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  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  2311  2312  2313  2314  Next

Comments 115301 to 115350:

  1. Forrest Cavalier at 01:28 AM on 16 July 2010
    It's albedo
    I like the site overall, but please improve this article. The EarthShine researchers seem to be doing an honest job. For example, they compare to CERES and try to explain discrepancies. Your rebuttal seems like cherry picking and advocacy (that you elsewhere correctly pan as interfering with science.) You can do better, and I await your reply. 1. At http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/ they describe the use of two observing stations and an intermittent station. They report that their observations correlate well with satellites. 2. It's simple thermodynamics that temperature change is always and only caused by heat exchange. Temperature is an effect, not a cause. Albedo researchers are trying to measure that process on a global average. Temperature measurements are always and only point samples. If one doesn't agree with the other, that is cause for investigation, but you argue for dismissal. What's up with that? 3. What support do you have for your concluding sentence? Your paragraphs above it support a conclusion along the lines of "the temperature changes due to the albedo forcing are not shown by the reported data." But you wrote a conclusion that is a great leap away from that. I expect better at this site. 4. Even if you throw out 2003, do you admit their 2W/m/m variation in albedo forcing over 4 years, or the monthly/yearly variations in the anomoly graphs? This value is significant, compared to the GHG forcing for all emissions over the last century is estimated 2.4W/m/m. But in this article, you write to admit only that albedo is a "potentially powerful" driver of climate. That's skepticism, not science. Are you also skeptical about CO2's potential impact? They are the same order of magnitude, certainly. 5. The EarthShine project may or may not be valuable for estimating long term trends. It's a very short data series, after all. But the short term year to year variations are natural variations, and swamp CO2 radiative forcing. At the very least, this must be estimated and controlled before drawing conclusions from short term temperature data series (30-100 years) to predict long term trends, leaving out the need to remove uncertainty before embarking on global engineering to counteract it. That's separate. Is anyone doing this control? 6. When you write about temperature drop as "no such event occurred" and then dismiss their data aren't you engaging in the "They didn't explain everything, so their work is irrelevant" tactic of political advocacy that your website is trying to counteract? Maybe there is mitigation by some other process or event. It is certainly a reason to investigate their methods and explain correlations or lack with other data. Looking at the BBSO bibliography I think they are doing that themselves in a more scientific way than your straw man attempts to dismiss. Looking forward to your improvements on this one. - Forrest
  2. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Stuart at 19:27 PM on 15 July, 2010 And now Anthony Watts is in full-on stalker mode by tracing the IP address of critical comments in the above thread and publicly revealing information such as their place of employment. ****************************** Thanks for the warning, Stuart, I have already been excommunicated from WUWT for making negative remarks about their Lordship.
  3. John Brookes at 01:24 AM on 16 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    I have an admission. I've read hundreds of posts which mention "ad hominem". I know it means something bad, because people regularly get accused of ad hominem attacks as though they are something bad. But what are ad hominem attacks? Is it like an attack of sudden diarrhoea? Please enlighten me. Feel free to be ironic.....
  4. Hotties vs Frosties?
    PS2. oh frak, 'nudder typo: "95 dB at dB at 1 Hz" should be "95 dB at 1 Hz" OK, can I get an edit button? :D
  5. Hotties vs Frosties?
    PS. typo: "based on measurements five octaves higher" should be "based on measurements at frequencies five times as high (= more than 2 octaves)"
  6. Hotties vs Frosties?
    BP #180: The red line in your graph sure looks a lot like "pink noise", doesn't it? For everybody who hasn't worked in acoustics like you and me (I've been a professional audio remastering engineer for 22 years): White noise ("standard noise") is where each frequency has the same amplitude, so that 52 Hz is as loud as, say, 1145.8 Hz or 19,210 kHz, and there's the same amount of "sound energy" in the 18-28 Hz frequency band as in the 7824-7844 Hz band (both are 20 Hz wide), resulting in a graph that's a straight line: Figure 1: White noise Pink noise has a logarithmic distribution, where each octave band (instead of each frequency) has the same amount of sound energy, i.e. the A3 to A4 frequency band (220-440 Hz; 440 Hz is the famous tuning fork note) has the same amount of energy as the C5 to C6 frequency band (523-1046 Hz; 1046 Hz is the soprano high C). Pink noise is used when you are more interested in the energy per octave (or any other interval, like a minor third or a major fifth) than per frequency. It's also less taxing on the human ears (white noise is perceived as a loud hiss, while pink noise sound more like random noise to us), so it's also popular with sound engineers (and their audiences :P) testing large sound systems. Figure 2: Pink noise So, pink noise sounds very natural to us (if you'd make a spectrogram of all music in the world played at the same time, nearly the entire spectrogram would be remarkably pink noise-ish), probably because the human ear works logarithmically too... a 30 dB difference may be 2^10=1024 times as loud mathematically, but to us it only sounds 30 times the smallest difference the average untrained human ear can discern, like the difference between whispering (30 dB) and a not-too-loud normal conversation (60 dB). Nope, that doesn't sound 1024 times as loud, does it? Pain begins at 125 dB, a jet engine at 100 feet produces 140 dB and the loudest sound possible would be 194 dB. Your graph shows 95 dB at dB at 1 Hz, which isn't even close to pain level, and while it may extend to 120 dB at 0.2 Hz (still below pain level), you'll have to realize what 0.2 Hz actually is: one full cycle every 5 seconds. If you'd walk in one direction for 2.5 seconds and back for another 2.5 seconds, you would have created your own 0.2 Hz frequency. Unless you step in something sharp, it wouldn't cause "severe pain". But even if a spectrogram of a turbine would show 95 dB at 1 Hz, which at the same distance and with a pink noise distribution would sound as loud as a soprano high C at only 85 dB (= as loud as city traffic inside a car; sopranos sing much louder than that), it's still no proof that a turbine would follow a pink noise distribution (or even any distribution) below 1 Hz. And while I wouldn't recommend standing too close to a soprano, I wouldn't recommend a 2 km safety distance to one that can't even out-sing traffic noise inside a car either. OK, it's a ridiculous example, but so is assuming a turbine would produce 120 dB at 0.2 Hz based on measurements five octaves higher. (@BP: I realize I left some of the audio-technical details out, because you & me already know those and anybody who's really interested can look them up on Wikipedia anyway)
  7. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Not completely on-topic, but still relevant to this thread. There's a good article over at the Guardian about swiftboat/swiftack operative Marc Morano: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/13/climate-sceptic-morano-award Morano and Monckton are definitely two peas in a pod. (H/T to climateprogress.org)
  8. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    I looked over a bit of Monckton's rebuttal. In it he demands that Abraham answer some 500 questions he poses (many of which are in the "when did you stop beating your wife" category, with implicit and explicit blame pointed at Abraham). Lots of "why did you fail...", "why did you not tell..." questions. I believe this falls in to the "bury with bull****" category of debate. At the end Monckton demands that the Abraham presentation be taken down from whatever public places it reached (difficult, to say the least), to pay $10,000 to the US Order of Malta for Haiti charity, ensure that St. Thomas University kick in $100,000 for not removing the presentation when requested, and issue a written apology which Monckton has provided. Given the enormous insult to our collective intelligence that Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has thrown at all of us, perhaps it would be more appropriate for us to demand that he make large charitable contributions in compensation, and issue a public apology to everyone in the climate debate.
  9. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Everyone please remember the rules of this game. Monckton doesn't care if he's proved right or wrong, shown to be a thug, etc., as long as a lot of people are talking about him and the "controversy". The overwhelming majority of voters in places like the US and the UK have no idea who Monckton or Abraham are, yet they're the audience Monckton is playing to. As long as this continues to be a big deal, right up to the point where Monckton is so thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the media that he's openly mocked the way the moon landing hoax crowd and those who deny there's an HIV/AIDS link are, then he's winning. We're fighting for truth, he's fighting to cause delay by sowing the impression that there's a huge scientific debate underway. It's as classic an example of asymmetrical verbal warfare as one could imagine.
  10. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    Robert, You can find all the figures from the IPCC report on their website. I am sure there will be updated figures around but you might have to ask persons who are in this business personally.
  11. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:49 PM on 15 July 2010
    Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    Before the decisive critique (and draw hasty conclusions - by the Antarctic), I recommend first reading this papers: 1. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet, Wingham et al., 2006 "The Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise has long been uncertain. While regional variability in ice dynamics has been revealed, a picture of mass changes throughout the continental ice sheet is lacking. Here, we use satellite radar altimetry to measure the elevation change of 72% of the grounded ice sheet during the period 1992–2003. Depending on the density of the snow giving rise to the observed elevation fluctuations,the ice sheet mass trend falls in the range K5–C85 Gt yrK1. We find that data from climate model reanalyses are not able to characterise the contemporary snowfall fluctuation with useful accuracy and our best estimate of the overall mass trend—growth of 27G29 Gt yrK1—is based on an assessment of the expected snowfall variability. Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, EXCEED THE ICE DYNAMIC MASS LOSS from West Antarctica. THE RESULT EXACERBATES THE DIFFICULTY OF EXPLAINING TWENTIETH CENTURY SEA-LEVEL RISE. [???]” 2. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Tedesco & Monaghan 2009 “A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing WHEN BOTH the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.”
  12. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    Actually Nevermind that last comment, I just realized the end date is only 2005 so I can't modify them.
  13. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    The figure you just posted, any chance you can find a link for that. I ended up having to edit allison et al. 2009 figure to show the most updated studies but this figure seems to show some of them.
  14. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    I will include a similar graph in part 3
  15. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    In science, the only thing better than empirical evidence is multiple lines of empirical evidence all pointing to the same result. In the case of the Antarctic mass budget, the three methods outlined above slowly start to agree on the fact that also the Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing mass. Figure 4.18(b) from the latest IPCC report is a nice visual depiction of different estimates of the Antarctic mass budget using elevation changes (box Z), gravimetry (boxes RL and V) and the flux component method (boxes RT and RT2). The downside of this picture is that it becomes apparent that the observed trends are rather short (less than 15 years), that the uncertainty of the amount of mass loss is rather large (it's somewhere between 0 and -200 Gigatonnes per year) and that the error estimates of the different studies (depicted as the vertical extent of the boxes) sometimes do not even overlap. Cleary, more observations and improved data analysis are required for a clearer picture to emerge. The obvious pitfall of tracking elevation changes is that height needs to be converted to mass. The exchange rate for this conversion is density. Densification of snow via firn to ice is strongly dependent on the accumulation rate and on snow temperature. So if your satellite detects a change in height, it may not mean you lost mass: it could be that the vertical column of snow and ice you're measuring has become a bit denser. It has recently been shown that the effect of decadal accumulation variability has a signature that is as large as the observed trend in elevation itself (Helsen et al. 2009). It means that long records of elevation change and accumulation rates are required to squeeze out a reliable mass change signal, no matter how accurate your laser or radar is. The flux component method requires model calculations on the surface mass balance (roughly, snowfall minus melt minus sublimation). Direct observations are almost impossible due to the sheer size of the continent. Modeling surface mass balance is an ongoing field of research, and a simple thing like sublimation due to drifting snow or melt water production is surprisingly difficult to model, especially since validation is thin on the ground. Nevertheless, I believe that this method can yield good results. My personal feeling is that gravimetry will in the end be the method that can give the most accurate results, but future developments will show if I'm right on this. The multiple lines of evidence are slowly converging to a picture in which Antarctica is losing mass, but we will unfortunately be quite a few years away from nailing down the Antarctic mass loss precisely and consistently among the different methods. On the upside, much progress has been booked in estimating the mass budget of the Greenland ice sheet, serving as an example of where constructive skeptical science can be in a few years time.
  16. Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    MS #49 & Chris Michael, BP can probably defend himself, but I think you are right on this point, along with Chris. The temperature drop from surface to bottom of roughly 20 degC is not taken account in BP's argument. And Chris, just remember that each of BP's arguments stands on its merits. We all get it wrong on occasion, don't we Chris? That does not mean BP's Von Schukmann analysis is wrong.
  17. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Signed! Lord Monckton appears to be an undercover supporter of AWG, I believe this individual has single-handedly done more damage to his "cause" in the last few months than any proponent of AWG. You couldn't make it up... wait a minute his lordship does make it all up, and his lordship is still making it up. Well you just keep it up your lordship, as every time you behave like a two year old and throw your toys out of your pram, attacking respectable qualified individuals such as Professor John Abraham, in vain attempts to censor and suppress a legitimate scientific rebuttal the more members of the public will see through you and your FUD allowing them to understanding what you really are... Sigh!
  18. Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    Chris #40 BP#47 Er....not really Chris. Just describe the mechanism for getting heat from the surface to the deep oceans in a couple or three yearly timeframe. As I have suggested elsewhere, measurement of OHC changes needs a baseline viz. a snapshot of the 'tiled' oceans. The 'ideal' system would be a global array of tethered buoys measuring the same 'tile' at the same time. A tile might be 500m deep by 1 degree square to have enough resolution. The gold standard would be a snapshot of temperatures of each tile at time T1 and another snapshot at T2. A summation of each would give accurate changes in OHC. The Argo buoys are at present about 3500 in number covering on average a square of ocean 330km x 330km (about 3.3 degrees square) down to 2000m. The average ocean depth is 3700m. Not all the Argo buoys are measuring down to 2000m. How close the drifting Argo come to the 'ideal' is hard to determine. For sure, strong currents will tend to coagulate drifting buoys so that the same 'tile' of ocean might might not be measured at time T2 as was measured at T1. Two or more buoys might enter a tile of ocean and leave none where a prior measurement was taken. Now this might even itself out with some sort of statistical correction, but currents moving at 3-4 knots would move buoys and water out of a tile in a matter of hours, so it would seem a difficult problem to correct back to the 'ideal' measurement system of tethered buoys. Those more expert that I might explain how this is done. I suspect that the noisy and inconsistent nature of OHC reconstructions is due to this problem.
  19. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    Fixed
  20. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    done... and a couple of people have mentioned facebook...let us know when that happens too.
  21. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Signed!
  22. Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    Excellent once again Robert, nice descriptions of different methods. I look forward to your detailed deconstruction of goddard's arguments, though I guess that might even be the easiest to write! One very minor quibble/note - when discussing resolution of the radar it might be worth noting that the resolution quoted is the horizontal resolution. It's obvious if you already understand the subject, but maybe clarify just in case a goddard drone comes and claims the satellites couldn't possibly measure elevation change!
  23. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Petion signed - it's telling the way that Monckton, Watts, MacIntyre and their cronies are reacting to reasoned scientific argument. They react by attempting to bully people into silence using mob 'justice', which is the absolute opposite of of all sorts of freedoms, scientific included. We need to ensure that University of St Thomas and other institutions under such attacks get as much support as possible.
  24. Peter Hogarth at 21:19 PM on 15 July 2010
    Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
    Robert Way at 10:01 AM on 15 July, 2010 Yes, there is similar from previous missions. I should explain that I am part of the extended AUV instrumentation team though I did not design the specific Autosub sonars (or process the data). Part of my work is looking at instrumentation packages for smaller AUVs, as funding is a major hurdle to getting information like this about paleo changes in ice extent, and smaller is cheaper. I’m guessing you’ve seen this but for the benefit of others the sort of data I’m discussing is nicely shown in the Scott Polar Research Institute information on Autosub.
  25. Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
    HR it is not reasonable to assume that velocities have been mainly increasing since the Little Ice Age. We have velocity data from a number of outlet glaciers in Greenland from the 1950's and 1960's the data is of limited duration and near the terminus. However, as I note in comment 9 on Jakobshavns and Rinks Glacier for that matter, the velocity was not increasing during the 1950-1990's period. Why do we keep coming back to AGW to explain mass loss. In some cases we are measuring ablation and accumulation. Where I monitor glacier mass balance winter precipitation has risen, and glacier balance has fallen, these glaciers do not calve, thus increased melting is the mechanism. Given our ability today to measure melt extent, not quite yet ablation rate from satellite imagery, we are developing a good ability to quantify relative annual ablation in Greenland. For Greenland the key to acceleration of outlet glaciers and hence mass loss is not melt or meltwater lubrication, it is ,a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/what-links-the-retreat-of-jakobshavn-isbrae-wilkins-ice-shelf-and-the-petermann-glacier/">outlet glacier acceleration, given the simultaneous nature of the acceleration of at least 34 Greenland outlet glaciers, the cause is not local or random. We understand the mechanics, thinning reduces back force, which increases velocity, calving and retreat.
  26. Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:46 PM on 15 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Monckton’s document makes for interesting reading. Most of it is a gish gallop of questions aimed at Abraham rather than a rebuttal of any particular point. The claim is made that Abraham’s attack “was malicious and relentlessly ad hominem, when a more measured consideration would have been expected from one who was representing himself as an academic with relevant knowledge correcting an allegedly untutored layman”. Hmm. Does this mean that Monckton considers he should be treated an “untutored layman” so that he can get away with treating Abraham with contempt? On the issue of ad hominem – Monckton’s attack is filled with it. I can’t see how anyone could consider that Abraham had been anything but reasonable. I recommend checking Monckton’s response for yourselves. It is a classic.
  27. John Brookes at 20:38 PM on 15 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Oh, the fool I am, I just visited wuwt and tried to read the condensed version of his Lordships rebuttal of Abraham. What a load of old cobblers. Hilariously funny are the adoring comments of his litter-bearers. Much as I try and make light of it, it is very depressing that Monckton so strenuously and viciously attacks reasonable objections to his talk. Far worse that he tries to pressure Abraham's employer. His behaviour is contemptible. It would be nice to just ignore him, but then he'd say that no one could address his arguments. But if you do address his arguments, he tries to assassinate you. What do we do?
  28. Hotties vs Frosties?
    BP #183 Well that's a start. It appears to suggest that people with pre existing clinical conditions may be sensitive to infrasound. It's not in a clinical journal though - I'd be interested in medical research on the issue. What does the ICD10 have to say on the issue of infrasound related conditions? Besides, you're still selectively using the precautionary principle in such a way as means of confirmation bias. And as that was the most important part of my last post, it's interesting that you failed to address it in any way :).
  29. Berényi Péter at 20:18 PM on 15 July 2010
    Hotties vs Frosties?
    #181 kdkd at 18:28 PM on 15 July, 2010 there is very little actual evidence for wind turbine syndrome Here is some peer reviewed research on the topic. It is only about cochlear response, but low frequency infrasound at sufficiently high levels effects all cavities of the human body filled with air. You may also check this out: The inaudible noise of wind turbine Lars CERANNA, Gernot HARTMANN and Manfred HENGER Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources Hannover - GERMANY "Results from similar measurements have already been published, however, they are based on microphone data which do not properly reflect the noise conditions in the frequency range below a few Hz. Consequently, the microbarometer measurements can be considered as an extension of the microphone based results to low frequencies" Due to low energy density of wind, the more widely used the technology is, the larger areal impact gets. As under certain circumstances microbaroms can travel large distances unimpeded, it can even get global, outperforming the inaudible sound of ocean waves by orders of magnitude. For a general discussion of possible health hazards of infrasound above 1 Hz see: (It does not discuss specific windmill issues) ISSN 1392-2114 ULTRAGARSAS (ULTRASOUND), Vol. 64, No. 3, 2009. Infrasound hazards for the environment and the ways of protection D. Guzas, R. Virsilas Siauliai University Vilnius str. 141, Siauliai, Lithuania
  30. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Wow - some of those posters on WUWT are just amazingly...uninformed. Not only do they still seem to believe that 'An Inconvenient Truth' has been condemned by a British court as 'fiction' (or that there could have been a lot more 'errors' shown up but the court 'didn't have the time to go through them all properly'), but they seem to think that it can't be shown unless 'counter claims' are also given. They are also still relying on the 'emails' for their opinion, especially of peer-review. All those enquiries might just as well have not happened in denial world. They even still seem to think that Monckton IS actually in the House of Lords. Finally, for some of them to constantly write about AGW as a 'religion' which is only accepted by 'true believers' who follow blindly, and then, in the next sentence, fawn and tug their forelocks before the wisdom and greatness that they see in Monckton...well, you have to see their comments to believe them. It seems that some Americans are still bowled over by an English title, especially when the person connected to it actually talks to them and is on their side. Incredible how the propaganda, deceptions and half-truths of denial are so successful among a certain percentage of the population. We all have to make sure that ordinary people don't get sucked in and deluded too.
  31. Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:54 PM on 15 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Is there a case to be made in the courts?
  32. sebastian.tyrrell at 19:45 PM on 15 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    @Riccardo: if it weren't so expensive the phrase "sue and be damned" would come to mind. Monckton's rantings on this are so absurd, and John Abraham's responses so measured, that even a judge would be able to see it. @John Cook: please can I suggest use of the "nofollow" tag for WattsUpWithThat and other similar sites? In a small way it avoids giving them extra google rank and denies them the oxygen of publicity.
    Response: Re nofollow, I do that when I can be bothered and remember - getting both to happen at the same time is a rare occurance, unfortunately :-(
  33. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    And now Anthony Watts is in full-on stalker mode by tracing the IP address of critical comments in the above thread and publicly revealing information such as their place of employment. You see it time and time again with assorted crackpots - the less convincing their arguments are, the dirtier their tactics become.
  34. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    I'm confident that St. Thomas University will behave as any other Academic institution would do in cases like this, the unacceptable threat will be ignored. Then, the problem is not this particular incident but if the habit of legal threatening will prevail in some quarters. It would be an attack to the very foundations of science as a whole, an attack to which the scientific community as a whole should respond promptly and strongly.
  35. Hotties vs Frosties?
    Adding to what kdkd already said, the concern over the risks of low frequency acustic waves from someone who dismiss radioactive waste risks so easily (scaddenp: "nuclear has waste issue"; BP: "not really") sounds a bit unbalanced.
  36. Hotties vs Frosties?
    Well BP #108 According to my cursory research via google scholar there is very little actual evidence for wind turbine syndrome. However if we apply the precautionary principle in a field where we have far far more evidence for action, and plenty of good quality scientific research, we'd be taking urgent action to curtail anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. So I'm calling hypocrisy due to selective use of the precautionary principle here I'm afraid.
  37. Berényi Péter at 18:09 PM on 15 July 2010
    Hotties vs Frosties?
    This may be the main problem with wind turbines. They produce a lot of inaudible low frequency noise. In cases like this you can hear nothing, but you can still feel it, mainly in your chest. With some practice you can be aware of the phenomenon, even counting beats is possible. I have spent ten years of my life in an acoustics research lab, so I do know what I am talking about. The slope of the curve above is really alarming. It is about 30 dB/decade below 10 Hz with no sign of flattening out. Although these particular measurements do not extend below 1 Hz, on the base of standard rotation speeds of wind turbines I expect the peak of the curve to be a little bit above 0.1 Hz. It means at 0.2 Hz noise level can be as high as 120 dB SPL (Sound Pressure Level), which is very high. If it would be in the audible range, it could cause severe pain. The dB scale is a logarithmic one, sound energy is doubling for every 3 dB increase in SPL. Sixty decibels mean a millionfold increase. It is also a problem you neither can measure these low frequency sounds with standard acoustic equipment nor are there proper regulations for that frequency range. It does not mean however that it's unmeasurable. Just have to know what you are looking for and choose your equipment and measurement procedure accordingly. A further problem may be that such low frequencies are hardly attenuated in air. What is more, due to the extremely long wavelength (a mile at 0.2 Hz) they tend to propagate in only 2D (horizontally), which means doubling the distance only lowers sound level by 3 dB. As industrial wind turbines are getting bigger (there are already 6 MW models on the market), they get ever more efficient on radiating such low frequencies. It is so because the closer the dimensions of the source are to the wavelength, the more effective radiator it is. Based on this I would say even the 2 km safety distance from human habitation or workplace is insufficient. Wind Turbine Syndrome Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee March 7, 2006 Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
  38. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    It's pretty typical denier behaviour, actually - in any field, not just climate change. Throw out spurious or fallacious arguments, and when someone points out you got it wrong, do everything you can to get them shut down. The curious part of this? Well, I'm sure you've noticed how the climate deniers (including Monckton in his 'rebuttal' of John Abraham's presentation) keep likening AGW proponents to 'communists' and 'socialists. The first time I saw these "shut them down" tactics expounded clearly, was in some material a friend at university got from the International Socialists when he went along to a meeting. The IS doctrine was along the lines of "if you let your opponents speak, you might as well agree with them, so don't let them speak". I find that immensely amusing, that 20 years later the only people I see using that tactic are the more right-wing folks who are always jumping at "reds under the bed"... Anyway, heading to the page to add my message of support.
  39. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    I actually emailed John in support when his presentation first appeared, before you chaps discovered him, so there! I think if Monckton was really interested in science, he would just get on with the debate, the one he keeps saying that the scientists don't want. He is of course displaying double standards by trying to use law to close down a debate.
  40. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    So much for the people who were whining about "blacklists" only a short time ago. A scientist give them the straight story, and they can't take it.
  41. Philippe Chantreau at 17:04 PM on 15 July 2010
    Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
    HR, about your point #1 above. Arkadiusz recently attracted our attention to the SHALDRIL project and the sediment core obtained. Milliken has done extensive work on that core: http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/121/11-12/1711.abstract Excerpt from the abstract: "There is no compelling evidence for a Little Ice Age readvance in Maxwell Bay."
  42. Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
    Did anyone argue? Yes, about how to fix it - but the *nature* of the problem had been recognised for hundreds of years earlier. It took from 1848 to 1865, with 6 commissions of enquiry involved, before a proper sewage system was implemented. But it wasn't enough, took nearly a hundred years and WW2 bombing damage before they fixed it properly. Unfortunately we're back to the problems of invisible, odourless gas again. And the speed of light problem. People generally do not comprehend large numbers. If your undergraduate physics students had problems, how do you think someone who starts out thinking that 400 is the largest possible number will get on? (No! no laughing, we actually had a student who believed this.)
  43. Philippe Chantreau at 16:51 PM on 15 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    This is so typical. Monckton'antics, however, are becoming so extreme that they have a good chance of backfiring. This might actually be quite useful in attracting to Abraham's pieces the attention of that part of WUWT's readership that is not really acquired to any "cause." In any case, it brings to perfection the ridicule already established by the rest of Monckton's "work."
  44. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Lucky Dan.
  45. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Has someone started a facebook group? I can do so if no one else has
    Response: Sounds like you the man, Dan.
  46. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    With "Climategate" now little more than an embarrassing failed misinformation campaign, the denialosphere has begun a co-ordinated attempt to chill academic freedom. We know from "Climategate" that they have no shame, but it's increasingly clear that they should be ashamed.
  47. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    It just occurred to me that a university should investigate things themselves and adjudicate based on more than angry denier emails. Hopefully they do and come to realize that, to stir up such a hornet's nest, Prof Abraham has done an excellent job.
  48. John Brookes at 16:04 PM on 15 July 2010
    Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    I supported Abraham. His presentation was great, I hadn't seen it before. Thanks for letting us know just how desperate Monkton is.
  49. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Monckton disgusts me. Please show your support for Dr. Abraham and St. Thomas University.
  50. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Over to you, Tenney!

Prev  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  2311  2312  2313  2314  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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