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  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  Next

Comments 110401 to 110450:

  1. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus@58 Try here as well: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/deutsche-climate-threat/
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    argh, "first sentence should read "this calculations only takes into account ..."
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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."
  15. 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.
  16. 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 ?
  17. 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 ?
  18. 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?
  19. 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).
  20. 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!
  21. 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!
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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."
  33. 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.
  34. 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?
  35. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    What is "DSCVR"?
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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!
  42. 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."
  43. 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"?)
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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?
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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