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  833  834  835  836  837  838  839  840  841  842  843  844  845  846  847  848  Next

Comments 42001 to 42050:

  1. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Need many more temperature measuring contraptions in the oceans, so that interpolation requirement is minimal and fine-grained. As long as it`s possible (rational) for one of you sensible commenters to argue with me when I reference Balmaseda, Trenberth, Kallen (the graph from same) and state +137 ZettaJoules in last 10 years  (which one of you did a few weeks back) and you say maybe still +5 to +6 per year into oceans there will be substantial doubt. Need that incontrovertible annual ocean heat increase, year by year as it happens, actually measured. 

  2. Climate's changed before

    @justmoi #366:

    In response to your question, I decline to engage you in a game of "Gotcha."

    BTW, I just realized that your comments are "off topic" for this thread. Please post your comments on the thread to an article which directly relates to your concerns. 

  3. Climate's changed before

    Oops, sorry for the duplicate (F5 shouldn't do this, computer science is really one!). John, what is science about if not making really sure that the "other side" isn't right when assuming theories about the future? Tagging their arguments as "myths" to begin with is not what I'd call a scientist approach. And I'm glad you admit that not all (let's say 95% ;) of "their" research is rubbish, dare to enlighten me on the remaining 5%? Thanks!

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Your duplciate comment has been deleted.

  4. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    I am a sub-beginner and probably a bit skeptical of both sides.  Recently, I saw a graph from Rahmstorf showing a continuing warming.  A denier friend informs me that Rahmstorf cooked the books by adjusting for ENSO, in part.  The rationale given is that ENSO has no direct global impact and thus surface temperatures cannot be adjusted for what is a local phenomenon.  As justification, the denied offered a citation from Trenberth: "Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and the linear approach likely leaves an ENSO residual."

    What am I missing?  Thanks in advance!

  5. Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

    Appeal to authority happens from both sides. SkepticalScience itself did a study and wrote an article about a 97% consensus among climate scientists about global warming. On the flip side, opposers of AGW point to people like Lindzen, Frietas, Dyson, Giaver, etc ( admittedly I don't know all the scientists who have dissenting opinions, but that's not the point).

    Appeal to authority ultimately doesn't reveal to us how nature is actually behaving. The debates about "well so and so won a Nobel Prize and he thinks blah blah so it must be false" or "there are this many scientists who believe that whatever is true. how many do you have" are pointless.

    Just stick to predictions vs observations. What are the predictions of AGW and compare it observations. If it disagrees with observations then there's something wrong with the underlying hypotheses. If it agrees then AGW is strengthened. That's all there is to it. Sorry for the rant, but I see appeal to authority alot and this happens in other fields as well.

  6. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Lei: Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    Note: This is Warning #1. SkS Moderators adhere to a "three-strikes, you're out!" process.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Note that if behavior is egregious enough, strikes 1-3 may be combined into just strike 3.

  7. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    All: I have deleted Lei's most recent comments. They are all "off-topic slognaeering". 

    Concern trolling by Lei or anyone else will not be tolerated.

  8. Climate's changed before

    @ justmoi: 

    In response to your question, Nope, that is not what science is all about.

    The vast majority of "skeptic research" is pseudo-science poppycock.

  9. Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 29 September 2013
    Climate's changed before

    justmoi - try clicking on the tab to see the intermediate version of the article and/or look at the notes at the bottom of the page, there are plenty of references to the peer-reviewed research.

  10. Climate's changed before

    Sorry if it's been replied to on other pages, but where is the link to the peer-reviewed research? And where is the skeptics research on the same subject, so I can pick whichever suits my beliefs better? Isn't what science is about?

    Thank you.

  11. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Shoyemore @25,

    Exactly!  People must not confuse a scientists speaking outside their area of expertise but basing their comments on experts' research in the field (as Hansen does), with someone like Curry making unsubstantiated and unsupported comments in areas outsider her area of specialization.

  12. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Hi all,

    Dana's position on Dr. Curry is, I'm afraid, spot on.  As a fellow scientist in her field I have given up on her.  People need to remember that Dr. Curry appears to be more concerned with soliciting attention and obfuscation nowadays than she is with making facually-based or scientifcally-credible or scientifically-defensible arguments.

    Dr. William Connolley states the problem with bluntly and accurately:

    "Judith Curry’s understanding of climate is not helped much by climate models

    Or so she says. Personally, I find that my understanding of the deeper aspects of General Relativity [GR] isn’t helped by me not taking the time to concentrate on the maths. But at least I’m able to realise that’s a flaw in me, not GR.

    Mind you, Curry’s comment does help explain why some of her papers are crap – if you write a paper in which “the model simulations … were the main source of data used in the analysis” and yet you don’t think the models help, you’re not really going to write anything sane."

    This highlights Curry's double standard, logical fallacies and even hypocrisy when it comes to using climate model data.  

    Sadly, this is but just one of several problems when it comes to Dr. Curry's musings in the media and to journalists concerned with fabricating disinformation (see here and here)for a couple of examples. Curry did not even bother to check Rose's fallacious claims about the Arctic sea-ice extent, nor do I recall her calling him out on it when his egregious error was highlighted.

    Again, Dana is spot on.

  13. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    @Stranger #29:

    In response to your question, it's complete B.S.

    Have your read Dana's OP?

  14. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    A fine article: thank you. Though "disinformation" fits better than "misinformation."

  15. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    One of blogs I was reading claimed that  the IPCC could not agree on the level of climate sensitivity and this is backing away from the earlier reports.  I can't find any evidence of that.  Is this some kind of play on words or something?

  16. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Having downloaded & now looking at the report, I find figure SPM.5 especially interesting (I'd like to paste it here but dunno how:().

    It is much better detailed than equiv. figure from AR4. The differences worth noting:

    - the best estimate of negative aerosol forcings (direct + cloud formation) has been lowered from (-0.5;-0.7) to (-0.27;-0.55) respectively. I don't yet know what it means & be interested in hearing other opinions on that

    - total antropo radiative forcings since 1750 increased from 1.6 to 2.29 (in 2011) ARF was only 1.25 in 1980. What does it mean? That AR4 was underestimating ARF a bit that 6y of CO2 increase caused the forcing numbers to grow that much?

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Here is SPM.5:

    Click to enlarge

  17. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    TonyW, the "all" is in the math lower in the article.  One could say "more than half" just based on the summary box, but what does "more than half" mean?  Well now we know.  If Dana is being biased, it's only in choosing not to count those natural +0.1 to -0.1 ranges as positive values.  It's very clear from the math that "more than half" means nowhere near 51%.   And, of course, it's extremely clear from the existing literature that the human contribution is nowhere near 51%.  I do think the IPCC could have been stronger in the box -- "nearly all" would have been representative (if still conservative).

  18. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
    Dana, you wrote that the latest IPCC summary says it's extremely likely that humans caused ALL of the observed warming. However, from the section you quote, it only says that it's extremely likely that humans have caused MORE THAN HALF the observed warming.Did I miss something?
  19. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    ptbrown31, #24,

    I once had a lump in a dangerous spot and went to my doc. He knew my fears and said "You are older than the age group for that type of cancer. I think it is just a cyst, but I will refer you to a consultant". He was right, I was relieved to find. His opinion/ gut feel was correct, but he did not 2nd guess the expert.

    Hansen does write about species extinction in his book, but he refers to documented cases of mass extinctions in the past, and mentions the work of biologist E.O.Wilson on 20th century species extinction. While he might have given better references, he gives enough for anyone to follow up and find out how justified his opinions are on a topic outside his expertise.

    I think anyone can give an opinion, as long as he or she points out where expert knowledge can be consulted. There must be grounds other than the "gut" of the speaker for a calibration of the opinion. The impression with Judy Curry is that she conceals where her own expertise begins and ends, and does not point to evidence or reference, thereby committing the Argument from Authority fallacy.

  20. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    @13 Doon9000

    Well Said. I agree with almost everyingth you wrote. I guess I just think its a bad argument to discredit an opinion because its slightly outside someonse area of expertise. For example, James Hansen writes about the possibility of specieces exticntion in the next 50 years in "storms of my grandchildren". Do you think that his opinion should be dismissed becaouse James Hanses is not an ecologist?

  21. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Zen , #9.

    Thomas Stocker did indeed say what you quote, but in my recollection (I listened to the webcast live) he was referrring to the length of time over which observations have been taken, and not to the coverage or reliability of the measurements.

    www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change

  22. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    Was simply calculating from energy accumulaton and heat cpacity of atmosphere. I agree that if the CIMP models really did ignore accumulation of heat on land and ocean then your characterisation of what the model would look like is better.

  23. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    @nhthinker #32 The transfer of heat to the oceans IS "global warming". The combined land/ocean surface and air temperatures are a proxy for it, even those measured today. Climate scientists could not study historical ocean heat content because what they had was historical surface temperature proxies and they must compare apples with apples so they are stuck with surface temperature when it comes to historical comparisons. Also, humans have developed more of an interest in surface temperatures and their effects, especially land, on growing food and whatnot, as opposed to developing huge overarching interest in ocean bottom temperature effects on the lifestyle and prospects of those funny glowing fish. Beats me why. Oceans have 1,100 times the heat capacity of air and 1,200 times the heat capacity of land if you go with Dr. Randall or 3,800 times the heat capacity of land if you go with Dr. Trenberth's land penetration. Either way, all of the ecosystems heat is either in oceans or 1/40th of it is in water that came from oceans (rain) and will return one day. So it is patently absurd to say that "global warming" is only an increase in atmospheric heat content and when I find that climate scientist you say told IPCC to say that I'll chastize him/her severely. 

  24. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    @scaddenp #35 "predicted us frying" I disagree with though I'm in agreement with your statements and rationale otherwise. I find this topic fascinating. Surface temperature increase is not "global warming" (GW is heat content increase). Surface temperature is (1) a symptom flora & fauna outside below-surface oceans are affected by (2) the Earth "trying" to stop "global warming". In a very rational sense surface temperature increase is the antithesis of "global warming" (how about the fever with flu analogy, it's your body trying to slow/kill the real enemy virus but it's really unpleasant and, I seem to recall, can damage your brain if too hot too long). So if the oceans really did have polystyrofoam insulation 1 cm down (I understand some of them do now) and if land surface also was covered by more coffee cups then atmosphere would be continuously in radiative balance and "global warming" last 100 years would be negligible, right now would be ~+1.5C air/surface symptom (BerkeleyEarth land increase plus an estimated tad) and therefore "global warming" would today be a truly trivial 8 ZettaJoules. With CO2x2 and no feedback changes from last few decades would be +3C air/surface and +16 ZJ. No "frying". In reality Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen estimate +250 ZJ so far and it'll keep increasing because those freezing cold pesky oceans over the entire planet are just not going to allow the surface and air to stop this"global warming" like it keeps trying to do. I strongly suspect you know the preceding very well and you threw a "frying" phrase in for its delicious sound.

  25. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    nhthinker #21 your 4th paragraph is entirely incorrect. I cannot respond on a point-by-point basis because you demonstrate no understanding of the topic so it would take effectively a small book be written in the comment to get you in at the ground level and it`s ureasonable for others to do this for your benefit. There are endless videos of actual educational lectures on multiple aspects of this topic, even text books. Suggest you study and learn to get just the basics. 

  26. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    Me @#38 My "Me @#27" S.B. "Me @#37". I'm attempting a Gosh Gillop, Gallup, Gollop attack on myself.

  27. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    Me @#27 My nhthinker #9 S.B.  nhthinker #18.

  28. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    nhthinker #9 Your understanding of the English language is incorrect. The posting would need to state "Like the relationship between gravity and plate tectonics, the basic tenets of the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change..." to have the meaning that you incorrectly ascribe to it. As written it compares separately gravity and plate tectonics with "the basic tenets of the relationship" and I believe this is what is intended, and I certainly agree with that intent.

  29. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    @miffedmax #12 you are much correct if logic is applied because it has the appearance of a fairly solid temperature decline getting started, maybe even the 8C drop over a few thousand years to next "Ice Age"getting a tiny start (we'll likely never know now) then a jolting Coolus Interruptus happening the last few decades for some bizarre, weird, mysterious reason that seems to have no possible explanation that humans can figure out and defies all logic, apparently. However, the crack (crevasse) in your logic is that so-called "deniers" target audience is not you, it's a very large group of, not to put too fine a point on it, basically <<the rest of this comment has been severely and properly snipped out by moderator response, except the last bit>> who only need to be primed with buzz phrases and most certainly will not be intelligently analyzing them.

  30. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Further to my post @22, I would like to draw attention to this plot of global temperature using just 85 rural stations, with an average annual coverage of 50 stations:

    The rural stations were selected by an algorithm ensuring only that they were dispersed so as to not generate biases in location, and that they were the longest records available in their region.  Details are here.  As Caerbannog sumarizes:

    "1) UHI is a non-issue (I used only rural stations).

    2) Data "homogenization" is a complete non-issue (I used only raw temperature data).

    3) The global temperature record is incredibly redundant and robust -- you can really throw away ~98 percent of the temperature stations and *still* confirm the NASA/GISS global temperature estimates."

    More importantly for this discussion, it shows clearly that the limited number of thermometers is not an issue.  Geographical bias, however, is an issue.  For that reason all global temperature series prior to 1880 are suspect (ie, HadCRUTx, and for Land only, BEST), and the HadCRU series is not as good as that of either NCDC or GISS.

  31. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    First, given their chosen name, it is very likely that Ali G is simply winding us up.  People using as a net name, the name of a well known satiricist should not be given the benefit of any doubt as to whether or not they are trolling IMO.

    Second, contrary to Ali G's claims, there are reliable temperature records over much of the ocean for far longer than is the case over land.  This is due to the practice of ships taking multiple daily temperature readings and recording them in their logs, thereby giving a consistent temperature record along major shipping lanes since the 1850s, whereas reliable temperature records on land from that period are largely restricted to Europe and the North East US.  For what it is worth, here is the record of HadCRUT4 coverage (annual means) since the start of the record:

     

  32. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Ali G - how about having an honest conversation and responding in kind to the points made to you by Brian and Zen

  33. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    "But the IPCC predicted atmospheric temperature rises over the next century intentially assume most of the heat imbalance staying in the atmosphere instead of being absorbed by the deep oceans and other masses of the Earth"

    That is demostratably false. The models used in IPCC reports calculate that most of the heat is going into the world's ocean. If it was assumed that it was accumulating only (or even mostly) in the atmosphere, then the models would have predicted us frying long ago. Do the calculation yourself. You can see the the GISS-ER model prediction for OHC  here. Given all the comments on ocean heating, heat balance etc throughout the IPCC reports, I am loss to understand how you gained such an impression.

    And to be pedantic, the IPCC predicts nothing. It merely summarizes and reports on the published science. The GCM models used are a diverse lot from climate modelling groups in many parts of the world.

  34. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    And so what theory did I propose?

    I have walked away - but am still listening!

  35. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Satire alert.

    Dana--you or anyone at Skeptical Science is more than welcome to delete this for being inappropriate, too long, or just plain absurd.

    Taken to the extreme, Ali G's theory is fascinating. I think I can expand on it.

    I have a thermometer in my room that has an internal column diameter of less than one millimeter. For the sake of the argument, let's assume the cross-section of the glass thermometer tube occupies a 1 mm x 1 mm square. Well, it turns out that to cover just a single square meter of the earth's surface with similar vertically positioned thermometers, we would need one million similarly sized thermometers.

    Now, the earth's surface area is 510,072,000 square kilometers, or 5.1 x 1014 m2, or 5.1 x 1020 mm2. My calculations--done without a government grant, and non-peer-reviewed I might add, like the "science" on WUWT--indicate that two-thirds of this area is approximately 3.4 x 1020 mm2. This number also gives us the number of thermometers necessary to cover the same area with thermometers (I believe this correlation is true because of Lord Kevin's Fifth Law of Thermometers, but don't quote me on that). Also, while I'm not a mathematician, I think the number translates into 340 quintillion thermometers. Admittedly, that's a somewhat large number of thermometers to reach even the two-thirds level of coverage, but if we want to be reasonably certain global warming is really happening, we surely shouldn't quibble over a few hundred quintillion thermometers. We can probably order them on Amazon and get a quantity discount and free super saver shipping.

    Now, I need to put the current dire situation into context. Shockingly, NOAA NOAA link, one of the world's most reliable sources of global surface temperature data, currently uses only 1500 weather stations around the world to monitor the earth's surface temperature! With all this in mind, I can really see why some skeptics are concerned about the lack of data. Even if we dare to assume that each of these 1500 stations has two thermometers, each of which occupies a square millimeter in cross-section, this still only lets NOAA monitor the earth's temperature on the equivalent of slightly less than a 55 mm2 section of the earth's surface! For the non-scientific in the audience, that is actually a smidge less than a third of the earth's surface by my calculations. Why, the area of my main vegetable garden covers approximately 96,000,000 mm2! Despite this shockingly inadequate coverage, a bunch of crazy climate scientists are telling us to cut our carbon emissions! What nerve!

    Clearly, the world's nations shouldn't do anything rash until they have rectified this unacceptable situation. Surely it isn't too much to ask that governments cover a mere two-thirds of the planet's surface with simple thermometers, and then take the earth's temperature for thirty years so we have enough data to find a clear trend.

    Of course, as we can all see, and before a skeptic feels the need to raise the point, it wouldn't be a complete and accurate record if we didn't take the temperature from each and every one of those 3.4 x 1020 thermometers almost constantly for those thirty years. I'd say one reading per thermometer per second would satisfy most skeptics that enough data was being recorded, though I suppose some hardcore WUWT scientists might want to record the temperature a hundred times a second, or a million times, just to be on the safe side--as they might point out, you never know when the temperature is going to drop a fraction of a degree after all, and it might just turn out that, because we are not sampling continuously we have missed some kind of colossal hidden temperature decrease due to our faulty non-continuous sampling methods which may mean we have all been frozen solid for the last thirty years and are just imagining that global warming is happening. That could be true. I dunno.

    Still, I want to be practical, so I'm going to stick with the 1 sample per second option. That would work out to (pardon me if my math is a bit off) 3.2 x 1029 data points at the end of the thirty years of data gathering. Such a robust data set surely is necessary to have before we actually do anything crazy like cut global emissions of greenhouse gases on the word of a few thousand scientists, who, by the bye, if they have an average cross-sectional area of 594 cm2 each, only occupy a tiny fraction of the earth's surface . . . but I digress.

    Next, scientists would have to analyze the data. They should obviously do this without the aid of computers, since we all know that the models are all wrong, and Al Gore has programmed all computers running Microsoft Windows to yield data supporting his theories (he also gets a penny every time you access the Internet, but that's another story).

    By my admittedly rough estimate, scientists should have the definitive answer on whether or not the earth is warming in approximately 5.34 x 1045 years, assuming they work 40 hour weeks and take only two weeks of vacation per year.

    I could go on, but I'm sure I've made some kind of point already!

  36. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    nhtinker,#27

    Yes, you may have a child scientist check Newton's Laws, but ask the same child to solve a problem of three moving masses in space with gravitional attraction between them, and they would need a computer, and the assistance of a whole Maths Dept. The Three Body Problem is a famous one since the days of Newton.

    In practice the motion of small bodies in the solar system is chaotic because of gravitional fluctuations from other small bodies, small planets and larger planetary masses. Large-scale behaviour is predictable, but can we pick out the asteroids that might crash to earth decades in the future? No, not until they are almost on us.

    It is much the same with the climate. We can do small scale heat flows but the large scale problem of many variables is much more difficult and needs elaborate computer models.

  37. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    nhthinker:

    So you are critical of how the media explains climate science, but not the science itself?

  38. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    John,

    Annual Global Mean Surface temperature is the only metric that the general media actually reports that scientists use to measure the impacts of the the enhanced greenhouse effect on the Earth's climate system.

    I know you guys are much more sophisticated than that- but it's up to you correct the media.  The dumbing down to non-scientist forums and the quotes by climate scientists that fed the frenzy specifically to Annual Global Mean Surface temperature are actually doing a disservice to the cause of science, especially if the transfer to the oceans turns out to be very significant.

  39. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    #23

    But the IPCC predicted atmospheric temperature rises over the next century intentially assume most of the heat imbalance staying in the atmosphere instead of being absorbed by the deep oceans and other masses of the Earth

    intentially? I think you are quite confused about the science, which can indeed be confusing. I will try to explain, though I am not an expert, and may be subject to correction.

    The heat imbalance is at the top of the atmosphere where the outgoing heat from the earth is less than that incoming from the sun. Since the earth's system will strive towards equilibrium, it must warm to radiate at a higher level. That is the cause of planetary warming, including deep ocean warming. For simple purposes you can think of the earth as just a sea and an atmosphere. Both will warm at different rates and exchange heat with each other in cycles.

    These cycles are known, and more is being learned. So heat going into the ocean will not necessarily stay there but return to warm the surface at a later stage. We just happen to be in a cooling part of the cycle. I think Thomas Stocker did a good job of explaining this today ... despite his two days without sleep.

  40. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    >>The update really cheered me up this morning. Almost as hilarious as http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/ . I really sympathise with the purveyors of parody - it's not easy for them to beat this kind of stuff...I think it's always worth taking a moment to stare in awe at the wonderfully twisted nature of it all.<<


    Is that for real? I read the first page and almost choked laughing, but couldn't decide whether the guy is serious or taking the mickey out of deniers. Which is it?

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] DenialDepot is a parody/satire site that lampoons the "skeptic" worldview.

  41. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    nhthinker:

     

    >>Intentionally drawing equivelances between items scientitsts view as hard science and those that scientists view as somewhat less hard is seemingly commonly used as a grammatical trick to boost confidence in the less hard science.<<

     

    I don't know whether you are intentionally misrepresenting the paragraph, but it is pretty obvious to me that it was merely stating that gravity and tectonics are well understood, not that the interaction should be any relevance to CO2 and climate.

  42. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    nhthinker:

    Do you believe that Annual Global Mean Surface temperature is the sole metric that scientists use to measure the impacts of the the enhanced greenhouse effect on the   Earth's climate system?

  43. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Don9000 @14 - well said, +1.

    Zen @10 - honestly I think Stoker was probably tired when he said that (having been up all night working on the final SPM).  It's hard to know what he means by 'deep' oceans.  We certainly have faily good estimates for the 700-2000 meter layer, which I consider the most important part of the 'deep' ocean (as layers deeper than that don't accumulate much heat).  There's no question that deep ocean storage is one mechanism causing slowed surface warming, the question is how much it's contributing vs. how much reduced radiative forcings may be increasing.  There's also been some really good recent research published on that, which unfortunately missed the IPCC cutoff, so Stoker may not have been aware of it.

     

  44. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Ali G @11

    Further to Zen and assuming your figure is correct.

    If we have accurate historical global temperature records of 1/3, and they have recorded a warming trend and are scattered throughout the 2/3, what do you think is happening in the 2/3?

  45. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    CBunkerson

    Thanks for the clarification

  46. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Ali G 

    You're welcome to suggest....

    But i should imagine having reliable historic temperature measurements of 1/3 of the planets surface, given a good spread of coverage, is more than adequate to make broadly accurate conclusions.

     

  47. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    ptbrown31@6

    I think Dana's simile is quite apt: podiatrists and cardiologists are medical doctors, with different areas of expertise. He didn't say Curry had no right to share her opinions, and he identified her as a climate scientist. The problem with an outlier like Curry is that someone unfamiliar with the way scientific disciplines are broken into many different sub-specialities or areas of expertise might well draw the conclusion that her qualifications as a climate scientist make her an equally well-qualified expert in all areas of climate science.

    Using another medical analogy, I go to my general practicioner for routine checkups and for intitial consultations, but my general practicioner refers me to experts when I have a problem outside his area of expertise.

    Curry should be acting like a general practicioner, but instead she often operates quite differently. More often than not, she acts as if she is a better expert on any given sub-discipline of climate science than the scientists in that sub-discipline. If Curry were a medical doctor, she would be the general practicioner who rarely if ever referred anyone to a cardiologist, because she believed almost all cardiologists were misguided or dangerous.


    As for Dana, he, like other non-climate scientist authors of reports or summaries on Skeptical Science, generally does two things: 1) render scientific publications into language more suitable for lay people to understand, while remaining true to the thrust of the original source documents; and 2) use published climate science to rebut denier positions. This means that Dana and Skeptical Science writers represent the orthodox point of view where climate science in 2013 is concerned.

    We can easily see the difference between what Skeptical Science authors do and what those on the other side do when we think about a site like WUWT. On that site, authors take an emphatic heterodox stance against most of the published science. In effect, the opinions found on WUWT are almost always written by non-climate scientists who act as if they are experts on various subfields of climate science who possess the ability to see that effectively everything published by climate scientists working in any given sub-discipline is wrong.

    Expressed as an analogy, going to WUWT for climate science opinions is like going to an auto mechanic for a second and consistently contrarian opinion on the bypass operation the cardiologist recommended.


    So, to sum things up, Skeptical Science writer seek to pass along the simplified but otherwise unchanged diagnoses of climate science specialists, Judith Curry often poses as the arch climate scientist, and WUWT writers are delusional.

  48. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Zen, the Argo network is now providing much better data for ocean warming down to about 2000 meters. The average depth of the worlds' is about 4267 meters... so we are currently measuring heat accumulation for less than half of the water in the oceans. This is the 'deep ocean' that Stoker was referring to.

  49. Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?

    Curry has made numerous claims that are demonstrably false. Her walk back of her own involvement in the BEST study and denial of its results being the most obvious example. If anything, the description of her in the article above is overly generous. Making incorrect statements in areas outside your experience is foolish. Making incorrect statements of basic fact and logic is inexcusable.

  50. Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz

    John Hartz.

    For the case of my dentist, I know there are millions of data points and the time scales of measurements of outcomes make it clear about cavities.  Medicince about cavities is a "harder science" than "global long range temperature prediction".

    For global climate change- there is one massive patient and generally extremely long time response time intervals.

    Are you a betting man?  If your bookie brackets a prediction on a match to high/low to have a 95% confidence on covering a spread and then suddenly changes the lower end by half- would you have confidence in that bookie?

    As to gravity- child scientists perform experiments every day to reprove Newton's laws.  Results are quick and can be rechecked.  Climate science as a means to accurately predict future atmospheric temperatures is not in that ballpack of certainty.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Climate science as a means to accurately predict future atmospheric temperatures is not in that ballpack of certainty"

    Your error is that focusing on the daily noise ignores the underlying signal.  Much like focusing on individual waves hides the change in tide at the beach.  Climate science is interested in the tide.  The waves are the weather and the concern of meteorologists.

    Apologies to The Bard, but "the trend is the thing" and all that matters over time.

Prev  833  834  835  836  837  838  839  840  841  842  843  844  845  846  847  848  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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