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  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  Next

Comments 53051 to 53100:

  1. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Could someone add some quotes from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that have been debunked? I have knowledgeable friends, UEs (Unconvinced by the Evidence) and CEs (Convinced by the Evidence) who think Al Gore's film was a "hit alpha amidships". I'm a CE since the 1990s (Lovelock's "The Ages of Gaia"). I'm not an Earth sciences guy (B.S. applied math / physics, M.S. computer science) with only a casual knowledge of climate science, but I spotted many over-reaching claims when "Inconvenient Truth" first opened. Not good! Gore politicized the issue & passed many alarmist messages based on some claims that were not true or misleading. The damage continues... ACC is too important not to acknowledge excesses on more than one side and send out the repair parties.
  2. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Wow! GREAT video. "Seeing is believing" - even for non-believers, one can hope. I will be recommending this to every UE (Unconvinced by the Evidence) that I know. Thanks, Barry & Peter Sinclair.
  3. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Dana, I don't doubt for a second that WUWT and World Climate Report (WCR) publish flawed science and distort findings. That was obvious within a half-hour of browsing for even a relative amateur like myself. I'd like to see SkS Basic tabs effectively counter those pretty graphs and easy-to-understand slick words from WUWT and WCR that are quoted endlessly by Fox News and WSJ editorials. That may mean simplifying the Basic tabs and moving more precise stuff to Intermediate and Expert tabs. Rob Painting - Thanks! I'll be looking forward to the upcoming posts and rebuttals.
  4. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    With all the fulminating in the skeptiverse that there isn't enough attention paid to Antarctic sea ice, I plotted a linear regression for global sea ice data from Jan 1979 to Dec 2011. Global sea ice area has declined by 1.3 million sq km over the satellite period. But I'm an arts guy, so maybe someone with skillz would like to check that out for themselves. Global daily data 1979 to present I wonder what percentage of the 1979 to 1988 annual average this represents. That doesn't speak much to the article here, which is more about the decline in summertime sea ice, and I doubt the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice makes a difference to albedo concerns, but this seemed like a fair place to post this. Is the matter worth a short SkS article?
  5. There is no consensus
    Dana, I was surprised that the threshold for “expert” (20+ published papers) was so high. But I'm not a researcher, so maybe that is reasonable. The authors were admirably clear as to why and how they determined “expert” vs. “non-expert”, which was the main point of their study. Still, trying to play the Devil's Advocate of a contrarian, eliminating (1,372 - 908) of the climate scientists in the first step means that none of these 464 were reflected in the graphs that followed (Fig 1,2,3). Since the UE group is already humbled as being less published than the CE group, not even including them in overall percentages adds insult to injury. Someone may cry “foul”, justly or unjustly. If may look like elitism to outsiders. From the paper: “The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2).” (Doran 2009) I would have preferred the authors go on to include what % the UE group represents out of the full 908, or even the original 1,372. The authors have made it very clear that the most published and most cited researchers are 97% to 98% CE vs. 2% to 3% UE. That's all well and good. But to stop there seems a little too pat and could raise a contrarian's suspicion that it is contrived to match the Doran results of the previous year. It leaves a reader with a simple question, “What are the percentages of CE and UE among 'non-expert' climate scientists?” Simple question, but hard to answer from reading their paper.
  6. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Tom - sunlight reaching the Earth's surface dimmed during the period 2000-2007, yet the Earth continued to warm, albeit at a slower rate than the 1990's. More recent observations are not available, but the "global dimming" evident over this period, does partially explain the slowing of ocean heat uptake during 2003-2008 - especially as the dimming was principally a Southern Hemisphere phenomenon. The climate model projections which Evans "disses" do not factor in the global dimming trend through 2000-2007. A model hindcast using the actual surface solar radiation measurements to constrain it, would no doubt see a much closer agreement with the surface temperature measurements. In short; we would have expected a slowing in the rate of warming over that period. This is dealt with in upcoming posts, and rebuttals will be updated accordingly.
  7. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    I want to avoid dogpiling, so after this comment I will leave the discussion with Smith to Sphaerica, Rob, and Andy - unless there is further discussion of my specific points that warrants my further contribution. In several comments, smith says the following: "I understand that you ... clearly disagree with the support of a thriving economy and security." Straw man and goalpost shift. Nobody said "I don't support a thriving economy", and you're creating the artificial dichotomy between concern for the environment and proper use of science, and economic development and security. "the Harper government has a tight communications policy and that bureaucratic climate scientists are no special case." A good friend of mine is a science manager in Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada. If called by a reporter, he is free to talk to him/her immediately. Afterwards, he is expected to file a report on the interview with the communications people, just so they know it happened. Contrast that with the case of Environment Canada's David Tarasick, who does research on ozone. Requests for interviews with him were refused for months, and when finally granted a communications person attended the interview and controlled the questioning. The Harper government also had communications people follow scientists at an Arctic conference in April. Clearly, certain topics are controlled more than others. "It is expected that those with a vested interest in these particular areas will protest" Ah, the good old "vested interest" canard. You could have equally said "special interest group". Instead of discussing the issue, just call someone a name that is supposed to mean that they should be ignored. "Are you similarly appalled by the other 5,832,400 Canadains [sic]who gave Harper his mandate last year and also support his approach?" Lanfear has already commented. I will just ask: how many people cast votes for someone other than Harper? [Hint: the answer is about 1.5x larger than your number.] ...and finally, the "tone troll" appears: "I was hoping this conversation could stay civil. I guess that was asking too much." Disagreeing and being blunt is not being uncivil. Even if it was uncivil, that doesn't mean you are right. "He was rude, so he was wrong" doesn't cut it.
  8. The IPCC consensus is phoney
    CRITIQUE of this rebuttal: 1. Too specific (e.g. much focus on Mike Hulme words) 2. Too detailed without a simple summary at the top. 3. Is it current? (Last update 2 years ago.) 4. Should this topic be merged with "No consensus"? 5. If not merged, should there be links?
    Moderator Response: [JH} Thanks for the critique. The SkS author team will review your suggestions and take appropriate action.
  9. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    I am slugging my way thru Alden Griffith's article & see the problem: It reads like a research paper. It is not a rebuttal for the benefit of the general public. While Griffith's work may be first-rate (I'm not qualified to judge), it doesn't seem to fit into the "mission" of Skeptical Science. Wouldn't one expect an overview that links off to a paper like this? Figure 4 has potential for mass-audiences, although it is very "busy". Hard to read the axes, and that thick red line at the bottom is confusing.
  10. There is no consensus
    Tom, the point of Anderegg is to assess the consensus among climate experts, and in their opinion people with fewer than 20 climate-related publications are not experts. You may disagree with that definition of expertise, but it doesn't reflect "bias". I'm not aware of any more recent studies, but as it so happens, the SkS team is currently working on the definitive demonstration of the AGW consensus.
  11. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    jondoig - that spike is left there intentionally. When it was first released, the BEST dataset contained two incomplete points in the final two months, only containing data from Antarctic stations, as I recalled. However, the 'skeptics' retained those incomplete and clearly anomalous data points in order to argue that BEST proved the planet was cooling. If you remove those data points, the recent short-term trend is no longer negative. Thus I left those data points in there because as the graphic title notes, that is how 'skeptics' viewed the data. However, realists knew that the final two points were incomplete and removed them, hence I removed them from the realist frame.
  12. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    You're right that this rebuttal really should be updated though. I'll have to put that on my to-do list.
  13. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Tom - if you're specifically looking for comparisons between model temperature projections vs. observations (including by the IPCC), see the Lessons from Past Predictions series. As a general rule, if you see colorful easy-to-understand graphs on WUWT, you can bet the folks creating that graph have screwed up somehow. Evans for example cherrypicks data horribly, comparing surface temperature projections to atmospheric temperature measurements, and only looks at a few years of ocean heat content, and only of the shallow oceans, etc. etc.
  14. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    The WUWT "Skeptics Case" is written by Dr David M.W. Evans. It vividly compares "Predicted to actually measured" in Figure 3. But is that a fair summary? The Evans article is targeted to non-experts (like me), is well-written and has great graphics. Everything in it may be wrong or misleading, but it tells a convincing story.
  15. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Wow! This SkS rebuttal topic really needs to be separated into Basic and Intermediate tabs! I am drowning in data. My quick reaction: 1. Too specific - replies only to Monckton's claim. 2. Too detailed - the uninitiated reader drowns. 3. Is it up-to-date? (No comments since Sep 2010?) What led me here was a perusal of that trouble-maker website Watts Up With That entry "The Skeptics Case". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/ WUWT's article starts with very easy-to-understand color diagrams and follows up with graphs of IPCC temperature predictions vs. "measured temperatures". Does Skeptical Science have a rebuttal for this? Is this topic where the rebuttal should be?
  16. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    There's an (anomalous?) spike down below -1 at 2010 in the animated graphic. It appears only in the final "skeptic" frames, and disappears in the realist frame. Can this be corrected please? I'd like to use the image in my talks to Probus Clubs. Thanks.
  17. There is no consensus
    OPEN ISSUES: Does the statement, “From 82% of earth scientists to 98% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.” accurately reflect what the studies show? It is unclear that the two studies cited here (Doran 2009 and Anderegg 2010) adequately represent contrarian views. Does either study eliminate elitism or biased sampling? The Doran study was not a random sample, but rather a reflection of about 30% who took the time to respond to an on-line study. The respondents were almost exclusively American. Are there studies or polls from other countries that show similar results? Anderegg et al started with a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC. “We provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC.” Their Materials and Methods explains how this was done. “We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers.” They claim this did not materially alter results, but they later state, “researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. In other words, they removed 80% of the initial UE group, and only 10% of the CE, Can we cite more recent studies, or polls taken among climate scientists of other countries and different affiliations? Sites like World Climate Review will throw an elephant through any cracks we give them. PROPOSED DISCLAIMER: No poll or survey is perfect. Error margins should be expected.
  18. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith: Nobody is disputing Harper's democratic right to govern and I am not questioning Canada's right to exercise its sovereignty in the Arctic. But I maintain my right to speak out forcefully on matters that I consider important. I agree with you that it's better to maintain a civil tone and I assume that you were also disappointed with the tone of Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver when he described the opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as "radical groups" with the goal to "to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth". It's worth noting that Christie Clark, the right-of-centre Premier of BC is now a member of that radical group. As for your continued objection to the headline of this piece, I reiterate that any scientist would consider the muzzling of government scientists to be an attack on all of science, whether the suppression of free reporting of results was in environmental science or, say, in the reporting of pharmaceutical trials. Similarly, when the Natural Resources Minister dismisses the people who oppose his views on pipeline construction to be "radicals", I consider that to be an attack on all Canadians. Don't you?
  19. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith@21 "Are you similarly appalled by the other 5,832,400 Canadains who gave Harper his mandate last year and also support his approach?" Can you be sure that they all explicitly gave the mandate in this particular case as you propose, or do you just commit a logical fallacy by assuming that all those persons who voted for Harper are 100% behind his every action? Were those voters even aware of his intention in this case when they cast their vote? I'm asking this in earnest, since I a) am not a canadian, nor b) have followed Harpers case at any distance.
  20. Philippe Chantreau at 08:08 AM on 29 September 2012
    Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith seems to be very adept at using words, a hallmark of the PR and political operators, among others. I was especially amused by the "tight communication" bit. It's a very interesting concept, but rather ill defined. What kind of tightness scale are we looking at? If Harper has it tight, could it be said that Stalin had a "very tight" or "extrememly tight" communication policy? What are the checks and balances on that kind of tightness? So many questions, so little time to listen to the self righteous communicators who get all disappointed when one disagrees. I'm of the opinion that scientists who do not share in Mr Harper's ideology are found apalling enough to be be made non-issues. That's my opinion, Smith, don't be apalled...
  21. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Yes, I am not a fan of the Harper government. Largely this has to do with the obvious consequences of the exploitation of the oil sands. This will have dire implications for current and future generations of life on Earth, not just humans. It is possible, of course, that any other political party would do exactly the same - the lure of that short-term wealth proving too irresistible. I do doubt, however, that other political parties would stoop to the level of muzzling, and de-funding, climate and environmental scientists - simply because the truth is inconvenient.
  22. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Sphaerica @20: What a disappointing reply. You are appalled by my support of his approach. Are you similarly appalled by the other 5,832,400 Canadains who gave Harper his mandate last year and also support his approach? (-snip-). (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Tone trolling and inflammatory snipped.
  23. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Kevin C - thanks. Barry - the 0.3mm is a global average. As the University of Colorado FAQ makes clear, it is added so as to represent the increase in the volume of global ocean. Sea level observed at any given location, i.e "relative" sea level, can be different to the global average for many reasons. One of these - gravitational self-attraction - is discussed in the next post.
  24. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith, I'm not sure which appalls me more, Harper's attitude towards communication or your calm support of his approach.
  25. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    bibasir, here's the University of Colorado FAQ on GIA/ocean basin.
  26. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Rob 2 "Correct - any studies that neglect this ocean basin deepening effect, and overlook subtracting the GIA adjustment, will slightly overestimate sea level rise - by 3 mm every decade." Do the numbers reported by The University of Colorado need to be adjusted? If so, what is the total adjustment now?
  27. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Rob, I have always wondered where the water went after the high stand several thousand years ago. I have visited many islnds in teh Pacific that were exposed by the drop in sea level the past 4,000 years and you can see the changes from sea level clearly.
  28. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Rob@2: Would subtracting 0.3mm/yr from the satellite-derived sea level change be appropariate for every coast line when local effects are different, including the of post-glacial isostatic flexing? Water level evens out in a bathtub, but not so around the Earth.
  29. Climate time lag
    Forget the oil industry guy ... go here: http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/GNorth and click on the two lowest links on the right-hand side.
  30. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Andy S @9 An article posted yesterday by CBC confirms that, overall, Canada is fairing well in terms of science in technology; particularly within the subjects of clinical medicine, historical studies, information and communication technologies, psychology and cognitive sciences, physics and astronomy, and visual and performing arts. This announcement corresponds quite nicely with the opening of the Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum-Nanotechnology Centre at my university - the University of Waterloo - something Canadians can be quite proud of. However, also the article also mentions that since 2006, the dawn of the Harper era, research in natural science and environment has declined steadily, where once it was one of our top strengths. This conclusion was drawn by both a waning share of contribution to research on the subject and a growing share of global experts which identify Canada as falling behind in these fields. The article by Elizabeth May linked in this SkS article summarizes quite nicely a few of the affronts on natural sciences which would lead to this decline.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] link fixed.
  31. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Rob, that's a very clear presentation, and clearly it's been a lot of work pulling it together. I learned a lot. Thanks for your effort.
  32. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz I am German too, and it herz ;-) to see that page. Next time, just name "Eike" and we know what is going on. My suggestion is to not try to counter these people on that page with scientific arguments unless you are a scientist and you know what you are talking about. They belong to a group that suffers what some have called the "smart idiot effect". Because they are smart, they will always come up with a clever fallacy that convinces them that they are right. Most of what they write sounds very scientific, and is at first glance hard to debunk. It takes time and energy to do so carefully, which we do not have. The goal of these pages is usually not to show good science. That happens in the scientific literature, where he could not get this published. Instead, the goal is to sow doubt and convince the unskeptical and the gullible to oppose action on climate change. The fact that some CO2 absorptions are in saturation has been made for a long time, including by one organic chemistry professor at my own university in the mid nineties. It comes natural to chemists with spectroscopy experience to make this assumption, and confirmation bias does the rest. We can be glad that this saturation effect is actually in place, because the greenhouse effect would otherwise be much stronger, because Lambert-Beer's Law is an exponential function! (GHGs that absorb in the atmospheric window, like CFCs, are having a much stronger per molecule effect than CO2!) Climate scientists have long been aware of this, and you can read in textbooks about how this is solved. The CO2 greenhouse absorption is logarithmic, i.e. the more you pump into the atmosphere, the less effect you get. A few years ago, there was an oil industry engineer at our university who gave a talk outlining all the details, including the conclusion that greenhouse warming from a doubling of CO2 would be 1.2 K on average. He can hardly be called a biased scientist (he just failed to mention that positive feedbacks raise this result to 2-3 K actual T rise). I will try to get my hands on the talk, and can ping you then here.
  33. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Spherica @17: It is my position that the Harper government has a tight communications policy and that bureaucratic climate scientists are no special case. Even his MPs are carefully managed, so it should come as no surprise that the bureaucracy is similarly controlled to stay on message. I understand that this is objectionable to you, however the notion that science is under attack is misleading at best. Some areas of bureaucratic science funding are being cut. It is expected that those with a vested interest in these particular areas will protest and generalize. But it does not make their generalizations accurate.
  34. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith, Are you really looking to deny, defend or ignore (or, somehow, all three) the muzzling of scientists? Do you think it's not happening (i.e. your veiled "conspiracy" reference)? Do you think it's okay because it's limited to climate scientists ("science in general is not under attack")? Do you think it's okay because "a plurality" of Canadians want to ignore the science, too, and don't want to be pained by hearing the truth from the people that actually know the facts? Please clarify your position on muzzling climate scientists. Are you saying it's not happening, it is happening but it's not that big a deal, or it is happening and it's the right thing to do?
  35. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Gentlemen, I understand that you are not fans of Harper and clearly disagree with the support of a thriving economy and security. Arctic sovereignty and economic prosperity through resources development are important to many Canadians. A plurality in fact, as is Harper's mandate. And just because I can't come up with specific examples of other scientific diciplines having been "muzzled" does not take away from my point that science in general is not under attack by the Canadian federal government. In reality it furthers the point and reinforces the inaccuracy of the article title. "It's exactly the kind of government suppression and control that the conspiracy nuts waffle on about" Indeed.
  36. Climate time lag
    It must be the google translator. Otherwise the first link posted by Falkenherz would only show the ignorance of the author on atmospheric radiation physics, at least up to where I could stomach to read. A very basic course on atmospheric physics is kindly suggested. When a self-styled skeptic argue on such a foundamental physics knowledge you know for sure that he's not a serious skeptic.
  37. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz , I read through your first link via google translate, and it contains numerous errors that it can't really be taken seriously. Pt 1: CO2 effect is saturated. Nonsense. See article here on SkS and a detailed series on CO2 at Science of Doom , particularly on saturation . Pt 2: I don't understand what they are getting at (perhaps due to google translate). (BTW there is no such thing as an "IPCC computer model". IPCC summarizes the current scientific understanding. They don't write their own codes) Pt 3: A laboratory measurement of CO2 absorption is fine and dandy, but to really understand its effect you have to consider its cumulative effect in an atmosphere column, not just the absorption over a 10cm. Pt 4+5: They basically argue that a CO2 forcing of 3.7W/m^2 is small compared to the existing greenhouse effect, which is of course nonsense because the effect is entirely determined by climate sensitivity. Pt 6: Here's where I stopped reading, and this is why: The author proceeds to argue that water vapour feed back does not exist based on this graph: This is the water vapour content over atlantic ocean from 1950-1972. Even if you consider this data alone it doesn't mean anything, because between 1950-1970 the global temperature was flat, and SST over tropical atlantic decreased , so even if the data shows a statically significant trend it actually shows support for water vapour being determined by temperature and strengthening the case for water vapour feedback. The water vapour feedback argument is based on temperature not CO2, so plotting CO2 against water vapour to "disprove" water vapour feedback is misleading at best. In addition it is now 2012, so there is no excuse for not including modern data and global coverage.
  38. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Thanks Caitlyn, a very touching account of how climate change is far from being the myth that some are even still trying to get us to believe. It would be a really nice gesture if the likes of Monckton, Lawson, Watts and countless others who work so tirelessly to ensure that Caitlyn's account can be matched by others who are also suffering from the effects of climate change to offer to take the lead snowmobiles when the next Inuit hunting season begins. Monckton in particular repeated tells his audiences that there is no problem with Arctic sea ice, so it would be a good chance for him to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
  39. Dikran Marsupial at 19:15 PM on 28 September 2012
    Climate time lag
    Falkenherz you write "2. TSI forcing is vastly underestimated, because the short term observations don't tell anything about long-term TSI nor its long term effects on the climate system. Is there any physical reason to expect the long term effect of TSI to be anything more than the integral of short term TSI? Can you tell me the physical mechansism that you think is involved?
  40. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Correct - any studies that neglect this ocean basin deepening effect, and overlook subtracting the GIA adjustment, will slightly overestimate sea level rise - by 3 mm every decade.
  41. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    From the article: With human-caused climate change now underway, the seas are rising and this ocean basin-deepening effect is once again disguised because the rate of current sea level rise is outpacing the rate of ocean basin collapse and siphoning. Satellites that measure global sea level height add 0.3mm per year to their observations to compensate for this. ... In fact, so substantial are the combined effects glacial forebulge collapse and continental levering that even today satellite altimetry measurements have be be revised upward at a globally-averaged 0.3mm per year - to account for the subsidence (deepening) of the ocean basins (Douglas & Peltier [2002]), as this subsidence is obscured by current sea level rise. Colorado Universtiy's Sea Level Research Group says: In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. So the satellite reports aren't really reporting sea level, they are reporting ocean volume. That means that applications of satellite sea level reports regarding future coastal inundations will be in error by 0.3 mm/yr.
  42. Climate time lag
    Argh, don't spell my name like that, it hurts! By all means, if you can read German, look up some things below. This is about overestimating climate sensitivity: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/der-anthropogene-treibhauseffekt-eine-spektroskopische-geringfuegigkeit/ This is about the sun: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/fanatiker-der-globalen-erwaermung-nehmen-zur-kenntnis-sonnenflecken-beeinflussen-in-der-tat-das-klima/ (just a repition of the article from the Washinton Times) and here, comments #64 and #85: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/der-anthropogene-treibhauseffekt-eine-spektroskopische-geringfuegigkeit/#comment_306 Disclaimer; I am aware that this website is posting 99,9%horrible sonsense. So don't read it. (It took me some time to nail them down to a few more serious points from some few 1 or 2 commenters out of thousands there. I am doing this exercise because I have to deal with similar people like this in my job from time to time. So I have to fetch them where they start from.) Just to summarize their "more serious" points to a coherent conclusion (which goes a bit beyond the "lag-topic" of this article): 1. Water vapor forcing is the main reason why a high cliamte sensitivity is assumed. This is horribly overestimated, as there is also a substantial negative forcing which comes from the increased vapourising process at higher temperature. 2. TSI forcing is vastly underestimated, because the short term observations don't tell anything about long-term TSI nor its long term effects on the climate system.
  43. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    @87 I agree with the general notion that integrity is very important. SkS is a highly reputable site because it has integrity. Not all SkS contributors will agree with everything John Cook and his co-author wrote in the book, and thus SkS should be equated with John Cook and this book. If similar standards were put on deniers than are put unto scientists and places, such as SkS, that support the spread of scientific knowledge, we would be much better off. As it seems, not even low standards, such as your mentioned self-criticism, exist in the denialist-camp.
  44. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith - So you cannot provide evidence of other scientific disciplines being muzzled by the Canadian government, as climate and environmental scientists are. Didn't think so. Let's not beat around the bush - the Harper government fully intends to exploit the oil sands it has at its disposal, and damn the consequences. Canadian government-funded research which highlights how reckless and dangerous such action is, would not go down well with the public. It's exactly the kind of government suppression and control that the conspiracy nuts waffle on about - except that it is actually for real.
  45. There is no consensus
    By the way, the SkS article here (in the "intermediate tab") gives a beautiful graph, but not as much text information as appears in the Abstract above (503)...e.g. the 1,372 climate researchers figure. It would also help to know more about the selection criteria for the dataset of respondants. Can anyone provide with a link to the full article?
    Moderator Response: [DB] The abstract has a link to the full article, on the right side of the page. It is also found here.
  46. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith @12: the other two priorities are "Environmental stewardship and climate change" ...and I can call my Ford Pinto a Lamborghini Countach, but that doesn't make it one. I tend to judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. I would not buy a used car from Stephen Harper - especially if it was a Ford Pinto he was claiming was a Lamborghini Countach. With the recent round of cutbacks, both Fisheries and Oceans office in Saskatchewan will close. I know Saskatchewan doesn't have any oceans, but it does have a lot of fish. Wit the changes to environmental legislation, fish habitat will no longer be protected unless it is a "commercial" fishery. If we can't dig it up or catch it and sell it, it's not important?
  47. There is no consensus
    The best evidence of consensus on ACC appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienc (PNAS), April 9, 2010 (Anderegga, Prallb, Haroldc, and Schneidera). Does anyone have something more recent or definitive? Abstract Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
  48. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    skywatcher: I'd formulated my comment to Doug in my head before I read yours in detail, and decided to post it anyway. One for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  49. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith@12 The CHARS website (scroll down to the bottom of the page) does indeed state that the priorities are listed in "no particular order". Usually, when no priority is intended, a list is ordered alphabetically, but "environment" would then have appeared first on the list and perhaps people might have got the wrong idea that this was the most important item. As you say, Harper "runs a tight ship" and his senior civil servants must know that all too well. It's surely no coincidence that they would put "resources" and "sovereignty" at the top of the priorities list when they hear the PM saying things like: Arctic sovereignty ‘first priority’ for north, says Harper.
  50. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    David Lewis (@25) made many excellent points, particularly about Kahan's finding that people who accept climate science tend to reject the equally authoritative scientific consensus among the relevant scientists about nuclear waste. We who believe ACC is real and needs to be dealt with must redouble our self-criticism to remain impeccably objective. If we err, let it be on the side of over-caution about ACC claims. To do otherwise does grave damage to our credibility.

Prev  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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