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  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  Next

Comments 52401 to 52450:

  1. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Bill, Understanding and predictability are completely different. You can have the most sophisticated model that includes all the relevant physics (i.e. 100% understanding), yet have dismal predictability because you have insufficiently good initial data. The difficulty with forecasting ENSO is that it is effectively a long term weather forecast for the ocean, and it suffers from sensitivity to initial conditions the same way a weather model does. Let's not get side tracked by predictability and finish the original discussion My points are 1) Ocean can warm or cool the atmosphere. It depends on the surface temperature. 2) Your objection pt 3 in #38 is likely due to an incomplete understanding of oceanic dynamics. Warm water can downwell if you apply a wind forcing.
  2. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Tristan - "I had to stop, because it was adversely affecting my mood." I'm sure we can all empathise with this, and I've little doubt this is an active, albeit possibly subconscious, strategy employed by those who want to shut down debate. I know from talking to people who are deeply concerned about climate change how many of them avoid comment threads because they find them too depressing. I wonder if there's call for a basic 'how to cope with internet climate discussions' guide, particularly for people who don't spend the necessary hours reading up on the details of the science to be confident responding to the more technical misinformation. I know how helpful it is just to have a bit of support at times and I think if more people gave moral support it would help to tip the balance. I think there are a few simple things that can make a difference which anyone can do. Just starting off with clicking recommends can help. Some other ideas: asking for evidence for unsupported claims (and following this up if not forthcoming or if evidence provided is questionable), pointing out contradictions - not necessarily scientific ones but just in terms of tone, pointing out when questions haven't been answered, pointing out when more points have been thrown in before others have been addressed etc. etc. I'm sure there must be many people who have time to make a difference but are reluctant to take part because of the reactions any commenting draws. Anything to encourage more people to weigh in.
  3. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    IanC at 01:31 AM on 29 October, 2012 "Billhunter, You characterisation of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) as folklore cannot be more incorrect. Of all the modes of variability on longer timescales (> 1 year), it is probably the most well understood." Wow! Most well understood! ENSO prediction in at least the 5 years I have been monitoring it is abysmal. 3 months ago a fairly decent El Nino was projected for right now. The two models controlled by Jim Hansen GISS an Cola CCSM something have hands down the worst record of the lot. Usually predictions in the short run are fairly decent like over the first 3 months or so. Beyond that success tails off dramatically. The ENSO forecast system only goes out 8 months. If thats the best climate stuff we have, we don't have much climate prediction ability. To carry on a bit, prediction is aided some by the fact its an oscillation. So some predictibility arises from that. It is also appearing that the Pacific oscillation may have some effect on the mix of El Nino and La Nina, though it seems few know enough to incorporate in their models. Some models are doing much better than others. It might be worthwhile to look at why.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please take any further discussion of models to the appropriate page.
  4. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    I appreciate the reasonable comments from most. It seems that the primary argument here is that heat is sinking in the oceans. I am not arguing that heat cannot sink via wind and tides (thats what the mixing layer is dominated by). But that alone is insufficient to explain the missing heat. I am not lecturing anybody either, merely pointing out that heat rises in both liquid and gaseous mediums of unchanging chemical composition. If heat is sinking into the ocean it should be broadly supported by science and clearly that's not the case. Cherry picking which scientists we choose to believe about what is going on in the system seems rather overwrought, which was basically my claim of a lot of to do about nothing. I am just a member of the public that has been regaled for over a decade from numerous institutions offering up warming atmosphere temperatures as evidence of global warming. Now that the popular and primary evidence no longer supports the case, no one is going to convince the public that Curry is wrong without actually demonstrating the heat is sinking into the ocean as the idea runs contrary to our empirical sensibility. One might start by explaining why the average temperature the ocean is so much below that of the average temperature of the surface. Should not heat coming from both directions warm the ocean? We have intense heat at the core of the planet very slowly conducting to the surface. If we dig a hole in the ground the average depth of the ocean 3,000 meters it gets warmer. We also have a greenhouse effect that makes the surface about 10degrees warmer than the average temperature of the ocean. So obviously there must be an explanation for why the ocean is not isothermal. Downwelling of super cooled water is one theory some scientists have proposed. One might assume that process has some variability to it. But what we are seeing concurrent with the loss of ice is more cold upwelling not less. Thus increasing the strength of the arctic halocline by melting ice would seem to be an explanation that adds to the problem rather than provides an explanation. Occam's razor suggests more downwelling of supercooled water. I am not saying thats a fact that simply the answer that best reflects our understanding. Throwing salinity in is a lot like throwing convection into the greenhouse effect argument. One cannot pick and choose what he wants to ignore. . . .I agree with that. But thats the challenge of those who pretend to understand climate, not the public. One explanation is perhaps the loss of multiyear ice and the distribution of surface waters world wide has weakened the arctic halocline either on average or regionally say at places of higher rates of downwelling. Not saying thats so, but some cohesive explanation is very much needed for increased upwelling of cold water. But I am getting too much into the weeds. This is the job for climate models to explain. A lot less certainty about whats happening would much more accurately reflect the need for additional knowledge. Seems to me that's what Curry has been saying since day one. So to be clear I am not giving a science lecture but I am open to one.
  5. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Bill, Before you can say "Finally the claim the heat is in the oceans seems to defy physics. Heat rises in both water and the atmosphere. " you need to understand basic Physics and Chemistry. Fresh water is most dense at 4C. 0C water floats on top of 4C water. This is related to the obvious fact that ice floats. In sea water the situation is more complicated. The density is a function of the salinity and the temperature. Since, as was pointed out above, the circulation of the oceans is partly driven by wind, if the salinity and temperature of the surface changes it is basic physics that the bottom water will be affected also. Do you think the catastrophic ice loss in the Arctic changed the salinity at all? If the water column increases in temperature by 0.1C that is a lot of heat. Please review your basic physics before you give others lectures. You will come across much better if you ask questions instead of giving lectures. How can warmer water sink? would be appropriate.
  6. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    This paper may be of interested to you. The rates are derived from permanent GPS stations. The rates of GIA are quite smaller than those suggested in figure 4 in the Hudson's bay area. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/2006GL027081.pdf
  7. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Billhunter, You characterisation of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) as folklore cannot be more incorrect. Of all the modes of variability on longer timescales (> 1 year), it is probably the most well understood. The heat transfer between atmosphere and the ocean depends crucially on the the temperature difference between air and sea surface, and it is not always true that the ocean warms the air. If you cool the ocean surface sufficiently ( e.g. during La Nina years), the heat can be transferred from the air to the ocean, leading to a drop in global temperature. You said:
    La Ninas appear to be upwellings of cold water from the bottom of the ocean, but it seems it needs to actually represent ocean cooling as the upwelling water needs to be replaced by water via downwelling, and warm water does not downwell.
    In the pacific there is constant upwelling on the eastern end due to the trade winds. It is more accurate to think of La Nina as years with stronger than normal upwelling, and El Nino as years with weaker upwelling. It is also incorrect to state that ocean must cool during La Nina years: it is true that the ocean surface cools, but the overall heat content of the entire ocean is largely unchanged. Warm water can in fact downwell. What you are thinking of is likely up/downwelling due to density/buoyancy changes. However the upwelling/downwelling in the ENSO is driven not by density, but by surface wind.
    The AMO shows the main downwelling zones being near the poles where water is being cooled so basic physics suggests...
    What you are describing here is called "deep water formation". This is a density driven process, so it is not helpful at all to think about ENSO in terms of deep water formation, as the physics is completely different.
  8. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Bill, I'm sure you're going to get an earful, and I hope you come back after you do get your earful. I hope you listen to criticisms of your comment, because that comment contains a number of very irritating "smudges." The line in paragraph three says, "current slowed rate of global surface warming." You say it says,"you acknowledge global warming has stopped." This is the kind of imprecision that paid "skeptics" produce as a matter of course, because they know their audiences aren't going to understand the distinction. Note that the troposphere/surface makes up all of what, 5% of the Earth's surface-ocean-atmosphere system thermal capacity. If you say that AGW has stopped because 5% of the system has experienced a slower rate of warming (using the least representative surface temp analysis) even though the other 95% is rolling along as predicted (or even more strongly than predicted), pardon me if I laugh in your face -- unless, of course, you honestly didn't realize the globe consists of more than the simple surface temp (minus poles for Hadley (GISS is a significant .146C per decade over 1996-2011, the last 16 whole years)). Note also that 2-3% of the additional energy is going into global ice mass loss, and that loss has accelerated over the "haitus" period of surface temp. As for the oceans, see (and reply to) the Levitus piece, this article, and SoD's pieces.
  9. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Gary I appreciate your call to action. A lot of regular posters on this site do engage with the sketpics (typo, but then I decided I liked it!) elsewhere. I had to stop, because it was adversely affecting my mood. I have no idea whether or not I swayed any of the 'undecided' as a result of my trek through a hundred thousand lines of snark. My hat goes off to John Brookes, who has been doing it almost daily over at JoNova's site for what must be at least 2 years. Also to one "Adam Smith" who 'won the game' by being banned for somehow responding to almost every silly meme perpetrated in several dozen threads. He was so effective and prolific that the denizens decided he must be a team of individuals from GetUp, the ALP or (presumably) Endor.
  10. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Seems a lot of to do about nothing. 1) It seems in paragraph 3 you acknowledge global warming has stopped. (you say slowed but for all practical and statistical purposes it has stopped). You said: "the current slowed rate of global surface warming". .03 warming per decade is as good as stopped (at least temporarily) 2) You also acknowledge that it is due to aerosols produced by China burning coal in a rapid industrialization. Not only is that in conflict with your claim the heat is going into the ocean, but it in fact means the heat is not even entering the planet in the first place due to manmade emissions. I think that means its stopped too. 3) Finally the claim the heat is in the oceans seems to defy physics. Heat rises in both water and the atmosphere. Its basic physics. So if you claim it is entering the ocean I think you need to explain, via some physics, why its allegedly coming out more slowly and not warming the atmosphere in accordance with the basic physics it normally does. I have built passive solar space heating systems using water as a heat storage medium. I have yet to notice the system just mysteriously slowing down. La Ninas and El Ninos is kind of a folklore type explanation so thats not adequate. La Ninas appear to be upwellings of cold water from the bottom of the ocean, but it seems it needs to actually represent ocean cooling as the upwelling water needs to be replaced by water via downwelling, and warm water does not downwell. The AMO shows the main downwelling zones being near the poles where water is being cooled so basic physics suggests that the cold upwelling La Nina water is being replaced by colder water and El Nino must generally be a time of low rates of downwelling cold water. That would at minimum likely be the null hypothesis unless I am missing something. Don't take any of the above as an argument against CO2 being a greenhouse gas. It just seems its not the only thing that controls temperatures of the surface.
  11. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #7
    It is not Adaptation versus Mitigation that is very misleading and not understanding what adaptation means now at all. Adaptation includes all mitigation efforts otherwise adaptation isn't going to be possible and we're into the survival! I would suggest people read about adaptation and how adaptatioon and mitigation go hand in hand. Also watch Eileen Shea talk at the Waether and Climate summit earlier this year to get a deeper understanding of Adpatation (which again includes all mitigation efforts and carbon sequestration on a massive scale!). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1CySwdMW7w&list=PL61B096B67AD0EE3E&index=15&feature=plcp
  12. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    For me the most remarkable aspect of the program was how clearly it revealed the line of thinking among deniers. It starts with quite libertarian and wealth-centric priorities, which in turn are the basis for objections to any action on climate change. With those objections established, they are immediately convinced that the science is wrong. Their route to that conclusion completely bypassed an investigation of the facts as a factor in the conclusions they reach. At that point the science is - dare I say it - an inconvenience, and becomes their arena of choice for (a) cherry-picking to support a confirmation bias and (b) a place to try to sow doubt. Their mind is already made up. The effort to develop meaningful climate action is a task akin to religious conversion, rather than reaching scientific conclusions. Ugh.
  13. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Just so it's here, not only might there have been MWP-LIA differences in solar insolation and volcanic activity,but in Law Dome CO2 over last 2000 years. Snow-albedo amplification works both ways, and Northern Hemisphere around snow line is where one would expect to see larger effects. As noted elsewhere, one has to be really careful with apples/oranges comparisons among reconstructions. NH "extra-tropics" is not the same as NH, it's either 50% of the NH (30degN-) or 60% (23.5degN-). Spaghetti charts sometimes require reading fine print somewhere else.
  14. funglestrumpet at 08:24 AM on 28 October 2012
    Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    On BBC R4's Today programme this morning I heard the Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, blame climate change on the sun. What hope is there if someone can hold such an office yet can't be bothered to study the most important item in their brief?
  15. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #7
    Errm, "Phsycotherapy"?
  16. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    The 'stink-tanks' have been around Americans (and I am one) since the mid 50s. Facts are never facts as long as people are prone to believe what they want to believe and don't tune into reality. How long will the simple minded love simplicity? It's good to be told in your old age that the global temperature is declining and the arctic sea ice will rebound. I'm still waiting to hear Santa Claus is real and the Tooth Fairy is going to pay up with interest. It's good in my old age to think I haven't left a screwed up mess of a planet for my children to inherit and deal with. There may be a chance in the next three years for certain governments, including my own, to be shocked enough by events and put away their interests in the arctic, like a child getting bored with a new toy. It's human nature to always want more of something we can't take care of and we can only hope sanity gets it's day. If we allow that arctic sea ice to melt away, we can kiss every city that is near a coast good-bye. That means no more Washington, DC and London.
  17. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    sincam, as a long-time car nut/mechanic, could you show me the source of an engine, of any type, that can run on pure O2? Not being combustible in any automotive engine I'm aware of, I need to see what documentation supports the idea. I'll also step in here and say that, other than in the form of H2, no internal combustion engine runs solely on water.
  18. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Gary: Let me warn you, don't use the words deny, denier or denialist on their sites! You have to use your imagination and come up with another way to express yourself. "Denskepticog" works for me. :-)
  19. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    I was surprised by extent of the tactics that the 'think-tanks' and the funding machines have evolved, and how determined they are to keep going and utterly destroy the capacity for science to inform society's approach to climate-change. Only one outcome of the Climate Wars gives humanity half a chance of mitigating and managing the impact of climate change over the next few generations.
  20. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Let me start off by saying how grateful I am that a site on the internet spends it's time to get to the truth. This is my first post here and I'm going to get right to the point. I'm not trying to detract from this site by sending someone somewhere else, because I have used the material from this site, particularly images, to battle against ignorance and have respect for this site. My appeal is a simple request for scientists or anyone with concern about our climate to go to contrarian sites and speak their minds. This call to do battle on other sites, like WUWT, is contrary to the comforts of home, where people agree about reality and I don't suggest a person should spend much of their time there, but I know from experience that Denialista sites can be beaten. It's been my experience that to fight those Phillistines, there's a jawbone of an ass laying everywhere and I don't suggest giving them Samson time. Let me warn you, don't use the words deny, denier or denialist on their sites! You have to use your imagination and come up with another way to express yourself. They like to moderate and play a game that denialist has something to do with the Holocaust. I also warn you to not get caught in the trap of stupidy, where it's easier to think up something dumb than use reason. You're on their turf and they know the jawbones of asses are everywhere. Back to the point of this post! Scientists, concerned citizens, I beg you to do battle on this ignorance. I don't want you to dedicate your life to it, but just give a few moments of your day. Start up an account and just voice your opinion on their comments. Thank you!
  21. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    dana1981@14 OK, point taken regarding Taylor. And thanks for this post. While watching Climate of Doubt I thought there should have been more explanation of why the scientific case of the "septics" is so lacking in credibility. But after thinking about it more I realized that in a one hour show you can only address so much: And like other commenters here I think PBS did a very good job exposing how the Heartland, etc was all about politics/worldview instead of rational discussion. The show was a good prod to any open minded viewers to view skeptically the "skeptics".
  22. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    One particularly important soundbite from the show was when Katharine Hayhoe said that even the clerk in her grocery store had heard of the climategate emails, demonstrating the strength of the denier's PR machine.
  23. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Roger D - Forbes regularly publishes James Taylor's nonsensical distortions of climate science. The good news is that very few people read his posts. Whenever I see a James Taylor Forbes article, I feel better when I look at the number of views at the top of the page. He's a nasty, but very small fish.
  24. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    sorry - Taylor's "piece" is on Forbes, not WSJ.
  25. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    John Brookes@2 - I think that in the future, only a small percentage of those in the general public (call them "genral public skeptics")that held onto their "skepticism" will be embarrassed at how they had naively accepted the arguments that supported what they wanted to believe. Most future former-"skeptics" in the general public probably won't ever do any soul searching or even feel resentment for those that sold them a lie. Humans seem to be expert at rationalizing things like this. True, the "professional skeptics" that feed the "general public skeptics" will fade away at some point, but I think they will never do it in shame because they don't actually believe the vast majority of what they say IMO. I think they know climate change will be bad, but they themselves, and there societal peers, are situated to grow old and pass on without having to deal with the consequences. If my opinion is right, then the emotion to feel any real remorse is absent from these people. James Taylor, interviewed in "Climate of Doubt", today in the Wall Street Journal writes about how science supports his contention that global warming will actually be good for Africa. There are links in Taylor's peice to the supporting science. One is a USGS study on water cycle intensification - it takes only 10 minutes to read it and see that Taylor is wrong that it supports his contention that global warming will be good for Africa: the "general public skeptic" will never do that, he/ she will just trust the "professional skeptic", after all he linked a USGS paper ...Better stop, starting to ramble and just getting depressed about it.
  26. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    No. Ceramic membranes have been investigated for years. Their problem is that they require 700-900C to operate. MIT only moved the heat source to attain that temperature from the back end (exhaust heat) to the front end (incoming fuel heat). This new technology uses air at ambient temperature and pressure and relies on the fact that O2 is electro negative and N2 is not. This means that O2 will absorb electrons to become negative ions and N2 will give up electrons to become positive ions. Powerful forces can be generated on each molecule to separate them. Carbon sequestration is moving CO2 to long term storage reservoirs. The reservoirs can be underground caverns or it can be rocks (check how limestone is formed), or it can be sodium bicarbonate to feed alge, which produce fuel. This could also apply to cars. You go to a gas station to fill up and to recycle the captured carbon from the engine designed to run on pure oxygen and produce only H2O & CO2 (loose the pollution control equipment- not needed).
  27. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    @John Brookes At some point the "skeptics" will simply fade away, embarrassed to talk about their previous beliefs. While I would really love to believe that, one look at the Creationist Museum in Kentucky leads me to believe they will always be there. No matter the evidence, personal belief just trumps rational thought in a lot of cases. I haven't seen the program yet, I intend to this weekend. If it is as good as is being claimed here, I'll be sharing it far and wide here in Canada. Tragically, our proximity to the US has really helped in allowing the misinformation campaign to spread north. A discouragingly large portion of the Canadian public is now skeptical or denying climate science, and while there is mounting opposition to the country's black eye, the tar sands, and its associated pipelines, this more commonly stems from wishing to protect the regional evironment rather than the global climate @shoyemore, I'd currently say that the Harper government is worse than the G.W. Bush administration on the climate front. Bush at least acknowledged the threat of global warming and climate change, whereas Harper - to the best of my knowledge - has never done so. Worse yet, Canada is now actively engaged in disrupting attempts at climate action and we have the pathetic point of being the only country to withdraw from Kyoto.
  28. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    "Although some have criticized the program for not going into greater depth about the major consequences of climate change that we face as a result of our climate inaction," I strongly disagree. To talk about consequence or dabble in the potential of prediction plays into the hands of contrarians who are already heavily invested in conflating the science of what is happening with the fears of what will happen. One of the biggest and often used talking points involves linking model predictors that have failed and use those to suggest that current metrics should be discounted. I think we need to keep the horse before the cart and concentrate on the evidence that indicates. Once that is well established and the outliers of denial are squashed it will be easier and more fruitful to get the public and the policy makers on board the amelioration express.
  29. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    Chevron has come out swinging! $2.5 Million donated to House GOP superpac in the single largest corporate post-citizens united donation. And do these tactics ever appear to be working; Climate Progress reports that Congress has voted 109 times in the last 18 months to enrich Big Oil. But there's good news yet;
  30. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    One wonders whether P.B.S will ever get to re-visit the issue of Climate Change, given Mitt Romney's threat to cut its funding if he were to become President.From the perspective of the political right, who needs a pesky public broadcaster when you have Fox News ? @ Bernard J. When looking at whose ahead in policy terms, vis-a-vis Australia or the US, I would have to say Australia. Simply because Australia's national parliament has managed to pass laws taxing CO2 emissions. The laws have been in place for some time, and the sky has not fallen in, as predicted by the opposition. If the opposition were to become the government, they would certainly try to overturn those laws, but may find unscrambling the egg no easy task. In the US though, congress looks as far away as ever from getting up a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme. A state of affairs not helped by the slow recovery from the GFC. Whatever the imperfections of the Australian scheme, at least the national government has taken the first tentative steps, to de-carbonise Australia's economy.
  31. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    I find that most of my friends, educated people in their 50's, and interested in public affairs, are not well informed on climate change. They mostly accept the climate science, and are not in any way "skeptics". But I'm not sure they would sit through that show. I did, and it was quite clear that the "skeptics" came out of it badly, although their supporters might not think so. Their sliminess, the association with tobacco, the way the play the man, all of this would turn off a large chunk of the public. I really liked the show, and though the interviewer did a masterful job.
  32. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    OPatrick #4, I live in Ireland, so am not that well versed in the sales of UK newspapers.:) At least the TV stations in these here islands are mostly free from deep denialism. The UKIP clearly did not lighten it's attacks on climate science since Monckton jumped ship, or was pushed. Denialism seems to be strongest in the English-speaking countries. Is is because that there wealth has such a big say in politics? Or is it just because that is what we focus on? In Canada, the Harper government seems to be a continuation of George W. Bush - paying lip service to science, but in practice ignoring it. That may be even worse than the public denial that can be openly called to account.
  33. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    @sincam If this is the low cost pure oxygen production technology you're referring to: Oxygen-separation membranes could aid in CO2 reduction ...then you still have the problem of what to do with the pure stream of CO2 that is emitted by the process. They suggest it could be sequestered in the ground, but that comes with its own set of problems, as you are well aware. And how could it possibly apply to cars? Not the panacea you make it out to be.
  34. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    We need politicians who can lead and inspire people not to follow them. Overall they are afraid to explain something to people which can not be explained in 1 minute. And because of the media it is not getting better, they should do more to expose the "sceptics" Videos from potholer & Greenman explain the basics in a way most educated people can understand, they should be shown on public television every week, maybe with a discussion between "sceptics" and scientists afterwards for 25 minutes on that subject alone. Of course Teaparty & co. (in Netherlands PVV) will tell this is the MSM and there is no room for debate and the videos are biased....
  35. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Powerful and scary - but to what extent does the programme fall into the rhetorical trap of repeating the myths? The majority of the programme was given over to 'sceptics' voicing their opinions and whilst anyone listening with even the slightest degree of reflection would realise how weak their positions are I wonder if that's enough. My instincts say it is, but what we are being told by experts in communication seems to say otherwise - or am I misapplying those arguments to a longer and more detailed broadcast like this? shoyemore #2 - saying 'except from...' and then naming probably the three most influential newsapapers in the UK is not so comforting. UKIP (roughly equivalent to the Tea Party, at least in levels of lunacy) are having a corrosive effect on the quality of politics here. Mainstream Conservatives are genuinely scared of losing votes to this extreme and there looks to be an increasing move to keep those voters in the fold. What's depressing to see is how willing politicians, who previously worked within a consensus on climate change, are to abandon their principles for cheap votes.
  36. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    From a European point of view, the situation is different. Governments, publicly at least, do pay attention to climate change, even in much more austere circumstances than obtain in either Australia or the US. The behaviour of the Tea Party is just bizarre by any standard - I thought the few minutes devoted to ex-Rep Bob Inglis were among the most powerful of the show - a solid, intelligent Conservative public representative summarily thrown out of office for accepting science! Clearly, there was more than a reaction to climate change going on there. I think the emotional shock of losing to a Northern Democrat, and a black one at that, galvanised all sorts of toxic reactions among the Republican base, and the climate contrarians were able to climb on that band-wagon, powered also by the effects of the recession. God knows what will happen if (hopefully, when) they lose again. In the UK, there are climate contrarians in the Conservative Party, which leads the Government in coalition with the Liberals. But the battle is mainly being fought behind closed doors, and the battlefield is more over renewable energy subsidies and carbon caps than the science, which attracts little in the way of negative comment - except from the Daily Mail, the Conservative Daily Telegraph, or (sometimes) Murdoch's Sunday Times. I only half agree with John Brookes #2 - I think the contrarians have won on public policy because the politicians are weak, and too willing to take the line of least resistance in a period of economic hardship. But I think public opinion is broadly coming round to the idea that global warming action cannot be postponed for much longer - mainly because the signs of climate change are becoming too obvious to be suppressed.
  37. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    I agree that contrarians have won the policy/public opinion battle. But it will be a short term victory. Reality will bite, and the science will become more and more solid. At some point the "skeptics" will simply fade away, embarrassed to talk about their previous beliefs.
  38. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    James Hansen has an excellent debunking of Michael's claims here Comments on Assertions of Pat Michaels at Grover Norquist's "Wednesday" Meeting, 5 September 2012
  39. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Chriskoz - "Hansen has recently asserted that the current radiative imbalance was +0.5W/m2" Actually, closer to +0.6W/m2. Perhaps the simplest way to appreciate this is that the ocean warming demonstrated, most recently in Levitus & Nuccitelli (2012), is actually a proxy for the Earth's energy imbalance. 93% of global warming has gone into the oceans over the last 50-60 years because they are the planet's largest reservoir of heat. That the oceans continue to warm shows that an imbalance still exists - as we would expect it to given the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide, and the mechanism of greenhouse gas-induced warming of the oceans. Estimates of the Earth's energy imbalance cover the 2001-2006 global dimming period shown in Hatzianastassiou (2011), and despite the slowdown in ocean heating (between 2004-2008 in particular), the oceans continue to accumulate heat. So no, this study result does not mean the Earth's energy imbalance should have been negative over this time period. Indeed, a slowdown in ocean heating during the latter part of the 2001-2006 period is highly suggestive that this global dimming did in fact occur. I'm working on the follow up - the primary purpose of this post is to show that global dimming occurred during the "noughties" - a period where global surface temperatures barely increased, but ocean warming continued. BTW, I've also seen bloggers naively link to the data from satellite products which measure the transparency of the atmosphere, as if that somehow invalidates peer-reviewed research - a recent example being here. There are a number of reasons why this cannot be relied upon, much of which is detailed in previous work by these authors. That will be covered in a general post on aerosols in the near-future.
  40. Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
    Perhaps the one flaw in the program was that it created the impression that the climate contrarians have won the policy battle.
    In terms of the Australian political landscape over the last five years, which is of course not the same as the US situation, I'd say that climate contrarians have won the battle. Oh, we managed to get a price put on carbon, but only after the original scheme was kiboshed by a negative publicity campaign, and only after the federal government overthrew its prime minister. Worse is the fact that the eventual carbon price has endured withering unwarranted criticism, and the promise of elimination by the Coalition whose entire platform is based on the notion that a carbon price is not necessary, and that it is government policy that determines whether or not refugees and asylum searchers decide to come the the country by boat. On the conservative side of Australian politics there is, in addition to a Federal Opposition peopled with rabid human-caused climate change deniers promising to rescind the carbon price, the Queensland State Government that has abolished its Climate Office, and the NSW State Government which has removed the need for reference to IPCC sea level projections when planning coastal developments. To say nothing of the governments across the country falling A over T in an effort to flog as much coal as can be dug out of the ground as quickly as possible. Scrape beneath the surface of the decision-making that has led to these outcomes, and there is a swath of denialist campaigning. And as things stand, the lobbying has been sufficiently successful that we will likely see the most aggressively denialist parties ever win federal government next year, setting both Australia and the world up for more delay at a time when action is perhaps the most cricial that it will ever be.
  41. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    John Mashey is following the Heartland money trail here Fakery 2: More Funny Finances, Free Of Tax
  42. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    @ Cornelius Concerning the UKIP policy document, The graph they reproduce showing the various warm and cold periods since the last ice age ends at 0BP, which is 1950, so it misses out the last 62 years of warming and thus gives the impression that the preceding warm periods were warmer than today.
  43. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    The early stages of the PBS video, featuring snippets of speeches & interviews by CEI, Heartland, Republican contrarians, Monckton & the like crowing about their PR successes is making me feel ill.
  44. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    Well, this will be a political comment, and as such, it possibly contravenes the comments policy, and you may certainly delete it. But it's a political post, and, I think, one of the most telling posts that I have ever seen on SkS... So, reading from your table above, Monckton, Watts, Delingpole etc are actually arguing for the interests of Iran (Ahminejad), Saudi Arabia (the ibn Saud and bin Laden clans), Venezuela (Chavez), Kuwait, Gazprom (Putin),etc., etc. etc., until, in 11th place we get to them good old boys from Texas, Exxon. As I am not American, I am unwilling to expand too much on American politics, but I really can't see how this works with the conservative base... "Vote for me! I'm against all advice from the US military (eg. NASA, eg. US Navy), but I stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight against the "global warming hoax" with my good old buddies, Ahminajad, Ibn Saud + bin Laden, Chavez, Putin and, in 11th place, Dubya."
  45. NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
    LaughinChance appears to be asserting that an open letter written by a tiny handful of administrators, engineers, and non-climate scientists is intellectually equivalent to the consilient, interlocking lines of evidence from physics theory, laboratory & model experiment, and empirical observation as collected and analysed by thousands of scientists and endorsed by virtually every major scientific organization in the world. Suffice to say, LaughinChance is unequivocally incorrect in such a case. Having just skimmed through this post (never fear, I did read it in detail upon its publication) again I don't recall that it touched on the point I am about to make, but since it was in the "highlights" highlighted by LaughinChance, I feel it is worth noting. The 49 letter-writers state:
    We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated [Emphasis mine.]
    While dana does take the letter-writers to task for failing to show that NASA is being unnecessarily alarmist, I would like to take the letter-writers, and hence LaughinChance, for pretending that belief, in science, is the equivalent of evidence. It's not, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. Evidence is what the IPCC, NASA GISS, and advocates for action against climate change have backing them up. Belief is the empty shell supporting denial and inactivism.
  46. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    “…they then stick to these beliefs, partly as a matter of solidarity with their cultural group, regardless of how much more they learn about the science." I think it would be more accurate to say, “regardless of how much more they hear from science.” They are not interested in learning. That requires an open mind and a willingness to learn. They are determined to defend their emotional and intuitive beliefs. Please do not be too disappointed if the anti-science echo chamber only becomes louder. Likewise I hope you will not be too disappointed if the oil companies do nothing to actually help reduce GHG emissions and continue to develop ever more oil fields. Soon the demand to open ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, to oil exploration will overwhelm the resistance to it; especially if Romney wins. If you haven’t seen it yet the Frontline Climate of Doubt site is an excellent resource. If you are interested in learning about how the climate change countermovement is now secretly funded you should see what Robert Brulle has to say. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/ For the oil companies it is all about appearance. It is no longer about active opposition because the secret opposition and secret funding is more than sufficient. Of course they will do nothing to actually put an end to their enormously profitable industry. Sure they will no longer obviously fund denier organizations but they will fund the politicians who will vote against any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions. Sure they might try to reduce methane leaks but they will still open up more crude and natural gas plays. The two big petroleum industry news stories for this week: The US may soon become the world’s top oil producer, and due to a deal with BP the Russian oil company Rosneft will now rival Exxon Mobil in oil and gas production. More production out of Africa, more production from the Arctic, more pipelines for the tar sands, more, more, more. It is just too early in the fight to be optimistic.
  47. NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
    LaughinChance, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to show why you're off the deep end on this one. Can you defend the claims made in the letter? Or are you just blindly accepting the views of 49 non-experts? (and, further, suggesting that everyone reading your comment do the same)
  48. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    "I read your loaded adjectives & pointed hyperbole & wonder how it's possible you overlooked the 49 NASA Scientists... Do a google: 49 NASA Scientist's letter, read it yourself!" Do a check on this website and read the SkS response yourself: http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html
    Moderator Response: [DB] Any wishing to respond to LaughinChance, please do so on the most appropriate thread.
  49. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Chriskoz - there was some missing text with the annually averaged rate of change - now fixed. "This can be seen in Figure 1, where the Northern Hemisphere experienced a brightening of 0.17 W/m2 (0.028 W/m2 per year), and the Southern Hemisphere a dimming of -2.88 W/m2 (0.-48W/m2 per year)" Thanks.

Prev  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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