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  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  Next

Comments 51151 to 51200:

  1. 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #5
    There's something wrong with the link of the "Impact of Melting Permafrost" topic. Should be corrected to: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/27/175701/climate-talks-must-consider-impact.html
    Moderator Response: [JH] Link fixed. Thanks for bringing this to out attention.
  2. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    David Archer has mentioned that warming ocean releases C at the end of glacial cycles in Pleistocene, and that we don't know the precise mechanism of this phenomenon which ultimately sparks the interglacials. At least that's the state of David's teachings few years ago (2006 in his "Understanding the Forecast" book). I wonder, if given those recent studies about methane seepage through thawing permafrost, we might now point the mechanism of said carbon release. As the permafrost warms (more than the rest of the globe through arcgtic amplification) so does the methane seepage rate releasing the needed amount of carbon... That's of course happening at a slower rate (millenia) as opposed to centuries now in Anthropocene.
  3. Philippe Chantreau at 18:43 PM on 29 November 2012
    It's El Niño
    BernardJ @ 97: I should gave been more specific, actually, and ask also about global surface temps (including land), as I recall they were mentioned. I have to confess I have not followed the whole exchange in every detail, although I find the sum of the examinations by Tom Curtis and IanC quite interesting.
  4. 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #5
    The New York Times article raises a point that had not occurred to me: "Barriers that might work in Manhattan would be futile in South Florida, where water would pass underneath them by pushing through porous bedrock". Now, there's a pretty thought! I wonder where else the same would apply? There must be plenty of locations where infiltration through basement structures would happen. That makes the idea of just adapting to the future climate a tad less attractive. Goodbye, South Florida and thank you for playing the adaptation game.
  5. 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #5
    It's good to see that at least some sections of the mass media are willing to print articles supportive of AGW. Are any of the above-listed news organs owned by Rupert Murdoch? I'm pretty sure the NYT is not, which must annoy the old boy.
  6. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    Sub-cap methane is news to me - very unwelcome news. It was bad enough contemplating biological methane and clathrates, without throwing geological methane into the mix. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't methane implicated in the loss of atmospheric ozone? We are not only getting hotter, but also more irradiated. The depth of our collective stupidity is breath-taking!
  7. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    Analogy #372: A man walks into a crowded Washington hotel lobby. He is wearing what appears to be a jacket covered with sticks of plastic explosives and is carrying in his left hand what appears to be a controller with a big, red button. His thumb is on the button. All the security guards yell "Take cover, this maniac has a bomb!" What do you do? You could:
    • Run for your life
    • Take cover behind a stout concrete pillar
    • Hit the floor and hope the blast goes over your head
    • Do nothing, because you have no evidence that the bomb is real and, anyway, chances are the chap is right-handed, so he has the controller in the wrong hand
    • Shake him by the hand and say "I love your outfit today. Going anywhere special?"
  8. New research from last week 47/2012
    Thanks, Ari. The ability of sea ice to suppress methane emission from the ocean, as well as to absorb methane from the atmosphere, must ring alarm bells. Just melting the Arctic ice cap may release nasty quantities of methane, irrespective of what is happening to the permafrost. I fully expect a denialist illusionist to expound a compelling theory as to why this release of methane is a Good Thing For The Biosphere.
  9. It's El Niño
    Got to love Dr Inferno. Of relevance to this thread, "Things That Can Be Blamed Instead" ... ENSO. Same way the Moon causes sea level rise. ...
  10. It's El Niño
    I believe that the following graphic relates directly to our ongoing discussion with Tisdale. Image and video hosting by TinyPic Source: 2012: Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt, Multiple Extremes and High Temperatures, WMO Press Release No 966, Nov 28, 2012
  11. It's El Niño
    'I wasn’t complaining, skywatcher. I was being realistic. There is a difference." I agree that Bob is being realistic - the review process would make demands that I think Bob is unable to answer.
  12. It's El Niño
    A quick question for Bob Tisdale to clarify something about the nino/nina thing: are you arguing that SSTs respond more strongly to El Nino than to La Nina, i.e. that El Nino warms SSTs more than La Nina cools them?
    It's obvious Philippe - ENSO is a bootstrap process, a magic ratchet or a magic pudding as I've noted elsewhere. However, I very much doubt that Tisdale will actually ever elucidate the thermodynamics of his claim. He's been asked here repeatedly, and many others of us have pressed him about it on multiple occasions over a year ago at WWWT, and there's never been a simple, straight explanation - or even a convoluted one for that matter. Having said that, I'd be most curious to hear Tisdale's response to your question.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Closed the italic hashtag; guessed as to its most likely location.
  13. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    "The future for our grandkids and beyond is beginning to look *really* not rosy." Isn't this denial by dispalcement in time? As in things in terms climate aren't exactly rosy already. Another flood about to hit Italy, 3rd devastating set of floods in less than a month there, the UK last week (being blamed on flood defences despite these having been upgraded tremendously in the last 30 years), and California weather event about to happen, record drought in USA building and so on and on. As for methane, additonal Arctic releases that are already happening, methane is on the rise again and all the extra is coming from the Arctic. The times of "not rosy" seems like it is now not tomorrow. As for our ancestors what are they going to say about us if we actually leave any at this rate! The car was important than humanity?
  14. It's El Niño
    @ Bob Tisdale: Do you agree, or disagree with the following statement? “Naturally occurring climate variability due to phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña impact on temperatures and precipitation on a seasonal to annual scale. But they do not alter the underlying long-term trend of rising temperatures due to climate change as a result of human activities,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. Source:2012: Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt, Multiple Extremes and High Temperatures, WMO Press Release No 966, Nov 28, 2012
  15. It's El Niño
    Following Kayell's complaint (@84), I have reproduced his "detrending" method using the weekly OHC data: For those wanting technical details, I adjusted each interval between Kayell's stated adjustment points to have a common mean. Transitions where spaced over five weeks with an equal change in each week to avoid introducing very large adjustments in a single week. Both the Nino3.4 and Global anomalies have been divided by their Standard Deviation. The rescaling makes the magnitude of variation consistent for comparison without pretending global fluctuations are much larger in degrees C than they actually are. Contrary to Sphaerica @74, although this method of detrending is arbitrary, it does not give a noticeably inferior fit to simple linear detrending:
    (Note, this graph is essentially the same as that in my post 76, except that it uses Standard Deviations rather than degrees C for the y-axis.)
    Indeed, if you look at the residuals - the difference between the scaled Nino 3.4 anomaly and the scaled Global anomaly in the two graphs, it is difficult to tell them apart: Of particular interest here is the yellow line, which shows the difference in the residuals between the linearly detrended and Kayell adjusted graphs. It shows a clear pattern of rising gradually with the linear detrending, with three abrupt shifts down from the adjustments following Kayell's method. The important thing to note is that the difference never exceeds (approximately) 0.5 Standard Deviations. That means the difference between the two methods is not statistically significant. That simple fact is devastating to Kayell's argument. Kayell (and Tisdale) argue that the data show step changes in the SST data, yet it is well known that the combination of a linear trend, noise and natural cycles can give the appearance of step changes where none exist: Consequently, when we see what may naively be interpreted as a step change, we need evidence that we are not simply fooling ourselves. That evidence, for Kayell (and Tisdale) is the ability to "detrend" the global SST anomaly by introducing three major shifts rather than by simply linear detrending. But as it turns out, there is not statistical difference between the two methods. Therefore, the ability to "detrend" by introducing step changes is not significant evidence. Indeed, it is worse than that. We can test the "fit" between the Nino3.4 and Global anomalies for the two different methods of "detrending". We can take the correlation, for example, although there are reasons to think it is not a suitable method for the comparison. Alternatively, we can take the Root Mean Squared Deviation: That's all the difference there is between the two methods of "detrending". The linear detrend scores (just) better in terms of Root Mean Square Deviation, but the Kayell Adjustment shows a whopping 0.0075 better correlation between Nino 3.4 and adjusted Global SST anomalies. And on that massive 0.0075 difference rests the entire claim of a step change in sea surface temperatures following the 97/98 El Nino. Colour me unimpressed. Of course, this is not a case where we are comparing the predictions of two physical theories with distinct predictions. Climate science clearly predicts an approximately linear trend in SST over the period of interest, as modulated by ocean cycles and noise. There is a substantial, well worked out physical theory predicting the result. What is more, there are known factors likely to lead to the appearance of a step change in the data. The Pinatubo eruption in the 1990s, and a weakening solar cycle coupled with a switch from El Ninos to La Ninas in the 2000s are, when coupled with global warming, perfectly adequate explanations for that appearance. In stark contrast, neither Kayell nor Tisdale have provided any physical theory predicting a step change. Consequently their only justification for believing one exists is statistical, ie, the 0.0075 point superior correlation when using the Kayell Adjustment compared to a linear detrending. So once again we find that Kayell and Tisdale have no evidence to support their claims, and no theory to justify making them.
  16. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    I had never thought about the process of glacial retreat causing a release route for deeply buried methane; I had only considered year ground permafrost that is more subject to warming. A rather worrying discovery indeed
  17. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    Very informative post. My thumbs up to Fig 1 as well.
  18. President Obama's Statement on Climate Change
    I haven't the time to delve deeply into this, and it is interesting: however, I was deeply involved in the car 'bidness,' in the 70s, and saw the CAFE deal unfold. "After the oil crisis in the 1970s the American Congress approved a law stating that fuel efficiency had to double in 10 years time. The American car manufacturers succeeded in this task, but the consequence was that total fossil fuel consumption went up." Not as a result of the legislation: as a result of WAY more more vehicle-miles traveled (incidentally, because of increased safety standard at the same time, traffic deaths *decreased*). Had the vehicle-miles remained static, total CO2 emissions from cars would have gone down in relation to the number of gallons used, per unit of distance. A gallon of petroleum fuel, irrespective of how *fast* it is burned, gives off essentially the same amount of carbon. This is why I'm glad there are bona fide stats experts in the world, and on SkS, to give more meaning to statements like above. I can only do so, in my limited ability to spout stats, due to my intimate knowledge of things that suck-smash-bang-blow!
  19. Philippe Chantreau at 04:10 AM on 29 November 2012
    It's El Niño
    And, as Bob himself remarked earlier, we don't want to take anybody's words out of context. Skywatcher's full sentence about the complaining on "gatekeepers of science" was as follows: "You have to love Bob Tisdale complaining about the 'gatekeepers' of science ... in response to an opening post that starts by discussing the failings of McLean et al who published in JGR!!" JGR being a serious journal, the kind that would definitely add some weight to Bob's argument if he submitted his work there and passed peer-review. Nonetheless, even if that happened, it would be met with healthy, scientific skepticism, as this is what's it's all about, after all; we all understand that peer-review is a minimum standard, not a golden one, and it is not infaillible.
  20. Philippe Chantreau at 03:57 AM on 29 November 2012
    It's El Niño
    A quick question for Bob Tisdale to clarify something about the nino/nina thing: are you arguing that SSTs respond more strongly to El Nino than to La Nina, i.e. that El Nino warms SSTs more than La Nina cools them?
  21. It's El Niño
    Bob, We didn't even get anywhere with the first question, why move on to the second? Doing so will just make the discussion intractable when we haven't even finished the first point. Let's recap: You @40: Why hasn't east pacific warmed? Me @41: Perhaps its internal variability such as PDO You @ 42: PDO can't be because the index exaggerates variability and the is inversely related to the N. pacific residual, and the dominant component is the N pacific Me @ 48: Here's evidence that PDO is a basin-wide mode, and the response in the east is the right order of magnitude to explain the lack of trend. You @ 52: No it can't be basin wide. PDO index doesn't represent SSTA because it is inversely related to the N. pacific residual. Me @56: Shows more evidence of PDO being a basin wide mode, shows PDO index can represent SSTA when interpreted in conjunction with the EOF, I even showed how you can get the scaling factor you found, and why PDO index is inversely related to N pacific SSTA. You @62: PDO index is standardized and exaggerates variability. PDO is inversely related to North pacific SSTA. PDO is index is abstract, why not use NINO3.4? Up to this point, all three of your counters consist of repeating what you think is right. You have not cited any evidence that your understanding is correct. You have not cited one single journal article that PDO does not impart an inter-decadal variability in the east Pacific. Whether PDO index is abstract is irrelevant, and frankly your complaints about the index are just red-herrings. You have avoided the real question: is there an inter-decadal variability that can explain the lack of warming in the east? To me you are just avoiding the issue, and it is not even clear if you've spent time reading and thinking about what I said, because if you had, you will not be repeating the same set of arguments three times. Look, it is not hard. If you think I have a point, that PDO is a viable answer to your first question, say you'll have to think about it and then we move on to your second question. If you think I'm wrong, explain, with new evidence, why I am wrong, and PDO is not a plausible explanation for the trend in E. pacific. Don't use a lack of discussion on your second question as an excuse to avoid discussing responses to your first question. BTW, I think you lost track of where the ball is. You served, I returned serve. I have yet to see the ball coming back to my side of the court. All there is so far is complaints that the ball is too fuzzy, too hard, and there's no ball.
  22. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    Agreed, Dana: As a geologist, I've been worried about the 'clathrate gun' for some time, and this also figures into my worry. The future for our grandkids and beyond is beginning to look *really* not rosy. The graphics, and the message of this post are well-done and *extremely* upsetting.
  23. It's El Niño
    Bob says he's answered all questions put to him here. That's actually not true. He's been asked twice by a couple of different people to explain a key feature of his argument and so far has not replied.
    46 3: (perhaps most importantly) what is the energy source that allows the oceans to drive atmospheric temperature changes while themselves warming on a global scale? Where is the energy coming from, Bob? 70 Where is the energy required to produce net warming of the entire global ocean along with the atmosphere coming from?
    Bob, please just show us how a mass (global ocean+air) can increase in temperature without energy being added to it. Or from another perspective having to do with what our instruments tell us: Is global warming real or not?
  24. It's El Niño
    Bob Tisdale: Why should anyone here feel obliged to respond to your nonsense? As far as I can see your questions are an attempt to side-step sea surface temperature trends as well as increasing ocean heat content. I mean, come on. Your graph of "Detrended Rest-of-World SST Data Disagrees with The Warming of SST Anomalies As Portrayed By AGW Proponents" [SST abbreviated by me]? Of course it disagrees - you detrended the SST data. As far as divergence between SST behaviour and ENSO goes, one would only expect complete agreement between SSTs and ENSO if ENSO were the sole driver of SSTs. But the fact that there is an upward trend in SSTs puts the boots to such a belief: other factors also drive SST behaviour. So, if anything, we would expect divergence from ENSO from time to time. Tom Curtis' post at #80, in the meantime, puts the boots to your claim that the East Pacific "hasn't warmed":
    It turns out that not only is the lack of warming in the East Pacific not statistically significant, its existence is an artifact of the choice of start and endpoints in the data. [Emphasis original.]
    So how is one to characterize your claim "no one here has replied to that question from comment 40" except as refusal, whether through inability or unwillingness, to read others' posts on this thread?
  25. Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
    That Figure 1 by jg is very cool!
  26. It's El Niño
    To all who have commented in response to my appearance here at SkepticalScience: You’ve not answered my very basic questions. In my opening comment (40) here, I presented some graphs and asked questions of you. The first graph was for the East Pacific, which shows no warming over the past 30 years. http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-111.png I asked, Why hasn’t the East Pacific warmed? IanC has attempted to explain why it has not warmed using an abstract form of sea surface temperature. He’s making the effort. Bravo, for that. The third graph was the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Atlantic, Indian, and West Pacific, which I referred to as the “Rest of the World.” http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-13.png It shows four periods when the Rest-of-the-World data diverges from the ENSO index (the scaled NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures [scaling factor 0.12 and lag 6 months). The two divergences in green are obviously the effects of El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo, but the divergences in brown are ENSO-related. The sea surface temperatures for the Rest of the World do not cool proportionally during the La Niña events of 1988/89 and 1998-2001. Everyone here has avoided the discussion of that graph. That’s the big ticket item, and it’s blatantly obvious why it’s important. Up through comment 67, I have replied to your questions and comments, yet no one here has replied to that question from comment 40. It’s time for you to catch up with me. You all are running way behind in the QnA. So I’ll ask the question again: Why does the detrended [Rest of the World] data diverge from the ENSO index during the 1988/89 and 1998/99/00/01 La Niñas? The ball is in YOUR court. Unless YOU can explain those divergences, there is no reason to continue this conversation. If and when you explain them, I’ll be happy to respond to all of the questions you’ve presented. I’ll check back every couple of days. Regards PS: skywatcher says: “You have to love Bob Tisdale complaining about the 'gatekeepers' of science…” I wasn’t complaining, skywatcher. I was being realistic. There is a difference.
  27. It's El Niño
    You have to love Bob Tisdale complaining about the 'gatekeepers' of science ... in response to an opening post that starts by discussing the failings of McLean et al who published in JGR!! Bob, are you saying that your science is not even up to the standard of McLean et al, a classic example of science being entirely open to the so-called skeptics? And for the umpteenth time, where is the heat coming from? And why do you persist in selecting favoured subsets of the data, rather than consider the full body of data? Your cherry-picks may be more elegant than the "it's not warmed since 1998" crowd, but they are still cherry-picks.
  28. It's El Niño
    Kayell, Your quote of William Briggs came from his post here, but I don't think he meant it the way you used it. Considering what he said in the rest of his post, I think his point is that if you are claiming that the trend is upwards, you don't have to use a linear model to make that claim. Whether the claim is a valid one is an entirely different matter. I don't fully agree with what he said, but the example he used is an excellent example as why one has to be very careful drawing patterns out of a noisy time series (BTW ENSO is noise when you are looking at multi-decadal trends). He artificially generated an artificial time series with zero trend with random noise: Yet if you fit a trend line it yields a statistically significant result. Now my question to you is, if you just eyeball the graph and claim that there is an increase till 2005 and then decrease from there, is it a valid claim? If you claim that there is a step, you at the bare minimum have to run some statistical testing as a sanity check. If your assertion passes a statistical test, we can then proceed with caution. If does not, there is no reason for it to be taken seriously. ############################ Now that I think about it a bit more, I think there is a much bigger problem. Your basis for shifting the global SSTA at those two points is based on your arguement that "extra heat piled up globally after an El Niño and during the transition to the first following La Niña", which you supported with the animation, that supposedly shows the "extra heat globally". The problem is this: since you are plotting a scaled global temperature anomalies and a regional temperature anomalies, you can't even interpret the difference between the two as a temperature difference because one of the quantities is scaled, let alone extra heat.
  29. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    Photon Wrangler @11 ...and even if the speedometer is correct, 3% of the other drivers riding in the bus think it's just a shallow descent on the other side of the ridge, which will be great for saving gas - only 97% think its a sharp, painful drop!
  30. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    vrooomie@5 Nice that you catch this piece of humour (sic - humor for you in US). Of course it was intentional: "affluent" implies "effluent" (i.e. discharging sewage) in this context.
  31. Photon Wrangler at 07:59 AM on 28 November 2012
    Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    I like the above Judo-like use of analogies that play to conservatives heightened sense of threat-neutralization. I also like the image of a fast moving train being informed of a potential obstruction. Perhaps someone with artistic skills better than mine could render this scene: --- Passenger: "I can't help but notice that we're headed for a cliff at 60 mph." Driver: "Don't worry, the speedometer isn't entirely accurate. It's possible that we're only doing 50." ---
  32. It's El Niño
    Kayell @84, I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting your technique; although it feels strange to apologize for assuming somebody has used a valid rather than an arbitrary rescaling. Having reread your post @35 (which I had previously only skimmed, I now see where you wrote:
    "When I 'detrended' the global SSTA curve in the graph above, I didn't use a statistical tool to remove a general upward trend. All I did was to pull it down at two (2) short sections: two datapoints in the last half of 1987 (July and November) and one datapoint in the beginning of 1999 (January)."
    Would you please inform me the magnitude of the downward ajustment for each of the three months?
  33. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    I would suggest an analogy with eating. Healthy food in the correct amount is good for you and necessary. Junk food may be better than no food but a full diet of it leads to obesity and ill health later. Fossil fuels are the junk food of our economy. Excess use will lead to severe planetary ill health eventually. Just like our bodies it will be too late to fix the problem after that first heart attack. We need to change our diet.
  34. New research from last week 47/2012
    Fixed, thanks. :)
  35. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    Forrest@7: Speaking of a conservative-oriented analogy for the proper role of uncertainty in determining action, there's the "Cheney Doctrine", better known as "The 1% Doctrine": "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response." We are far more than 1% certain that Business As Usual (BAU) burning of fossil fuels (i.e., no action, as Monckton advocates), will lead to greater (or much greater) than 2C of global warming. The modest warming of about 0.6C that has occurred so far has led to increased extreme weather events and associated multi-billion dollar losses, not to mention the demise of the Arctic sea ice and the additional warming and weather consequences it will cause. We are already committed to much worse consequences from 2C of warming, and we risk catastrophic consequences with 4-6C of warming under Monckton's BAU. The Cheney Doctrine demands that we take action to avert catastrophe. Even common business practices of prudent risk management demand that we act to avert the possibility of catastrophic consequences. Conservatives, what say you about this reasoning? [Oops...I see that Phila@8 gave this analogy while I was writing.]
  36. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    There is vastly more uncertainty about potential terrorist attacks than there is about global warming, yet with terrorism we feel it is our duty to take action despite the unknowns. During the Bush years, I often made an analogy to Dick Cheney's celebrated "One-Percent Doctrine": "If there's a 1-percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response." It was especially effective with people who claimed to see a 50/50 chance (at best) that current climate predictions were accurate. Unfortunately, I don't think dredging up this ancient history would work nowadays. Most denialists I know would probably say "Dick who?" That said, ideologues who laugh off AGW often demand that we take immediate preventive action on far murkier problems, on the basis of much more questionable statistics. Like fighting same-sex marriage to protect Civilization Itself from...something or other. Or launching expensive, disruptive schemes to "prevent" the statistically irrelevant threat of in-person voter fraud. Meanwhile, a massive international conspiracy is the only coherent alternative explanation for the scientific consensus on AGW. There's no evidence that any such conspiracy does or could exist. And yet, this total lack of evidence -- let alone certainty -- doesn't seem to stop a lot of these folks from making very confident allegations about global scientific corruption. Funny how that works.
  37. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    I think an analogy should be something that the target audience can relate to. As most deniers are conservative, put it in military terms. It's like getting credible information about an impending terrorist attack, but taking no action because we're not sure what time the attack will be, or whether they really have as many bombs as they claim, or we're awaiting confirmation that the 20th terrorist has actually boarded a plane, or some similar detail. Obstructionists can always point to some piece of information that isn't yet complete, but there comes a point where we have to act before it's too late. There is vastly more uncertainty about potential terrorist attacks than there is about global warming, yet with terrorism we feel it is our duty to take action despite the unknowns.
  38. There is no consensus
    Here is a very interesting study recently carried out... http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/ According to this chap... "I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles.... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming." So 99.83% of the peer-reviewed articles relating to climate change available on the Web of Science endorse the theory of AGW. I think that pretty much clears up the consensus debate.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
  39. It's El Niño
    Kayell, You clearly fail to understand. Tom's graph is not based on either of our methods. It is properly detrended using a linear term. The justification for your two points is no better or worse than mine. It is arbitrary, unless you can submit an objective mathematical formula that was used to derive your points, as well as a valid physical justification (i.e. a mechanism whereby El Niño heats the atmosphere in step-changes in only those two instances) for doing so, both of which are lacking in your discussion. Tom's method, on the other hand, simply assumes a generally linear warming (not perfectly accurate, no, but it's the right way to do things when it is not entirely possible to separate the noise from the signal). Tom's method is the way it should be done, it makes no assumptions without physical cause, is entirely objective, and produces a result superior to yours/Tisdale's. So why, then, would we consider your/Tisdale's theory as anything more than playing games with graphs?
  40. We're heading into an ice age
    Michael, (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Ignoring the proof citation challenges and the challenges of physical reality contravening your hypothesis put forth earlier by Michael Sweet and by Tom Curtis, it is not helpful to avoid dealing with those challenges and to blithely comment away. You must first deal with those before moving on. Soliloquy snipped.
  41. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    IMO contrarians/deniers/pseudoskeptics confuse or conflate uncertainties at the margins or fringes or cutting edges of the science with uncertainty at its root. They also confuse or conflate uncertainties regarding timing with existential uncertainty. What is uncertain is how soon the Arctic sea ice will be gone in summer time. What is certain is that it will happen if nothing is done to decarbonise (and given time lags and how quickly Arctic sea ice has melted, it may be that there is nothing that can be done to stop the ice from disappearing, only restore the conditions that allow it to form). What is uncertain is when the Greenland or Antarctic land ice sheets will collapse. What is certain is that, again, if nothing is done to decarbonise, the collapses will happen. And so on, and so forth...
  42. It's El Niño
    Tom Curtis @73 says: "As an aside, I was considering the first of your graphs reproduced by Kayell here, which I now realize is not lagged (final clause added in edit). Correctly lagged it looks like this: " Please don't misrepresent the graph you're showing as equal to mine, only lagged. Your global graph is not based on my global, adjusted down in 1987-88 and 1998-99 only. Your graph is based on Sphaerica's randomly adjusted one. This is quite easy to see. The justification for MY two points of adjustment is self-explanatory; just look at (compare) the original data. The justification for Sphaerica's adjustments is nonexistent.
  43. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    chriskoz@1: not sure it was intentional or not, but regardless, the term "effluent lifestyle" nearly made me gag with laughter...and its implicit veracity, vis-a-vis the lifestyle we Westerners so think is our birthright. To do nothing about that which we ourselves have perptrated upon our children, would be to do the *most* foolish thing humanity could conceive of. This is why I *rail* against the Moncktons of the world, for it is their path that is the truly foolish one.
  44. It's El Niño
    Albatross - Thank you, a very informative post. The timings, patterns, and energies observed (in all ocean basins) point to the theory of anthropogenic warming, and contradict the hypothesis of natural variations and cycles. If Bob Tisdale wishes to argue his hypothesis he's going to have to show that his hypothesis matches all of those observations, and in addition provide a supportable mechanism. In particular, he's going to have to address these existing works, demonstrate that they have errors, and how his hypothesis gives a better explanation for observations (not to mention showing why the expected GHG warming does not occur in his framework). You simply cannot put up a new hypothesis without demonstrating shortcomings in the existing theories - not if you want to be taken seriously. As with Albatross, I don't expect Tisdale to be swayed by the evidence either; he has a great deal invested in his hypothesis. But I'm willing to be surprised.
  45. President Obama's Statement on Climate Change
    No measures have any lasting effect without the cornerstone in the battle against climate change: a global carbon tax. This becomes clear from the evolution of CO2 emissions in the last 10 years: Global CO2 emissions are rising faster than according to even the worst scenarios predicted by the IPCC, despite all efforts. We urgently need to get rid of the theorem "Every little bit helps". Because it is incorrect. To give some examples: 1. The promotion of Compact Fluerescent Lamps (CFLs) leads to an increased energy consumption. This phenomenon is called ‘Jevon’s paradox’. To explain it in economical terms: it is a consequence of the law of supply and demand. If certain goods get cheaper (in this case: the cost of one ‘lamp hour’), consumption of these goods will go up. Total energy consumption increases as a result. 2. Promoting bio-fuels, meant as a measure to slow down climate change, leads to massive deforestation, which accelerates climate change. 3. After the oil crisis in the 1970s the American Congress approved a law stating that fuel efficiency had to double in 10 years time. The American car manufacturers succeeded in this task, but the consequence was that total fossil fuel consumption went up. Clinging on to the “Every little bit helps” delusion is both useless and dangerous. Once a global carbon tax has been imposed it does make sense to improve fuel efficiency, reduce the ecological footprint, build renewable energy plants etc. but mainly as tactics to create and maintain prosperity, within the border conditions of the carbon tax.
  46. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON: The right response to the non-problem of global warming — first slide, please — is to have the courage to do nothing. I guess Viscount Monckton is braver than I am, or a fool. “If you fear nothing, then you are not brave. You are merely too foolish to be afraid.” Like the comments so far I use a travel analogy, in my case a train. Imagine a high speed train hears there is an obstruction further down the line. You have to apply the brakes now to avoid the obstruction, it takes along time to stop a train. Yet it could be a false alarm, the obstruction could be on the other track or cleared by the time you get there. Do you apply the brakes and play safe? Delaying your journey and later trains and losing money. Or do you gamble? By the time you know for certain you would not be able to avoid a crash if the warnings were true.
  47. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    Driving a car through a wall (or down a dark steep hill) as a shortcut because of missing certainty what shape the car (and driver and riders) will be in afterwards?
  48. Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty
    It's more like not hitting the brakes on the freeway when you see a traffic jam ahead because you're not quite sure how good your brakes are, and you're not sure if the jam will clear or get worse by the time you plow into it. Normal people would consider either of those a good argument to hit the brakes early, but apparently deniers feel that you have to be 100% sure of the crash before doing anything.
  49. New research from last week 47/2012
    Just a slight error, Ari. The link to the "Classic of the Week" leads to a 2012 Cryosphere paper. Excellent post, as usual.
  50. It's El Niño
    Just swooping down to clarify a few things for Mr. Tisdale. To be accurate one should refer to the theory of anthropogenic warming or theory of human-induced warming, it is not correct to speak of the "hypothesis of anthropogenic warming". To illustrate using an example: Mr. Tisdale has a hypothesis, just like the Slayers of the Skydragon have (had?) a hypothesis. Now until Mr. Tisdale succeeds in convincing the scientists who specialize in this area that his ideas have merit, his idea will forever be destined to obscurity and be nothing more than a hypothesis on a climate "skeptic" or climate denier blog. As for his disappointing excuse not to pursue publishing his ideas in a journal, there is always "Principe Scientfic Intl.". But doing so would not meet the criterion for publishing in a reputable scientific journal. I would dare Mr. Tisdale to publish in J. Climate or JGR-A or GRL or Nature or Science, but then I would be guilty of very likely wasting the valuable time of the editors and busy scientists with Mr. Tisdale's well-intentioned, but misguided ideas. Anyhow, it is telling that he is not up for the challenge, instead invoking conspiracy theories rather than actually submitting a manuscript for review by experts in the field. On the following, I do not necessarily wholly disagree with Mr. Tisdale, however, scientists have been researching this and publishing their findings in highly respected journals for some time now: "It’s best to divide the oceans into logical subsets, because coupled ocean-atmospherics processes impact ocean basins in significantly different ways. Realistically, that’s the only way anyone can attempt to perform an attribution study on the warming of ocean heat content data--or sea surface temperature data." Here is a review of some relevant papers through time on this subject. Note that they all find compelling evidence that the long-term warming of the planet's oceans is primarily externally driven (that is it is primarily the result of higher greenhouse gas levels from human activities). They have found this using sea-surface temperatures, ocean heat content and even salinity. Moreover, they have found the anthropogenic signal both globally and over individual basins. In short, the long-term warming of the planet's oceans is primarily in response to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, not El Nino or ENSO. To wit: Sedláček and Knutti (2012,GRL). Two of their key findings: "Ocean warming of the last century cannot be explained by natural variability The warming signal is visible throughout the whole ocean" Gleckler et al. (2012, Nature Climate Change), "Our detection and attribution analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to a variety of model and data-processing choices. When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence." From Pierce et al. (2012), "We find that observed changes are inconsistent with the effects of natural climate variability, either internal to the climate system (such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) or external (solar fluctuations and volcanic eruptions). However, the observed changes are consistent with the changes expected due to human forcing of the climate system." From Santer et al. (2008, PNAS), "For the period 1906–2005, we find an 84% chance that external forcing explains at least 67% of observed SST increases in the two tropical cyclogenesis regions. " From Pierce et al. (2006, J. Climate), "The observed sampling of ocean temperature is highly variable in space and time, but sufficient to detect the anthropogenic warming signal in all basins, at least in the surface layers, by the 1980s." From Barnett (2005, Science) "A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. " From Barnett et al. (2001, Science) "Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system." Then again, I do not expect Mr. Tisdale to be swayed by the overwhelming evidence against his idea. But maybe he will surprise us. Now the roaring forties beckon.

Prev  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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