conclusion in KL #180 above.
  35. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badgersouth #153 and others: Asking whether Dr Trenberth's papers are 'peer reviewed' shows that you need to do some more reading before venturing onto this blog. Start with this: "Robust warming of the upper ocean" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=153&&n=357 Have a look at Berenyi Peter (BP for short) BP#6, #16, #30, #45 #72, and a couple of mine KL #24, #43, #60.
  36. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr Pielke, before you sign off please have a look at another thread from this blog, namely: "Robust warming of the upper ocean" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=153&&n=357 Have a look at Berenyi Peter (BP for short) BP#6, #16, #30, #45 #72, and a couple of mine KL #24, #43, #60. Here's the conclusion: "BP has got it pretty right in his application of the first law, and the conclusion that the large OHC increases prior to 2004 are offset errors in the XBT-Argo transition is much more 'Robust' I would suggest."
  37. 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.
  38. 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 ?
  39. 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 ?
  40. 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?
  41. 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).
  42. 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!
  43. 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!
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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?
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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