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  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  2217  Next

Comments 110451 to 110500:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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....
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    From the "State of the climate in 2009" report that I linked to earlier: "Strong small-scale spatial variability in OHCA fields is associated with the western boundary currents in every gyre, as well as the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (Fig. 3.5b). The difference in the combined estimates between 2009 and 2008 (Fig. 3.5b) illustrates the large year-to-year variability in ocean heat storage. Of course internal ocean dynamics, such as advection and heave, certainly play a significant role in many of these changes but for purposes of comparison only, they reach or exceed the equivalent of a 95 W m-2 magnitude surface flux applied over one year (~3 × 109 J m-2)." And "Three different upper ocean estimates (0–700 m) of globally integrated in situ OHCA (Fig. 3.7) reveal a large increase in global integrals of that quantity since 1993. The interannual details of the time series differ for a variety of reasons including differences in climatology, treatment of the seasonal cycle, mapping methods, instrument bias corrections, quality control, and other factors. Most of these factors are not taken into account in the displayed uncertainties, so while the error bars shown do not always overlap among the three estimates, these estimates are not necessarily statistically different from each other because the error bars are likely unrealistically small. Even so, errors are too large to obtain reliable trends over a few years." Dr. Pielke, if you read anything, please read that very last sentence.
  16. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    KR at 12:18 PM, obviously we are not talking about investments, it is about budgets, but it should be obvious that the terms borrowed are appropriate. The heat content of the land and oceans is fixed in that it only changes slowly over time, and if the theories of deep ocean currents are correct some of that heat has been accumulating over very long periods of time. On the other hand the heat content of the atmosphere is readily accessible and responds rapidly both to release and re-absorb heat. The BOM chart I linked to earlier that compiles data relating to measuring evaporation shows this in the soil temperatures that remain very stable, only changing slowly as seasons progress. However the air temperatures show wide variations daily as indicated by the maximum and minimum temperatures recorded at each station. In your last post you referred to the idea that back radiation reduces the ability of the ground to radiate heat. If we refer to the BOM data table again it shows however that the "Terr min", Terrestrial minimum temperature, being the lowest overnight temperature measured at ground level, is always lower, often considerably lower than the minimum air temperature, whilst always considerably higher than the soil temperature immediately below the surface. Can you explain how back radiation allows this to occur in light of your explanation.
  17. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Re: Badgersouth (164) While I would not wish to speak for Dr. Pielke, as a former Department of Defense employee perhaps I can offer a bit of insight into the 2nd question you have. Operational depth and location data of the Navy's sub fleet will always be classified, for obvious reasons. However, some of the info you seek may be available to researchers submitting a FOIA request. A well-constructed FOIA request, delimited properly, should return some info. The extent to which data is collected and of what nature (continuously or periodically) will also be classified. Worth a shot. The Yooper
  18. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke: Does the US Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines routinely measure the temperature of the oceans at depths greater than that measured by the ARGOS system? If so, is this database in the public domain?
  19. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    "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. " Pardon? This is an extraordinary statement, flying in the face of both experimental and theoretical evidence in the modelling area that I work in. Can you please explain further what you mean? For the water vapour question, there appears to be a huge literature (eg look at cites for A,M. Tompkins 2002) but I know little about it. Why not ask say Gavin Schmidt directly about it instead of guessing? I would agree that all models are wrong, but some are useful. GCMs have been shown to have considerable skill however in many areas.
  20. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel - "I quickly found out it was an impossible task as most contrarians ended up belonging to many of the (mutually exclusive) categories over a period of time." I sadly found that many "skeptics" are view the problem through a political lens. Changing their mind would involve changing their values which just isnt going to happen. Its worth refuting disinformation for the sake of other readers but that's all. The contradictory nature has at its bottom a determination that nothing should change. When you are just looking for an excuse for inaction rather than truth, then ANYTHING will do. They have no problem with "it not happening/its not us/its good for us" because all of those argue against change. It makes me deeply pessimistic about our future.
  21. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Hi, I spend a a fair amount of time alerting skeptics to their internal contradictions. To do this PROPERLY you have to have the exact skeptic saying the contradictory thing. So lets see how you did with WUWT. June 2009: global warming was blamed on the sun. WRONG: This article is a repost of a NASA study: " NASA Goddard study suggests solar variation plays a role in our current climate" The suggestion is NASA's suggestion not Watts. Although watts does write the following: "Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes. [NOTE: there is evidence of solar impact on the surface temperature record, as Basil Copeland and I discovered in this report published here on WUWT titled Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends - Anthony]" His interest is in sun spots more than TSI. while I think its bunk. Its hardly ACCURATE for you to cite this as "WUWT" blaming the "SUN". they are posting a NASA article. July 2009: it turned out global warming was caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. THIS is Watts citing Another article: "“Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean”" That article is by australian researchers. He also notes a REBUTTAL by trenberth. So, again, you dont have a SKEPTIC saying two different things you have a skeptic POINTING OUT that two papers say different things. HARDLY a contradiction. If one scientist says A and another says -A, then the fact that I point this out does not foist the contradiction onto ME. September 2009: back to the sun. AGAIN, you miss the mark. This is a repost of an opinion piece and it is called out as an opinion piece. Its an opinion piece offered by someone other than Watts. Now watts ALSO posts pieces by me, but we dont share opinions. Does he "catch" or get infected by an opinion by merely posting it? Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” Posted on September 10, 2009 by Anthony Watts UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony December 2009: no wait, it turns out CFCs are the major culprit You are WRONG AGAIN: This is a repost of an article: "Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming" The tactic goes like this. The skeptic points out "conflicts" in the science. he doesnt own those "contradictions" by pointing them out. NOW, they do say contradictory things, as you note, BUT you have to be better at this game of catching them than you are. It does not ay to be a lazier thinker than the person you are criticizing January 2010: hello, we're back to El Niño as the major driver of climate WRONG again. This is watts refering to Bob Tisdales work, If you want to catch somebody in a contradiction you have to cite THEIR WORDS and their beliefs.
  22. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke @160 I believe that you have answered “yes” to the question I had posed in Badgersouth 158. Here’s a follow-up question: In your expert opinion, why is the upper ocean warmer today than it was 50 years ago?
  23. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke @160 Your lengthy response to a very straight forward question that I posed in Badgersouth 158, concludes with: "Using this value of 0.6 W/m2 for the upper ocean, please calculate the expected accumulation of Joules that should have accumulated in the upper ocean since 2005. Also present evidence that the Argo network and associated satellite altimetry measurements are too poor to diagnose heating of this rate." With all due respect, I am not obligated to calculate anything or present evidence about the ARGO network and associated satellite altimetry measurements. I am neither a colleague of yours, nor a student of yours.
  24. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    Bibliovermis und ClimateWatcher Thanks for your help. Not so trivial and silly as I thougt. In the bibliovermis' link I found a lot of citations, where I can dig deeper. If I had knew, it's a sceptic argument, I had used the "search" field, sorry. But one thing, bibliovermis. The absolute value of albedo is not so important, it's the change, that's correlated to a forcing. And yes, Dana1981, you are right, my question was OT, it's another forcing, not solar.
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz - disproving that humans are the dominant cause of the current global warming would basically require changing our understanding of basic physics. I recommend my post on quantifying the human contribution to global warming. If you read that, you'll see the basic physics upon which man-made global warming is based, and that's what would have to be disproven. There are open questions, such as how much the planet will warm in the future, how cloud feedbacks will change in response to global warming, how much we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and so on. But the human cause of the current global warming simply isn't going to be disproven.
  26. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    andreas - the solar radiative forcing is proportional to the change in TSI. A constant TSI yields zero solar radiative forcing. The radiative forcing from albedo changes is a different question with a different formula, and one that I have not researched, so I can't answer that question.
  27. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Eric (Skeptic): First of all, we are all skeptics here. Science and skepticism go hand in hand. Being a skeptic, however, doesn't mean that one doesn't believe AGW theory: it means they have looked honestly at the scientific evidence and can form a logically-sound argument as to whether they agree with the statement or not. The fact of the matter is that the current evidence all points to AGW being real. Thus, the logical position for a true skeptic is to acknowledge that AGW theory is almost certainly correct, and that it is the contrarian viewpoint we should be increasingly skeptical about... Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm a bit puzzled by one of your arguments: "As just one example, the neutron count has only very recently reached new highs http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif and this will affect clouds and weather and sensitivity, likely lowering it." First, it doesn't seem from looking at the linked graph that there is any kind of long-term increasing trend in neutron count. Second, what exactly do you base yourself when you claim a high neutron count (which seems to coincide with low sunspot numbers) affects cloud cover, weather and climate sensitivity? A link to peer-reviewed science would be nice.
  28. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz: "Anyway, that aside, what I want to know (from those that hold the warming faith) is, what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?" Falsifying or proving something wrong doesn't give an answer for how the climate works. That's your problem. In science, it isn't acceptable to be just in opposition. General Relativity did not falsify Newtonian Physics, it built on it and filled some holes. It is your attitude that is incorrect. It may be OK in politics (actually it isn't), but it isn't acceptable in science.
  29. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "Anyway, that aside, what I want to know (from those that hold the warming faith) is, what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?" Okay, first the choice of the expression "the warming faith" pretty much destroys any pretense of impartiality on your part. This site is for scientific discussion, try to "play nice." Second, it's pretty easy to falsify AGW theory. If AGW wasn't happening, then we wouldn't find an increase in outgoing longwave radiation (or downward radiation) at the wavelengths of greenhouse gases that have seen their atmospheric concentration increase due to human activity. Observations that didn't show such an increase would pretty much disprove most of AGW theory. Thus, it can be falsified. Of course, that says nothing about climate sensivity values, which seems to be the point you're making in your opening statement - before moving the goal posts to "AGW theory isn't falsifiable" in the *same* comment (thereby proving the article's point...)
  30. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    "The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling." That is not supported. For one thing there is no long term record (30+ years) of albedo. For another, the linear trend of the period of record actually shows a decreasing albedo (warming): Also, we have no basis of knowledge on what albedo was or how it varied before the age of satellites. Further, I have texts which put earth albedo at 29%, 30%, and 31%. The moon reflection people put it at 29% Guess what GISS AOGCM uses? 33% Our knowledge and use of earth albedo is obviously much less precisely known than the 1% cited by andreas.
  31. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @beam me up scotty (35) A certain constituency certainly is - and resent all science even as they tap away at their computers, in warm lit rooms posting stuff on the internet claiming that science is corrupt and produces nothing of value. Some of the reason for this is that some (maybe only a few) actually have an alternative, constructed reality including ufology and technologies beyond the reach and understanding of current science... it's an odd little world. Should also be pointed out that a large group who are anti the economic impacts of AGW ameliorate policy are hugely pro-science as they generate a huge part of their wealth from it --- oil, power production, air travel (Hi Michael O'Leary) etc. The "Merchants of Doubt" documents how ever very good science and scientists can be used in this way. Again - and on-topic for this article! - In both these cases the proponents are not being contradictory in their own worlds. The science, as discussed here, isn't at being technically approached. It's the work of folks which is judged right or wrong based on how it agrees with their respective agenda, not in it's own right.
  32. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    I'd written a post a while back listing the ways climate skeptics are contradictory and hypocritical - and not just on the science. For example, you can't believe both that markets solve all problems and that a CO2 price will destroy the economy. They also said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so. We got up to 55 contradictions: http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-of-hypocrisy.html
  33. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Barry: *golf clap* I would like to say that the incredible work done here at Skeptical Science has helped a lot in whacking moles further. The best deniers can come up when I provide links to this site are that John Cook is a "cartoonist," admittedly one of the strangest Ad Hominems I've ever heard. I once tried to categorize deniers/contrarians/political skeptics on the late news aggregator site Digg by putting them in four categories: a) Those who believe the world isn't warming; b) Those who believe the world is warming, but argue it's due to natural causes; c) Those who say that AGW exists, but it's on too small a scale to be a cause of worry; and d)Those who agree AGW exists, and is serious, but argue adaptation is better than trying to change our ways. I quickly found out it was an impossible task as most contrarians ended up belonging to many of the (mutually exclusive) categories over a period of time.
  34. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, I'd suggest reading several of the article on this site to get a basic grounding in the science. For instance, this article should help to start to explain why your question about falsifying man-made global warming is a non-starter. To disprove human warming of the climate you would have to find the entire science of spectroscopy to contain fundamental errors, explain why the planet is not a frozen ball of ice (since the greenhouse effect would have hypothetically been disproven), explain away thousands of scientific observations and measurements which show that humans are warming the planet, and otherwise rewrite about 200 years worth of science. In short... it isn't going to happen. Which is why 'sceptic' scientists don't dispute that humans are causing global warming... only HOW MUCH warming will result.
  35. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, it's interesting to ask these questions. The current rate of warming is about 0.2 degrees per decade and the noise on the data has a standard deviation of about 0.2 degrees (taking the annual figures). If you use (for example) excel to plot this as modelled data then you can see how likely it is for a 5, 10 or 20 year period to show net cooling. Why not try it ? It's easy to do and it will show you that what scientists say is correct: that significant periods of apparent cooling can be expected and that climate should be considered over a 30 year period. If you do it yourself you'll believe the results. Come back and tell us what you find ? (Hope that was pleasant enough ?)
  36. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr Pielke @156, With respect, I am in no mood to play games. Please answer the question, instead of answering my question (about PMEL and Hadley estimates of OHC) with a question. I am also curious to know what your answer is to my question earlier about what you think global OHC values will be (relative to current estimates) circa 2030. Thank you.
  37. Roger A Pielke Sr at 03:56 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badgersouth - From all of the available evidence, time slices for today compared with 50 years ago clearly indicate that the upper ocean is warmer at present. Also, the OHC time changes is by far (~80%) the largest reservoir of global warming and cooling and can be used to diagnose the annual average global radiative forcing in Watts per meter squared. The challenge to the IPCC modeling community is what should be expect for the coming years. Jim Hansen has written (in 2005) the following - see http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F09%2F1116592hansen.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F21%2Fupdate-on-jim-hansens-forecast-of-the-global-radiative-imbalance-as-diagnosed-by-the-upper-ocean-heat-content-change%2F "Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.” Using this value of 0.6 W/m2 for the upper ocean, please calculate the expected accumulation of Joules that should have accumumlated in the upper ocean since 2005. Also present evidence that the Argo network and associated satellite altimetry measurements are too poor to diagnose heating of this rate.
  38. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (36)
    "what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?"
     This is the short version of what we know:
    1. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere, all else being equal, will raise that planet’s surface temperature. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). 3. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958, 1960, etc.). 4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming. 5. From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH MSU, RSS TLT, borehole results, melting glaciers and ice caps, etc., etc., etc.). 6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide (r = 0.874 for ln CO2 and dT 1880-2008). 7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess, 1958). 8. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind).
    In order for man-made global warming to be falsified, a physics-based alternative would have to exist (and survive scientific scrutiny) that explains the multiple lines of converging evidence we see that also explains why the physics of greenhouse gases works in every instance except for those GHG's produced through the activity of man. Decades later, no such theory is forthcoming. As far as trends emerging from the noise (weather vs climate) see here. Obfuscation (waiting for surety) is pointless. By the time "all" would be satisfied (and some denialarati never will be) it will be too late. So it comes down to risk management. Try this: you are given a pistol. You are told it "may" contain a bullet and that you are to put the pistol to your head and pull the trigger. You ask about the surety of that "may", right? Is 1:6,000,000 a safe risk? 1:6,000? 1:6? Science tells us that the world is warming (NAS) and that human-released CO2 is likely (90%) causing it. The gun is to our head and we are pulling the trigger... Wasn't that pleasant? The Yooper
  39. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr Pielke, Thanks for the link to your article, an interesting read. It seems, however, to back up the point I made. There is no discussion of the time period necessary for signal to outweigh noise, and the error bars (quoted as "plus or minus one standard error") are about 5x10^22 J. On this thread you assert that one month's data is a "snapshot" which allows the earth's heat balance to be reliably calculated, yet the error on this timescale is a heat flow of 5x10^22J/month, or 6x10^23J/yr, which is well over an order of magnitude larger than the figure your article compares from Hansen (1.39x10^22J/yr). Surely this clearly shows a monthly snapshot is not meaningful ?
  40. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dr. Pielke: Do you agree or disagree with the statement: “The warming trend in OHC dominated earth’s heat balance during the past fifty years…” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above statement is from: 1. Introduction [2] We have previously reported estimates of the variability of the ocean heat content (OHC) of the world ocean [Levitus et al., 2000, 2005a]. The warming trend in OHC dominated earth’s heat balance during the past fifty years [Levitus et al., 2001] and the trend has been attributed to theincrease in greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere by Levitus et al. [2001] and Barnett et al. [2001, 2005] among others. Source: “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,” S. Levitus,1 J. I. Antonov,1 T. P. Boyer,1 R. A. Locarnini,1 H. E. Garcia,1 and A. V. Mishonov1 Received 31 December 2008; revised 26 February 2009; accepted 18 March 2009; published 11 April 2009 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009
  41. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Evening all. Apparently I am a 'sceptic'. What I am sceptical of is that the predicted warming will occur as a result of the increase of CO2. I believe we don't know. Well, that's not just a belief, of course, but a fact - we DON'T know. As a sceptic I don't recognise the panel of excuses on the left of this site. Some of the points are valid, some are not - to actually make as statements. I find very many comments made from both 'sides' very silly, unconstructive, and poor science. Anyway, that aside, what I want to know (from those that hold the warming faith) is, what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified? Is there a recognised criteria which would make, for example the owner of this blog, to state "Whoah, that shouldn't happen if man-made warming is true". Is it, for example, a 10-year long downturn in global temps, or a 10-year period of reduced ocean temps? We all know that climate change is real - climate changes. We all know that there will be blips in warming or cooling. But what if that 'blip' lasts 10 years? Is that valid? Or should we wait another 20 years after that? Try and be nice, it makes for a pleasant conversation.
  42. beam me up scotty at 03:11 AM on 12 September 2010
    The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    One wonders if climate skeptics are skeptical of science in general, and perform open heart surgery on themselves.
  43. beam me up scotty at 03:01 AM on 12 September 2010
    Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    We will need to invest in carbon capture technologies. Carbon Capture (mother nature style)
  44. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Marcus (#30) and barry, painting a linear trend in sunspots is pointless since sunspots are only a proxy for a variety of solar phenomenon which themselves only affect weather indirectly and then weather modulates the sensitivity for CO2 warming. As many people have pointed out in this forum, more unevenness of water vapor causes less back radiation from WV and less sensitivity, the cloud changes are secondary but also modulate back radiation and albedo (please don't whack the albedo mole, he is not important). As just one example, the neutron count has only very recently reached new highs http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif and this will affect clouds and weather and sensitivity, likely lowering it. Another example is UV that BP pointed out, with its affect on weather (regional temperature changes probably caused by modulation of the jet stream, likely lowering sensitivity by increasing meridional flow following an increase in UV). When I say sensitivity I mean the amount of added back radiation from WV for a given amount of added back radiation from increased CO2. Note I don't say "added WV" since hypothetical "average" increases in WV don't matter, only the weather-controlled distribution of WV matters.
  45. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    BP @ 12 IIUC the UV radiation is so weak, that it's not even measured in mW but in photons/second. So although it may vary by large percentages, what amplification method turns less than mW at the edge of the atmosphere into Watts lower down?
  46. Climate Models: Learning From History Rather Than Repeating It
    hi, can I suggest an ultra-basic version? Skeptical criticism of climate modelling undermines the overall skeptical position. The case for using computers to predict future climate is founded on todays climatic instability. Perhaps, some skeptics lambasting climate models, are without realising it, arguing that the climate is less predictable/stable than science currently forecasts. The logical destination point for such an argument would to be a lot less skeptical of AGW. OK Somebody tell me where Ive gone wrong.
  47. How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
    The albedo effect and global warming (argument #90)
    The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.
  48. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    Daniel: Bingo! This is the aspect of CO2 that I think very few people truly understand -- love is fleeting, but CO2 is forever. Many people think we can cut CO2 emissions and the warming they cause will subside in a few months or a year. To me, the truly scary thing is what happens if we somehow find the political courage to do a quick phase-out of coal. We'll still be dealing with (by then) likely 420 ppm of CO2 (or even more), but we won't have the cooling effect of the sulfate aerosols, so we'll suddenly kick CC into overdrive. We've painted ourselves into a very tight and nasty corner. Unless we figure out the climate equivalent of painting a working door onto the wall at our back (ala countless cartoons), this is going to be a very difficult situation to deal with.
  49. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    Nice summation, Michael. People need to think of CO2 as "The Terminator" of forcings, because it operates 24/7/365, and it's effects will never, ever stop in our lifetime. The Yooper
  50. Roger A Pielke Sr at 00:55 AM on 12 September 2010
    Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    VeryTallGuy - Thank you for your very good question. I chose a month time period since an expert with this data (Josh Willis) presented uncertainty estimates on this time scale; i.e. see the figure in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf

Prev  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  2214  2215  2216  2217  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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