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  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  Next

Comments 53751 to 53800:

  1. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    For yet another critique of the Watts interview, check out: MediaMatters’ PBS NewsHour Propagates Confusion On Climate Change
  2. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale: A scientist does not need academic credentials. They need well researched, well reasoned, well supported points. The first attribute "academic credentials" leads more reliably to the next three. If you're a producer working in the usual feverish haste, skipping the basic notion of formal qualifications as the first step to picking an expert is a very foolish choice, leads to embarrassment. We've just seen that amply demonstrated. Sometimes an "appeal to authority" is not so bad. "Help us" isn't the same as "he just knows." Of course if they'd chosen Richard Lindzen we'd have a whole different set of objections. :-)
  3. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What, between posts on CO2 snow and climate elves? Watts up with those?
  4. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @17 -
    They need well researched, well reasoned, well supported points."
    Which Watts does not have.
  5. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Please note, my above comments are more a look at sceptics "as a whole" as opposed to Watt's scepticism. PBS wanted to cover the sceptic view, and that sceptic view is "how much?" They could've spoken to any sceptic in reality, but in the US right now, Watts is the most recognisable sceptic. Hell, they could've even spoken to me if they wanted and I still tell them the sceptic view is "how much?" And that's what Watts put forward. His own personal justification to ask that question is due to suspecting station data. Me personally, I ask that question because of uncertainty over some parts of the hydro cycle. But it still all boils down to the point that sceptics are sceptics, because we ask "how much?" My point on scientists, PhD or not, was a simple response to the "why did they interview him, he's no scientist". A scientist does not need academic credentials. They need well researched, well reasoned, well supported points. Mod @9: Here's one to start on. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11377.html
  6. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    For another review of the Watts interview, check out: PBS NewsHour's Climate Change Report Raises Eyebrows (VIDEO) posted on The Huffington Post.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Your link is circular, pointing back to this very thread.
  7. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Update and SKS plug at PBS.
  8. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Watts' remark about a timeline for modernizing our approach to using hydrocarbons was empty hyperbole, a rhetorical flourish. It was also a classic strawman argument, a fabrication describing what Watts would like others to believe his opposition is endorsing. Watts was attempting to associate people making serious efforts at policy response to global warming with a ridiculous solution not conjectured by anybody in a position of responsibility and authority to deal with the problem. Watts got away with that red flag unchallenged. How and why is it that a volunteer blogger for Skeptical Science can spend a little of his free time and be more successful with critical thinking than the professional staff of PBS News Hour? What's the payroll of the production unit responsible for this remarkable failure?
  9. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, Just exactly how many more times does Watts have to be wrong, or promote pseudo science or attack scientists for you to understand that he is not interested in advancing scientific knowledge? While Mr. Watts might be telling you what you want to hear, believe me when I say that I do not want Drs. Hansen, Trenberth and other climate experts to be correct. Additionally, I for one am not going to bury my head in the sand in denial, or ignore the problem, or wish the problem away.
  10. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    As Albatross @10 notes, and as shown in the post we did about Watts' draft paper (linked in the above post), Watts does not understand the most fundamental aspects about how the surface temperature record is put together, and thus is not an expert in this area. Therefore, there is no reason for PBS to have interviewed him on the subject. In fact Michels said he chose to interview Watts to "hear more about the skeptical perspective", not because Watts actually has any expertise in the subject area. That is the very definition of false balance.
  11. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Regarding the science indicating anthropogenic climate change… I look at our 3rd rock the way a doctor views a patient; treatment follows diagnosis. The indicators as to whether a patient does or doesn’t have a given condition cannot be weighed against any concerns with particular treatment modalities being suggested. Carbon amelioration policy does not alter the accepted metrics or change physical reality. What is today is in no way changed by what is being considered for tomorrow. No doctor would ever suggested that blood values were inconclusive or that a MRI inadequate evidence simply because of a treatment being considered. They only measure the facts in hand. Let the facts speak for themselves; best if we don’t put the cart before the horse. Many "skeptics" take the opposite approach and some even go so far as to suggest it is the cart of carbon taxation pulling the horse of climate science. As for PBS…this is no different than a marginal song put out by a great band. Everyone slips up on occasion. The real issue, as has been pointed out, is that of false equivalency. Watts is to peer review research what Milli Vanilli was to original artistry.
    Moderator Response: Fixed text.
  12. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, I hope that you are not equating Watts with Einstein, or Hansen for that matter. What you say may be true in ordinary circumstances, but this is far from ordinary circumstances. Also, please recall my example of Watts making an amateur mistake by ignoring the time of observation bias, that is a huge red flag right there. Hopefully you have higher expectations of your cardiologist or anesthetist. The issues are twofold: 1) There is no reason to interview Watts when there are several other highly qualified experts available to speak to the subject; to do so is making the mistake of false equivalence, 2) Watts' attempt to conduct science is severely compromised by his ideology and his bias. Now if Mr. Watts were not in the unfortunate habit of repeatedly misrepresenting the science, promulgating and highlighting inferior or even pseudo science on his blog, then he may have been in a position to undertake objective and original science. The record shows that, for the most part, he is unwilling to do that.
  13. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    dana @6: I did see your "Global Warming Attributed to Humans" section of the above post. I refer you to my point that new research is coming out that questions some of the hydro cycle in models. You do mention aerosols in the article as one area lacking in clarity, but you failed to mention components of the hydro cycle. And ultimately, the hydro cycle is the most important part of the feedback system.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please provide a link to this new research you cite.
  14. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    So how does being consistently wrong, as Watts is, increase human scientific knowledge? Watts is in no danger of being awarded a PhD in science.
  15. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Albatross and Dennis: On the subject of "not a scientist", one does not need a PhD to increase human scientific knowledge. Einstein didn't even have a degree (let alone a PhD) when he published his theory of relativity in his 20's. He was a patent office clerk. His PhD was given to him well later.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Your presentation of Einstein is false and based on urban myth. If you still believe this to be true, please provide supporting references. Otherwise, reference all of the comments later in this thread to discover the truth.
  16. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @4 - I refer you to the "Global Warming Attributed to Humans" section of the above post. Moreover, Watts is arguing not that global warming is being caused by some mysterious natural cycle, but by urban influences on the temperature record, which is just plain wrong. As for his economic catastrophe claim, the real reason it is alarmist is that it's a strawman - virtually nobody is proposing that we stop using fossil fuels within 5-15 years.
  17. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Albatross @1 - fair point about the false equivalence, putting up blogger Watts alongside scientist Richard Muller.
  18. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    To be fair to Watts (and nearly all other sceptics), he does talk about the percentage of warming attributable to humans. This is the heart of climate change scepticism. To sceptics, they feel justified in asking for the empirical data to prove it's nearly 100% human caused (and not just models or "there's no other explanation"). Sceptics do not deny the world has warmed, or that humans have impacted the climate. But they are right in asking "by how much?" There is still some big question marks over some of the components of climate, which is openly recognised by the IPCC and other leading climate scientists. For instance, there's been some recent papers come out questioning parts of model hydro cycles showing via observations and field tests the opposite to what was previously assumed/known. In problem solving, it is also pragmatic to know all the facts first, lest you implement the wrong solution. Even the IPCC appears to be changing their stance on climate change as more research is done, with the removal of "very likely" (their 95% confidence level) to describe the human component of warming, and dropping back to a broader definition of the warming to encompass natural internal and external forcings as well as a human component in the draft for AR5. And TBH, if we suddenly stopped using oil, coal and gas in the next 5-10 years, it would cause major problems economically and socially. There's no possible way all three could be replaced in that short of a time without causing problems to society. Well, not without taxing your own population into poverty, which would be doubly problematic since, if most tax revenue is going into changing, that leaves not much left for the extensive social programs already funded by Govts. Replacing 99% of human energy demands needs to be properly planned, economically and socially.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Sceptics do not deny the world has warmed, or that humans have impacted the climate."

    Incorrect, as evidenced by the numerous rebutted skeptic memes on this very website.

    When making assertions citing literature, it is considered good form to also cite an accompanying link to the selfsame research. Please do so.

  19. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dennis @2, Perhaps we should be too pessimistic, even the best falter sometimes. It is not too late for PBS to set the record straight and to learn form this momentary lapse of reason (with apologies to Pink Floyd). We shall see...
  20. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    The PBS Newshour long enjoyed a reputation for honesty and solid reporting. It's not a coincidence that one of its longtime anchors, Jim Lehrer, has routinely been selected as a fair and neutral moderator of the U.S. presidential debates. People have come to trust PBS's approach to news reporting. However, placing Watts in the position of scientist has destroyed its reputation.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dana, It is even worse than your post shows. Not only were PBS guilty of false balance, they were guilty of false equivalence. Mr. Watts is first and foremost not a scientist, never mind one who specializes in the intricacies and complexities of correctly homogenizing and adjusting temperature records. For example, consider Watts recently showing his ignorance regarding the importance of allowing for the time of observation adjustment. So his misguided (and often incorrect) assertions and opinions on this subject are most definitely not on par with those of experts in the field. Watts has also repeatedly shown that he is guilty of confirmation boas. Moreover, Watts' claim about the BEST papers is demonstrably false. Specifically, at least three of the BEST papers are undergoing peer review, and that the paper submitted to JGR-A has been accepted conditional to the acceptance of another paper in which they present a new approach for averaging temperatures (at least for temperature data that is). Mr. Watts' alarmist and unsubstantiated comments about "economic catastrophe" really sealed the deal. As I see it, in this interview Watts has openly stated the primary reason for his denial about the seriousness of human-caused climate change in addition to his ongoing attacks on climate scientists. It is now clear that for Mr. Watts this "debate" has everything to do with defending his ideology and belief system, and nothing to do with science. Instead, Mr. Watts is routinely distorting and misrepresenting the science (too many examples to cite here) to further his ideological and political agenda. Finally, the real political tools here are Watts and those closely affiliated with him (e.g., Curry, Pielke Senior, Christy, Spencer, Monckton, Singer, not to mention the legion of conspiracy theorists who frequent his and Curry's disinformation blogs) . How very sad....one almost pities them, almost.
  22. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    All links now fixed and working properly.
  23. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    All links in the Fingerprints section are now working. More fixes to be made.
  24. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    "Never buy a new model of a car the first year it comes out. Sorry about the broken-links. I'll fix them pronto.
  25. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    Hmm well I love the idea of the news round up. Just need to get those links working.
  26. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    I can't imagine this having much of an effect on the outgroup, but it's pretty cool. I watched the other symphony of science videos after I saw this but this one is definitely my favourite.
  27. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    There is a problem with many of the links. In Fingerprints, only items 3 and 4 work. In Plans, none of the links work. The rest seem OK.
  28. New research from last week 37/2012
    Thanks Bernard J, I've been waiting for the paper to be freely available. I'll draft something up next week - unless you're offering? Hint, hint......
  29. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    "Only when the media focuses on factually accurate reporting will the public become correctly informed on climate change." Last night here in the states the PBS News Hour, formerly a well respected source of reliable reporting, demonstrated that they are not interested in informing the public on climate change. They still cling to supposed controversy story. They spoke of the vast majority of researchers whose work has demonstrated that greenhouse gasses do trap heat and that climate change is taking place as “believers” and they spent a large part of the story interviewing Watts as if he were a scientist with opposing research. So I wonder which will happen first: Factually accurate reporting or and international agreement to limit GHG or peace in the Middle East. My guess is we have a better chance at solving the Middle East situation.
  30. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike Mellor - Here's a direct link to Myhre et al 1998, which I believe is from Dr. Myhre himself. In short, they ran radiative modelling (akin to numerical integration, not global climate modelling, mind you) using HITRAN spectral data, over three different atmospheric profiles (tropical, northern, and southern hemisphere), and calculated the incremental forcings. They then arrived at F=5.35 ln(C/C0) W/m^2 as an appropriately scaled approximation of the forcing deltas. Note that this was an update from the value used in the 1990 IPCC reports, which was 6.3, not 5.35 - in other words the Myhre analysis has a slightly lower forcing for doubling CO2. --- Sphaerica - I don't believe you have that equation right. The forcing delta is in W/m^2, not Fahrenheit, and the resulting forcing change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2. That leads to a temperature change (as per the SB equation, no feedbacks, assuming radiated power at TOA goes from 240 to 243.7) of ~1.1C, after which you have water vapor changes (another 1.1-1.3°C, total of ~2.4°C) and additional feedbacks - leading to a total climate sensitivity of ~3°C/doubling of CO2.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Thanks, KR. My bad. I should have looked far more closely at the thread and question before responding. Requested edit applied.
  31. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike Myhre's formula is just a fit to the full radiative transfer code results. It has limited validity and it's not a functional form that can be applied to other situations. I'm not aware of any simplified form for Venus.
  32. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike, Sorry, I didn't notice the second part of your question. You can't apply a simple climate sensitivity equation like that one to Venus because it's apples and oranges. That sensitivity includes things like albedo feedbacks (ice/desert/water), carbon feedbacks, water vapor feedbacks and more. It's specific to earth, and derived by a combination of observational, paleo and modeling studies. Really... you need a complex computer program to simulate the atmosphere of Venus. What exactly are you attempting to prove or investigate?
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Ignore this. It was wrong.
  33. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike, The equation you present simply says that temperatures will increase 5.35˚F for every doubling of CO2. It's a restatement of the equation in Celsius:
    F = 3.0ln(C/C0)
    From this perhaps it is easy for you to see that this equation simply assumes a climate sensitivity of 3˚C per doubling of CO2, something I'm sure you've seen before. Search for "climate sensitivity" to see the various ways in which that is estimated.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Ignore this. It was wrong.
  34. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    I've read every comment here. Rosco could be one of three things: an idiot savant, an agent provocateur, or a fifth-columnist. Whichever way, it's resulted in an interesting exposition of the basics of climate science. Please can anyone help? The CO2 forcing equation F=5.35ln(C/Co); how is the parameter 5.35 calculated? How would I calculate the appropriate parameter for Venus with its higher atmospheric pressure, partial pressure, and depth of atmosphere? Myhre et al quoted in the article is behind a paywall, and an hour of searching for radiative transfer models hasn't yielded results. (shades@iburst.co.za)
  35. What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
    ATI has already said they plan to appeal, but the language the judge cited from the FOIA seems to clearly state that it does not cover correspondence or even 'work product' behind scientific research... only the final published result. Which, in most cases, is publicly available anyway.
  36. What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
    Yah, here's the mainstream from WaPo.
  37. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    PS A brief comment to others on this thread. I am a Christian ethicist working on a PhD in climate ethics (and ecological ethics more generally) and have spent years studying both climate and theology. I can attest that Villabolo's question about eschatology, while seeming obtuse, is actually very highly relevant since it shapes/illustrates a number of the most basic assumptions about the world and its future held by different groups of Christians. Though I'd point out that there are more than two camps and in my experience a very large number of evangelicals in Australia fall into neither of the two categories above but would be amillennial (which isn't too far from the "pan millienist" mentioned by Jeremy in #25).
  38. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    Thanks John, I really appreciate that you did this talk and hope you get more opportunities to speak in church circles. I have much to say on this topic and will perhaps contact you directly in a few months once I'm getting closer to return to Australia. One tiny typo on one of your slides: "non sequitur", not "non sequitor".
  39. What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
    Breaking news: Michael Mann has announced on FaceBook that ATI has lost the ATI/UVa FOIA case, where they demanded all emails and communications between Mann and the university - apparently hoping to rake through them and find something, anything, with which to attack Mann and his findings:
    ATI loses ATI/UVa FOIA case. Judge issues final order. Affirms the university's right to withhold scholarly communications and finds that the documents & personal emails of mine demanded by ATI were indeed protected as the university had contended.
  40. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    "widespread coral mortality is expected ~3°C above late 19th Century temperatures" A new study suggests widespread coral mortality at ~1.5ºC above late 19thC temps and close to universal degradation of all tropical corals by 2ºC. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1674.html Discussed by one of the authors here: https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-guardrail-too-hot-for-coral-reefs-9610
  41. New research from last week 37/2012
    Just wondering if I missed this in a previous edition of "New research from last week...": http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1674.html
  42. Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat
    "complementary - not complimentary no ?" No--"complementary" means 'different, but contributing to a greater whole.' "Complimentary" means "saying nice things."
  43. New research from last week 37/2012
    DSL@3, I don't necessary think so. I thought the point of the show was that 97% of climate scientists believe it so and more of the general public believe it so, probably the current warmer weather helped. But the half of our lawmakers don't belive it so or believe it is a hoax. I think it is more of this disconnect between the science community, the general public and the lawmakers. He is a reporter, not a scientist. I don't think he could say one way or another definitely when the half of our senetors and congressmen believe it is a hoax. Yet he did clearly show today's state of the issue. I don't think it would be a good idea to jump on a messenger when the messenger only can carry a message. The messenge showed how it is, I guess.
  44. Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat
    I can’t help but be reminded of a post over at Tamino’s Open Mind Site that concluded with: I’ll continue to do what I can, come hell or high water. Expect both. (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/hell-and-high-water/) Cross posted from a while back, but more relevant than ever...
  45. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #37
    @ chriskoz#2: Thanks for sharing your thoughts and posting the links.
  46. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #37
    @ GrahamC #1: Thanks for the suggestion. We will definitely check it out.
  47. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #37
    Maybe Stefan did not know This Mann Power when he wrote his comment about intimidation. Mike Mann has also anounced his counter-attack on National Review. So, young scientists should not be intimidated anymore. When, in addition to UVA findings, the NR suit succeeds, the others will follow downhill...
  48. Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat
    1:100 years events are already 1:10 year events, as the return time shown here and a similiar one for Texas heat wave shows. And of course the mean is still shifting. Looking at world temperautre for the last 4000 years, with all the swings from LIA, MWP etc, the whole range of variation is about 0.8C arround the normalised 0C anomally, excluding the last 30 years. So if that represents 95% variance or 2SD, 1 SD is ~0.2C for natural millenial scale variations, suggesting that the mean has shifted already by ~1.5SD since 1950-1980, and we have another 3SD to go. That makes 1:100 heat event now a coolish summer to come! This shifting mean to the extreme I find does crytalise the situation of how global warming will affect everyone. What would food production be like if 2012 heat waves in the USA were an every other year cold events?
  49. Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
    The abstract of "Different glacier status with atmospheric circulations in Tibetan Plateau and surroundings", a letter that appeared in Nature in July 2012,said "The Tibetan Plateau and surroundings contain the largest number of glaciers outside the polar regions1. These glaciers are at the headwaters of many prominent Asian rivers and are largely experiencing shrinkage[2], which affects the water discharge of large rivers such as the Indus[3,4]. The resulting potential geohazards[5,6] merit a comprehensive study of glacier status in the Tibetan Plateau and surroundings. Here we report on the glacier status over the past 30 years by investigating the glacial retreat of 82 glaciers, area reduction of 7,090 glaciers and mass-balance change of 15 glaciers. Systematic differences in glacier status are apparent from region to region, with the most intensive shrinkage in the Himalayas (excluding the Karakorum) characterized by the greatest reduction in glacial length and area and the most negative mass balance. The shrinkage generally decreases from the Himalayas to the continental interior and is the least in the eastern Pamir, characterized by the least glacial retreat, area reduction and positive mass balance. In addition to rising temperature, decreased precipitation in the Himalayas and increasing precipitation in the eastern Pamir accompanied by different atmospheric circulation patterns is probably driving these systematic differences." the letter is worth a look
  50. New research from last week 36/2012
    @chookmustard The authors were concerned that tree ring WIDTH data at their site may not be a good indicator of past temperatures due to a type of "divergence problem" in which the PROXY (the indirect indicator of the measure/driver sought for: ring width) changes its relationship to the driver (temperature) over time. So they tested to find a potentially better proxy, here isotopic oxygen, or 18O. 18O (the delta just means that 18O is measured relative to a common standard, i.e. something everyone uses, so that data can be easily compared across studies) in water equilibrates with 18O in plant internal CO2, and is stored in cellulose as a result of photosynthesis, the main polymer of wood, and changes in response to its availability in "source water", usually from precipitation, which at this site (and many others) is correlated with temperature. As this is a double step from proxy to driver, the authors made sure they understood the underlying uncertainty of their method, and its skill, aka the accuracy of using cellulose-18O to determine past temperature at this site. They found that their methodology seems to work fine. It shows consistency with another proxy record, tree ring wood density, but divergence from the tree ring width proxy. The divergence appears around mid 19th century and the authors speculate about a seasonal temperature change (longterm stability of summer temperatures, driving the 18O signal, vs. changing spring conditions, driving tree ring width) as a possible reason for the observed divergence. Hope this helps.

Prev  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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