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  2435  2436  2437  2438  2439  2440  2441  2442  2443  2444  2445  2446  2447  2448  2449  2450  Next

Comments 122101 to 122150:

  1. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    gallopingcamel (#105), You obviously have not looked into this at all. Older station data in the record comes from multiple historical sources. 1. It has been gathered and digitized over the years from something like 30+ sources. Most of these sources no longer produce temperature data and the current record is updated 'real time' from just three sources - the most important being the World Meteorological Organization. 2. There is no secret about this - it is documented in a paper by Petersen (1997 I think). 3. Hansen also discusses this in a paper (2001 I think) about how the GISS record is constructed, so no, he does not 'need to explain' because if you cared to look you would find it has already been explained - long ago. Could we please leave all this nonsense over on Watt's site?
  2. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Barry, the UAH numbers are negative because they are brightness temps - the temperature of a pure black-body spectrum that would yield the same total observed energy. So brightness temp is always lower than actual temp, with a greater difference less "black" the object is. Ned & Tony, Tamino *is* one of the authors of Foster et. al. so he's getting his due credit.
  3. gallopingcamel at 15:30 PM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Ned, (#104), Your claim (1) Take a look at post (#102). Canada is the largest country in the world. Can you justify eliminating all but 44 of that country's weather stations? Your claim (2) You can put all the statisticians in the world end to end but they will still not reach agreement. Your claim may be correct but the only way to prove it would require comparing the full data sets with the truncated sets. Your claim (3) The satellites do not show warming at least in the last 12 years, as noted by D'Aleo & Watts. The ground station data is diverging from the satellite data. Check John Cristy at UAH. Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are very high but are currently falling. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
  4. gallopingcamel at 15:01 PM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    scaddenp (#103), thanks for accepting that the station drop off is real. Do you have any explanation for the drop off? If scientists discard ~80% of the data before starting their analysis some kind of explanation should be given. In the case of NASA/GISS we are still waiting for Tom Peterson, Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen to explain what is going on. The HADCRUT3 situation and the associated IEA (Russian) station drop off is still under investigation. I am not sure who should be speaking up for NOAA/GHCN. The "before and after" Tamino statement you mention is meaningless. What is needed is a comparison of the full data sets with the truncated data sets. Wild claims by Tamino (or anyone else at this moment) are paper tigers unless they have the missing information. You can prove or disprove anything using statistics. For a pungent explanation on this point, there is a well known saying that Mark Twain attributed to Benjamin Disraeli that I am not allowed to quote on this blog. Several of the D'Aleo & Watts allegations have to do with station quality control which NASA and NOAA have already admitted is poor. Are you defending a position that has already been abandoned? Like you, I don't trust D'Aleo & Watts but I am still keeping an open mind while weighing all 15 of their allegations.
  5. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    "could someone explain to a science illiterate why the global average shows a temperature below zero?" The values are not actual temperatures. Each temperature record has a baseline, which is the average of temperatures over a given period. The baseline is zero, and the the temps are represented as departures from the baseline - known as 'anomalies'. This has no impact at all on trends, of course, as each value is equally offset. Here's the GISS anomaly data for monthly temps. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt At the top of the page they give you the baseline period, at the bottom they tell you how to convert the anomalies back to the *real* temps. On the chance you're referring to the UAH daily temp website, which appears to show only negative, values, I have no idea why that is. Perhaps someone else knows the answer to that.
  6. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    that's the lowest they can measure accurately, the name of the channel is 'near-surface layer' but actually it's something like a mile and a half up, was it 850mb-level? Does someone know the actual average height of the plane?
  7. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    (1) There are more than enough existing stations to compile the monthly global mean temperature data, so the decline in the number of stations is irrelevant. (2) The stations that were dropped have no different trends than those that kept reporting. Furthermore, selectively deleting high latitude, high altitude, or rural stations has no impact on the trend. This has been shown repeatedly in separate analyses by Tamino, Ron Broberg, and Zeke Hausfather. Neither Watts, D'Aleo, nor EM Smith bothered to actually test their claims statistically before loudly claiming that the dropped stations affected the trend. They owe NOAA and NASA an apology for their false accusations of fraud (and they owe people like gallopingcamel and Geo Guy an apology for misleading them). (3) Even without the statistical analyses, everyone who thought about this knew that Watts, D'Aleo, and Smith were wrong. The satellites show warming, and there's no UHI in space. The oceans show warming, and there's no UHI in the middle of the ocean. In fact, we know from longstanding physical climatology that the warming trend over land is going to be larger than that over the ocean. In conclusion, all of the complaints about station dropouts are irrelevant. The observed warming is real and not an artifact of composition of the station lists.
  8. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    101/ Huh? Tamino states "Two of the most prominent claims of global warming denialists have proven to be utterly false." No one is denying that fewer stations are reporting. Tamino's analysis is refuting the false claim that the cutoff introduces a warming trend. Doing this analysis, he compares subset before and after the cutoff. Where is the "economy with truth" here? Where is the "provably false testimony".
  9. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    #19: could someone explain to a science illiterate why the global average shows a temperature below zero? I know "global temperature" is in some way kind of an abstract concept, but not as much as to show such unexpected figures, am I right? Thanks for your patience and help.
  10. Berényi Péter at 12:14 PM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    #100 Ned at 09:33 AM on 19 March, 2010 "Can you explain what you think that sentence means? Because there are certainly lots of stations north of latitude 65 in the GHCN dataset used by NOAA for their surface temperature record" I think I know what he has meant. He was referring to recent Canadian data. In that country only one station north of 65 has data in GHCN for 2009-2010. 40371917000 EUREKA,N.W.T. 79.98 -85.93 And in fact only three more north of 60 40371964000 WITHEHORSE, Y 60.72 -135.07 (1942-2010) 40371966000 DAWSON,Y.T. 64.05 -139.13 (1897-2010) 40371915000 CORAL HARBOUR 64.20 -83.37 (1933-2010) It's weird, since otherwise GHCN has 119 stations in Canada north of 65, 118 of them are discontinued. And 298 stations north of 60. Between 1989-1991 the number of active GHCN stations in Canada dropped from 496 to 44.
  11. gallopingcamel at 12:12 PM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    tobyjoyce (#99), your dismissal of Geo Guy based on the provably false testimony of Tamino shows that you have not looked at the evidence. D'Aleo and Watts make 15 allegations concerning temperature records based on surface stations. Like you I was sceptical about their claims so I decided to check them myself, starting from raw data. As I don't have the time or skills to check all 15 claims I went for D'A&W claim #4: "....more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting." I downloaded the NOAA/GHCN v.2 raw and adjusted data sets and counted the number of stations versus reporting year. There were over 6,000 in 1972, falling to under 1,000 in 2009. You can easily do the analysis yourself by downloading from the NOAA web site: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ When I point out Tamino's economy with truth on this blog, my comments usually get deleted; he seems to be some kind of minor deity around here. This time I have been very careful with my "rhetoric" so maybe it will get through. If you don't have time to do the analysis yourself take a look at: http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/01/station-drop-out-problem.html
  12. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    James Annan (one of the co-authors of the refutation) has some comments. He references this site. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/mclean-debunked-at-last.html
  13. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    If El Nino events were the source of a long-term warming trend, there is a thermodynamics problem. Where is the heat coming from? We know it's not from increased insolation, and the heat leaking from the earth's core is too weak. On the other hand, my understanding of current theory is that El Nino & La Nina events cancel each other out over time. One releases heath into the part of the earth whose temperature we can measure; the other removes heat and sinks it in the ocean. Because it is a transfer, there is no need to postulate a new (as yet unknown) source of heat.
  14. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Berényi Péter writes: Just noticed the trend in differences (significant on 95% level, strange for such a short series). It might or might not be strange if it were significant at 95%, but it actually isn't. Slope -0.026 Two-tailed p-value 0.087 You're really grasping at straws here. The NSIDC data set is fine, the JAXA data set is also fine albeit a lot shorter, they both show declining trends in Arctic sea ice, and neither gives any validity to Jeff Id's claims about "recovery" unless you set an astoundingly low bar for the word "recovery".
  15. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Thanks Peter @86
  16. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Geo Guy, from my perspective almost everything you write in that comment is either false or misleading, presumably because it's coming from highly unreliable sources. However, I have no doubt that you believe it to be true. So, let's just take the first factual claim in your comment: NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees." Can you explain what you think that sentence means? Because there are certainly lots of stations north of latitude 65 in the GHCN dataset used by NOAA for their surface temperature record. See, e.g., this map. Or go to GISTEMP, where you can see that they use many, many stations north of latitude 65. Just a handful of examples include: Ostrov Vize (79.5 N) 1951-2010 Eureka, NWT (80 N) 1974-2010 Danmarkshavn (76.8 N) 1951-2010 Gmo Im.E.K. F (77.7 N) 1932-2010 Bjornoya (74.5 N) 1949-2010 Ostrov Kotel' (76.0 N) 1933-2010 Ostrov Dikson (73.5 N) 1916-2010 Jan Mayen (70.9 N) 1921-2010 and those are just a few - there are many more. So, could you explain what you think that sentence means?
  17. Peter Hogarth at 09:27 AM on 19 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Albatross at 04:58 AM on 19 March, 2010 I had downloaded and read all the docs on OI.v2 and ERSST.v3b when they revised them, but I haven't charted any data yet. I remember the sparse sampling and change from mainly vessel to mainly buoy for Southern Ocean. I also note that global SST charts on the webpage usually stop at 60 degrees latitude (N and S), which may be pertinent. The sea ice will also grow past -60 latitude in Sept/Oct in many places so probably SST needs interpreting with care? I'll look, time permitting. sidd at 06:41 AM on 19 March, 2010 Basal melt of Ice shelves is also mentioned in a few references, and is suspected as a factor in some of the shelf "break ups".
  18. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    Arjan, i didn't go yet throgh the details of Spencer's analysis. What's surprising is that other peer-reviewed studies (e.g. Peterson et al. 2005) already checked for population and other effect. I do not fully understand why Spencer decided to use a different dataset which didn't pass through the same quality control as GHCN. This may at least in part explain the different results.
  19. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Geo Guy Here's a link to a non peer reviewed analysis of temperature anomaly, ENSO and SATO (volcanic activity indicator) along with links to source data and my R script. Why not run the data yourself, I find it much more helpful than trying to patch together some charts. link Kelly
  20. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Marcel @36, Just to clarify, I am by no means an expert in climate science. I'm just relaying the information. My take on your interpretation of Swanson et al. (2009) is that you did identify the salient features. Yes, it was a modelling study, but models, for all their limitations, are great tools for gaining insight into complex systems because one can conduct controlled experiments. Yes, OHC is going to be a huge player in how our climate responds to the energy imbalance from higher GHG concentrations. How the oceans redistribute that heat and how the energy imbalance affects the THC will be key. As Murphy et al. (2009, JGR-A09 have shown, most of the energy arising from the energy imbalance have been absorbed by the oceans. AOGCMs need to improve, and the next round of models in AR5 will be much better than those used in AR4, both in terms of gris spacing, as well as other aspects (atmospheric chemistry). That said, I would not go so far as to say that " the known variation are completely explainable in terms of SST". Swanson note that: Finally, a fraction of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural variability. The monotonic increase of the cleaned global temperature throughout the 20th century suggests increasing greenhouse gas forcing more-or-less consistently dominating sulfate aerosol forcing, although our technique cannot exclude other mechanisms not contained in the current generation of model forcing (22). They acknowledge the role of internal climate variability: This result is another link in a growing chain of evidence that internal climate variability played leading order role in the trajectory of 20th century global mean surface temperature. This seems contrary to their earlier statement that "a fraction of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural variability. Their main conclusions: First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. The second point is interesting, b/c it suggests that the climate sensitivity could be higher than currently thought. Anyhow, ENSO etc. are transient cycles, whereas the radiative forcing from higher GHGs is increasingly monotonically, and will become an increasingly important player with time.
  21. Marcel Bökstedt at 06:46 AM on 19 March 2010
    A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Albatross> Kyle L. Swanson, George Sugihara, and Anastasios A. Tsonis, Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change, (16120–16130  PNAS  September 22, 2009  vol. 106  no. 38) looks very interesting, but also not so easy to read. I'l try to summarize it, and hope that those who know more (thats you, Albatross) can correct my misunderstandings. The way I see it, they use known climate models, run them under conditions assuming NO CO2 increase to deduce how global temperature varies from year to year in dependence on sea surface temperature. This step is not about how the global temperature varies over the whole period, by definition of the model the average is supposed not to vary at all, but about the year to year variations around this average. The weak point is that you are working with models, not with actual, measured data, the strong point is that you can get precise information inside each model. You do this for a number of popular models, and somehow average them, to get a prediction (regression coefficients) about how a particular distribution of temperature of the sea surface temperature in a certain year will influence the global mean temperature in this year. It's important that these coefficients do not see global warming, since we are interested in the natural variations from the general trend. The outcome of the theory is this set of regression cofefficients. Then, there are a number of internal consistency checks (including testing the models against each other). I'm a bit unsure about the next step, but I believe that what happens is that the computed regression coefficients are used with actually measured sea surface temperatures. This should give the internal variability (unrelated to global warming) which depends on the distribution of the sea surface temperature. The result is not perfect, but it does suggest that the known variation are completely explainable in terms of SST, which is new to me!
  22. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Mr Hogarth writes, re: freshening in the Southern Ocean: "The freshening is believed to be due to extra ice melt run-off" I thought so too, but I could not find a calculation of the effect in the literature based on ice wasting in Antarctica. Could someone point me to a reference ? I have attempted the calculation and I find the GRACE estimated mass loss of land ice in Antarctica is too small to account for the freshening. von Schuckmann refers to Morrow (Prog. Oceanography v 77, pp 351-356, 2008) linking these changes to atmospheric circulation. The salinity anomaly is also seen in Figure 9 in Morrow(2008). I note that Morrow attributes the fresh water anomalies to changes in precipitation, while not ruling out increased sea ice melt. sidd
  23. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Re: Geo Guy (#15) It seems the best you can do on the Russian stations is offer a paper from the Cato Institute, a political think-tank. Something from a peer-reviewed journal, maybe? I thought not. I'll stick with Tamino's description of D'Aleo and Smith as "plain wrong" and "incoherent". http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/ I don't mind if we draw a line under this at this point, unless you can do a bit better.
  24. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    TrueNorth @96 "... there are fools on the other side who believe that everything bad that happens must be caused by global warming." Who? I strongly suspect that either: 1. their words and writings do not mean what you claim here, or: 2. they have been called out for their errors by members of the scientific community.
  25. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    In response to tobyjoyce at 06:26 AM on 18 March, 2010 "Please investigate your claim further and get back to us." The researchers who identified the issue with respect to NASA are American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, who point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees." A search of the internet using the two authors names will give you a large list of references where this issue has been reported - one being http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000 As for further details on the Russian temp data: The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research. For an in depth look at the paper go to: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/17/new-study-hadley-center-and-cru-apparently-cherry-picked-russias-climate-data/
  26. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    GeoGuy, @ 31. First, climate scientists do not attribute all the observed warming to increases in GHGs, the numerous drivers are documented and quantified in AR4. Second, scientists have filtered out natural variability form internal climate modes (incl. ENSO) and detected a monotonic and accelerating warming trend in the 20th century. Please read my post @14, or read the paper by Swanson et al. (2009, PNAS). Also, McLean et al. (2009) seem to be guilty of confirmation bias, as were Lindzen and Choi (2009). Does that not concern you?
  27. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Here you go Geo Guy; As to your comments, El Nino and other oceanic variations are short term events with flat trend lines. They thus aren't any more examples of 'climate change' than the seasons or day and night are.
  28. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Geo Guy, the point here is not to accept or refuse a methodology. The problems is that McLean et al. filtering procedure does not allow any claim on the trend. Indeed, after the case exploded, they said they were just looking at assessing the lag thus admitting that no conclusions on the trend can be draw from their analysis. That ENSO influences the global mean temperature variability is widely recognized. What is not is that ENSO has an influence on the trend. There are many analisys around showing this point, it's relatively easy, you can try yourself or read this related post and references therein
  29. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Ok..my image link did not show up..please go to http://www.stratified.com/comap_1.jpg to view it....sorry I did follow the instructions for posting images here but it didn't work for me..:(
  30. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    I think this is an example of "you can use statistics to generate relationships that you want people to see". This doesn't add any substance to the debate at all. One thing abut science is that you can get a group of peers that will refute a specific premise AND you can find a group of peers that will support the same premise. While peer reviews do have their place in the evolution of science, the process is open to manipulation in that a group can focus on peers scientists that have a contrary view. As far as el Nino is concerned, from my perspective (and experience as where I live is affected by el Nino) I am convinced there exists a relationship between spikes in global temperatures and el Nino activity. The following image is a rough plotting of el Nino activity (1950 to present) along with average global temperatures for the same period. I don't think you need a Phd in statistics to see that there certainly appears to be a correlation between peak temperatures and el Nino activity. More importantly, the period from 1978 to the present is characterized by extreme el Nino activity versus a prevalence of el Nina, where periods of related cooling occurred between 1950 and 1975. I am left wondering what the response will be from those saying that the climate change is attributable only to increases in atmospheric CO2 while the comparison of data indicates warming temperatures related to high el Nino activity. At the very least, climatologist should factor out global temperature increases attributable to el Nino activity in order to substantiate their claim.
  31. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Peter (Hogarth) any thoughts on #78? Not sure where their reference to "accelerating" came from? Those data appear to be OI.v2. Not sure how they compare with ERSST.v3b, which now does not use satellite data. Anyhow, these GODAS data also show warming of the southern polar oceans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osu4o-Fi38A The NODC 0-700 m OHC also show warming of oceans south of 60 S
  32. Berényi Péter at 04:22 AM on 19 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Ned, I don't advocate anything. Just noticed the trend in differences (significant on 95% level, strange for such a short series). Neither I want to accuse anyone. It can be pure chance or instument ageing or whatnot. Anyway, the animation is awesome.
  33. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    tobyjoyce I thought you might be interested in this device. I don't mind if you pass it round your "consensus" friends. I think this proves I'm not a bad chap even though they call me names. http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2008/07/nasa-free-energ.html
  34. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    Dr. Spencer's blog post of March, 16 might need someone to look into. Dr. Spencer will probably try to publish his results. I'm wondering where it goes wrong when he projects that the temperature rise in the US since 1979 is close to 0 (instead of close to 0.2 C/decade from the CRUTem3 dataset), when corrected for the UHI influence (his "true warming trend"). He will probably make a case that this is even worse when put in a global perspective, so contributing all current warming to the UHI effect, even though this contradicts his own analysis of satellite measurements (which are obviously not UHI contaminated). I can think of a few things (choosing stations with very low population density vs very high population density will probably lead to relatively small regional analyses, which can, combined with the relatively short period of measurements be attributed to pattern changes instead of global warming). However, I'm not sure, this is only just speculation of course, but it shows a major deviation from other studies, so it is worth mentioning.
  35. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    @David Horton: I got that idea because the original coiners of the Climate Denier meme explicitly made the connection with Holocaust Denialism. Fools like David Suzuki even mused about trowing people in jail for their thoughcrimes. As I granted in my original post, there are indeed fools on the skeptical side who aren't interested in whether AGW exists or not, just as there are fools on the other side who believe that everything bad that happens must be caused by global warming. My point is that there are enough blogs and websites out there for the fools on both sides to throw stones at each other and mock the other side's idiotic statements. THIS blog, which appeals to me because it deals with careful examination of the scientific evidence, should eschew such childish behaviour and instead treat rational skeptics/believers with respect (and just ignore the irrational ones). Besides which, is anyone worth convincing a 100% believer or skeptic? I go back and forth all the time between in "small problem" and "possibly serious problem" range as new evidence comes in. That is why I am here: I really want to know. You will have an easier time convincing me and others like me if (a) you stick to the evidence and (b) give the impression that this blog itself is at least open to the idea of being proved wrong. On the latter point, can you point out to me a single post where you stated something (perhaps based on research from the CRU or a comment from Rajendra Pachauri that you later had to admit was wrong?). If you can, you will INCREASE my degree of trust in this blog.
  36. Peter Hogarth at 03:30 AM on 19 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Berényi Péter at 01:18 AM on 19 March, 2010 I'm not surprised by the slight differences. Different satellites, different sensors, slightly different resolution, and slightly different processing algorithms for definition of sea ice "edge". AQUA satellite (AMSR-E sensor) only launched 2002. Different groups processing same data also use slightly different algorithms. I'll chase up methods, error estimates etc, but I seem to remember they are public access. This debate is "Arctic" though...
  37. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    With reference to No. 92 : The bit near the end - "josil (the very first comment !)" in red - should be directly below "gallopingcamel". And the link for josil should be http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html#10642 That means that the last paragraph (beginning "....well, as a list") belongs with "As for Geo Guy :", which should have the link http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=85&&n=161#10719 Sorry about that and I hope it all makes sense...
  38. Jeff Freymueller at 03:08 AM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    #79 RSVP, and there you go, in #82. Exothermic is 10% of geothermal, 0.15% of greenhouse gases effect.
  39. Jeff Freymueller at 03:05 AM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    #79 RSVP, have you compared the total heat from exothermal reactions to the geothermal heat flow? Total outward (from the solid earth) geothermal heat flow is 4.43 * 10**13 W.
  40. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    It's amazing how you have posted this article about the five characteristics of scientific denialism, and up pop loads of confirming posts from those who want to deny ! If they're not trying to act hurt at being called deniers/denialists : TrueNorth ...they're (possibly unknowingly) confirming their need for conspiracy theories, logical fallacies, fake experts and impossible expectations. See : Frans Dijkstra suibhne They also make things up, misquote/misunderstand (especially about Phil Jones) and assume full knowledge (particularly on 'hockey-sticks'). See : TrueNorth (again) suibhne (again) thingadonta And, having mentioned the 'hockey-stick', surely there is a marked obsession from these people over certain issues like that; and over people like Gore, Mann, Pachauri, etc ? If they didn't bring them up all the time (and then claim that everyone else treats them like 'gurus' because they are always being mentioned), those names would hardly ever be seen. See : gallopingcamel As for Geo Guy : josil (the very first comment !) ...well, as a list of issues that need to be debunked, have been debunked and are debunked on this very site, he has provided a very good basis for his own rebuttal and a good advertisement for this site : Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says (Was he a plant ?)
  41. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Just went and read that Pierrehumbert article Axelsen pointed out again; it appears I misinterpreted it a bit. The 0.006 W/m^2 figure is exothermic heat for burning the amount of coal required to satisfy the _entire_ planetary electric power budget, the 4.0 W/m^2 is the CO2 energy trapping that would be caused just by burning that much coal. So running the numbers, the exothermic heat from a carbon based fuel turns out to be <1/666 the greenhouse gas effect from burning that same fuel. Exothermic heat from carbon fuels has _almost no_ effect on global warming compared to the CO2 produced. Hmm, sounds like an argument for solar and nuclear power...
  42. Jeff Freymueller at 02:48 AM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    #76 RSVP, no scientific hypothesis that I am aware of depends on the way that one might parse the words "global warming". "Global warming" is the popular/common name for the climate change we are experiencing, and while there could be a more exact name, it would have several additional words. Contrary to your assertions via question, I think scientists have explained things just fine, but some people don't want to hear. As for what happens after the polar ice caps melt away, if that happens the world will already be a radically different place, and what happens afterward is not really the most important thing.
  43. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    KR I have read what you said and understood what you said. I actually have a real live (almost) however and will try to get back to you on this as soon as I can. If what you said is the case, that is fine and it does make sense, however, I disagree that Axelsen gave me such a clear response, because if he had have you would´nt have had to come to his aid. Specifically, he made a reference to GHG and GHG mean all GHGs, not just those produced by man. Anyway, I will try to revisit this problem asap. Thanks.
  44. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Tony O, yes, that's a shorter way of saying the same thing.
  45. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Berényi Péter writes: Looks like the difference between the two datasets is not random, NSIDC trying to emphasize the decline. Okay, that's a very serious accusation. I assume you have some evidence to back that up? As you know quite well, we generally try to avoid suggestions of dishonesty on this site. More to the point, Jeff's claim about "recovery" after 2007 isn't much better supported in the JAXA data you cite. 2008 and 2009 are still lower than any of the preceding years. 2009 does fall just about right on the 2003-2006 trend (which itself is based on only four points!) so the best that Jeff Id could say is that from 2007 to 2009 Arctic sea ice returned to its pre-2007 rate of rapid decline. That's a very strange use of the word "recovery" IMHO. The JAXA data show a trend of -0.20 million km2/year from 2003-present. The NSIDC data show a trend of -0.22 million km2/year for the same period. I think it's a bit odd that, given two very similar data sets, you're advocating to use the one that has only seven years of data instead of the one with 31 years. But there's little difference in the trend in either case. Both show a rapid decline. Using your preferred data set (JAXA) and projecting the linear trend forward gives an ice-free Arctic basin in Sept. 2034. I don't suggest that this is a good method (extrapolating from a seven-year trend) but it shows the foolishness of Jeff Id's claim that Arctic sea ice has "recovered". FWIW, I agree that it would be better for NSIDC and JAXA to include confidence intervals in the same data table.
  46. Philippe Chantreau at 01:54 AM on 19 March 2010
    A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    HR: yes, but they couldn't put together a response that would pass review...
  47. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    ( #85 ) RSVP, Axelsen in #82 gave you a _very_ clear response which you seem to have misunderstood. Accounting for the exothermic output of coal burning leads to an energy increase (forcing) of 0.006 W/m^2, averaged over the planet. Changes in CO2 concentration blocking certain IR wavelengths leads to an imbalance/forcing of 4.0 W/m^2. That means that C02 is ~666 times (hmm, number of the beast, curious) more important than coal burning in the energy accumulation and heating of the planet. "No comparison, why not? Not sure what exactly your numbers represent..." I find that difficult to believe, but please re-read #82 and look at the link Axelsen provided. Now, coal burning certainly isn't the only exothermic reaction going on. Burning of plant matter, oil, nuclear, even solar energy collection (using the energy -> heat rather than it reflecting back out to space). But I think that even the most generous accounting shows that exothermic reactions are around two orders of magnitude less important than CO2 forcing. They're certainly a factor; but for ~1% of the heating! That's 'utterly trivial', to quote the article Axelsen points to.
  48. gallopingcamel at 01:28 AM on 19 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Berényi Péter (#83), as usual, way above my pay grade. However there was one thing that I can comment on. Probably way off subject for this thread but I hope JC will let it stand as it is an inspiring example of what can be achieved when enough people agree on something. In 1800 the river Thames was a commercial salmon river but the growth of the city and the practice of dumping untreated sewage into the river destroyed the fish habitat. The last Thames salmon was caught in 1815. The pollution got steadily worse until by 1955 the river was a stinking sewer with no vertebrate life forms. It got so bad that the House of Commons had to suspend its sessions owing to the stench! As you can guess that got their attention and the Parliament enacted stronger legislation covering the discharge of untreated waste into the river. However, it took decades of effort by the government (Thames Water Authority), corporations, engineers and private organizations to reverse the pollution. When I left London in 1981, there were over 80 species of fish in the tidal reaches of the Thames and I grew rainbow trout (a salmonid) in commercial quantities using water pumped from the river. Today the salmon are back and ~115 other vertebrates as well. See http://www.riverthamessociety.org.uk. This shows that even appalling levels of pollution can be reversed!
  49. Berényi Péter at 01:18 AM on 19 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    #75 Ned at 23:12 PM on 17 March, 2010 "Here are the trends in sea ice extent" I have looked up average Arctic sea ice extent figures for September at IJIS (IARC-JAXA Information System) AMSR-E ice site. They have data only for 2003-2009. YEAR NSIDC IJIS delta 2003 6.15 6.13 +0.02 2004 6.05 5.96 +0.09 2005 5.57 5.53 +0.04 2006 5.92 5.91 +0.01 2007 4.30 4.38 -0.08 2008 4.68 4.84 -0.16 2009 5.36 5.38 -0.02 Looks like the difference between the two datasets is not random, NSIDC trying to emphasize the decline. Insight, anyone? BTW, both datasets lack error estimates, which is preposterous.
  50. A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
    Is this the paper that Tamino pulled apart a while ago? If memory serves the technique they used removes the trend they then analysed the detrended data and concluded there is no trend. Or is that what you were saying?

Prev  2435  2436  2437  2438  2439  2440  2441  2442  2443  2444  2445  2446  2447  2448  2449  2450  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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