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  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  Next

Comments 54251 to 54300:

  1. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, you seem to be playing with words. First you say the probabilities presented by K&H are dismissed because they "are not actually PDFs but model run density functions". When presented with this inaccuracy, that much of the data is not model based, you say "the data is depicted in distributions.... I do not see any way to arrive at a PDF... without a model". So the probabilities presented by K&H are dismissed because they are either model based or else because it must be model based, because you personally don't know how they could determine a range of probabilities in any other way. Is this correct? Is this your stance? So with one sweep of the hand you dismiss thirty years of climate sensitivity studies because, in your mind, it must have come from models and you don't trust the models. How can you not recognize that your own thought patterns are based 100% in total, irrational denial?
  2. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Thanks for the responses. I try to avoid WUWT since it tends to be filled with more rhetoric than science. I didn't want to accuse them of the highly unethical practice of fabricating data without a little background checking. I find it interesting that the crew at WUWT constantly accuse the scientist of constantly making data up. In the one incidence where this has happened in my experience, the person was fired immediately. I doubt many of the people commenting there have ever actually worked in the scientific field. Fake data does not fly.
  3. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    "Unless the models can accurately predict all this evidence (to his own arbitrary standards), we can't be sure that it is happening. Or did I miss something?" As others have said - no. He provided a link to a thread at real climate posted six years ago, arguments he's repeated in every thread he's participated in here. Nothing will convince him that perhaps experts in climate modeling must might know more about the subject than he does. The attributes listed in the OP should include something regarding "a stubborn refusal to abandon a position in the face of all contrary evidence".
  4. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, I note that the line in the graphic that says "combining different lines of evidence" shows the range 1.5-5.0 C. That means 1C is 1% or less. Your argument puts you strongly in the denier campp. Please show me again how you arrived with 1C as the most plausible result. 7C is at least as likely.
  5. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    "That is where I do not believe the models have the fidelity to make an accurate projection." On the other hand, you're certain that *you* have the "fidelity" to claim a climate sensitivity on the order of 1C per CO2 doubling. This is an interesting asymmetry I see all the time in the denialsphere - everything claimed by climate science is far more uncertain than climate science claims. Yet the denialist is 100% certain that feedbacks are overwhelmingly negative (look at your latest, Eric - "Along with such severe weather I am interested in how much negative feedback is caused by that severe weather if in fact it increases on average" - the rest of us might first be interested in undertanding the *sign* of the feedback, and later the magnitude, rather than assume it's negative). And the denialist is therefore certain sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 lies far below the lower end of the accepted range (about 2C).
  6. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Let's get this discussion back on topic. If Eric wants to participate, he can try to explain how his reactions here differ from the "knee-jerk science rejection" that headlines John's original post. Eric, your position is at odds with all of the science. The details of what you disagree with and why are not relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is how your behavior closely fits the pattern of what John Cook describes.
  7. Dikran Marsupial at 04:55 AM on 9 September 2012
    A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Your reply to my point about perturbed physics experiments is pure evasion. Of course one could perform a perturbed physics experiment on just one variable, and indeed climatologists often do, but that is entirely missing the point, as I think you know perfectly well. Peturbed physics experiments can be performed to investigate the range of plausible parameter values, which is an answer to your previous question. Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself. Well all here have better things to do than respond to this sort of sophistry. You have made it clear that you are not interested in answers to your questions, so I for one will stop supplying them.
  8. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Here’s another take on the Lewandowsky survey and the consternation it has generated within Ostrichville. “Research Links Climate Science Denial To Conspiracy Theories, But Skeptics Smell A Conspiracy”.By Graham Readfearn, DeSmog Blog, Sep 5, 2012 This graphic is embedded in it. Image and video hosting by TinyPic:
  9. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric@59 "the average conditions and dynamics are linked to each other ...yet you do not need to be able to predict every single drop of the ball on a roulette wheel in order to be able to predict how to set the odds so that your casino makes money. You are completely failing to recognize that long-term statistics of the system (either the real world, or a model of that world) are sensitive to different things within the system, compared to what the short-term patterns depend on. You desperately need to learn something more about systems. From what you have written, I do not think you understand what "initial value problem" and "boundary value problem" mean (from John's comment), and why the distinction is important. This seems to be a very common error that I see in people that come to climatology from a meteorology background (not that I'm saying this means anything about your background).
  10. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Tom Curtis: Recommend that you post a survey on this thread asking our readers if their eyes glaze over when they see yet another GeoffChambers post. I know that my eyes do.
  11. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Dikran, the perturbed physics experiments are interesting. One could do entire studies on just a single parameter, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment_(meteorology) Michael, apart from paleo and volcanoes (similar to paleo), the data is depicted in distributions. When I read the methodology to turn observations into climate sensitivity estimates, for example, Wikipedia's description I do not see any way to arrive at a PDF (or something like it). If someone knows how to arrive at the PDF (or whatever) without a model, please let me know.
  12. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    3, Dirt Girl, You can get the core of your answers by reading the comments and following the links posted by Lief Svalgaard at WUWT. Short answer: Soon and Briggs manipulated/cherry-picked the data in a variety of ways to completely misrepresent things (using indefensible TSI data, using only US daytime high temperatures, etc.), and as partial evidence of this, note that their "submission" is merely an article published in the Washington Times, not a paper submitted to a journal, because it would get laughed out of just about every journal on Earth (except maybe E&E). Long answer: Look for the post.
  13. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Tom Curtis #136 I agree absolutely that the probability is that the two outliers were attempts to game the survey, and that Lewandowsky should at least have indicated their existence in the paper. He should also have looked at the distribution of sceptics and conspiracy theorists by source blog - the most basic test of any organised attempt to cheat. I’ve been thinking further about the point I made at #130 about survey design and the legitimacy or not of various responses. Imagine the researcher (let’s call her Alice) doing a follow-up interview with a respondent whose questionnaire responses arouse suspicion (call him Humpty Dumpty) Alice: “I see you’ve ticked ‘Agree strongly’ to all the questions”. Humpty Dumpty: “That’s right. I always tick the left hand box when filling in an online survey.” Alice: “So these answers don’t represent your true beliefs?” Humpty Dumpty: “Yes they do. It’s my firm belief that I should always tick the left hand box.” Alice: “But you don’t really strongly agree...?” Humpty Dumpty:”Yes I do. I strongly agree with ticking the left hand box. If I didn’t , I’d tick the right hand box wouldn’t I? That’s logic.” ... and so on. The serious point is that an interview is an artificial construct which derives its legitimacy from its similarity to other experiences in our lives. If someone stops you in the street and asks you the way to the post office, you don’t think of lying, but answer to the best of your ability. If they added: “Do you think it’s to the left or to the right? You’re not allowed to say you don’t know” you’d probably feel seriously p*ssed off, and refuse to cooperate. Telephone interviews, and even more so online questionnaires, are more removed from the face-to-face situation where human beings normally interact, and feel the natural tendency to cooperate. Social scientists are making enormous hidden assumptions about the psychology of their respondents when they put their trust in this sort of exercise.
  14. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Chuck101, the main reason for my focus is so there can be a discussion, although it's very difficult for me to avoid tangents into attribution, costs, mitigation, etc. The 97% includes models, but model treatments vary along with the result (Greenland melting versus Amazon drought versus storminess). chriskoz (and JohnMashey), the average conditions and dynamics are linked to each other. It's ok to put the average conditions from empirical data into a model parameter, but the conditions will change the dynamics downstream (time or location). For example we all agree that measurements show that CAPE is increasing on average and high CAPE will help sustain an MCS like the derecho that hit my area at the end of June. Along with such severe weather I am interested in how much negative feedback is caused by that severe weather if in fact it increases on average. That is where I do not believe the models have the fidelity to make an accurate projection. By fidelity I mean that the model need not predict anything correctly but must result in an accurate climatology that is an essential input to the energy balance calculation.
  15. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eli, But we can't understand stuff from models because we don't understand enough stuff to build models that are good enough to help us understand stuff. Or so Eric seems to think.
  16. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Most of the data summarized in the table is observations, not models. There is a single line for models. Your claim "the apparent probability density functions are not actually PDFs but model run density functions" is simply incorrect and evidence of complete denial. Welcome to the 3%. The overwhelming majority of the data idicating a 3C sensitivity comes from direct observations, not models. If your claim to uncertainty is that observed data is modeled there is no room for discussion.
  17. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    vrooomie - Indeed, it was featured prominently at WUWT.
  18. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    And though Dana and Daniel are correct, in their dismissing the findings of Soon and Briggs, I'll wager that, *as I type*, the denialiti are furiously posting their findings all over the Intertoobs.
  19. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dirt Girl - I for one am quite curious about the Soon and Briggs TSI - it isn't supported by any of the information I am aware of. They state the temperature data is from BEST, but do not source their TSI data. If you look at either the sunspot numbers or direct TSI measurements (averaged over the 11-year solar cycle for clarity) versus temperatures (as in this plot), you see that insolation is dropping while temperatures are rising over the last 40 years or so. S&B's claims are contradicted by the evidence. [ And yes, the Washington Times is a hyperconservative low-circulation paper, owned by the late Sun Myung Moon, not known for any balance in their views. I would not consider it a reliable source. S&B are welcome to try to publish their column in a peer-reviewed journal - it might give the editors a good laugh while getting rejected. ]
  20. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    While reading the article, here's the point at which I fell off'a my chair, laughing... "...there has been relatively little work investigating the solar-climate connection." Riiiight. As for the rest of the article, and considering not only the source of the 'data,' but who published and printed it, I agree w/Dana@4
  21. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    From a superficial scan of the article & graphic: - No baseline indicated - Data appears visually to end at 2005 (hey, BEST goes through 2010, doesn't it?) - The US is only a minute fraction of the world - BEST is land-only The only reason to not extend the TSI & temperature data later in the decade (using all the land data), and to ignore more than a century of OHC data, is that plotting such data would be inconvenient to reaching their predetermined narrative. The graphic is a crap exercise in curve-fitting, IMHO.
  22. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dirt Girl @3 - we weren't planning on it. The Washington Times is a right-wing rag, and Soon and Briggs are not worth taking seriously. Note the graphic in question claims the temperature data are from BEST but does not provide a reference for the solar data. As you note, TSI data have been essentially flat since 1979, decreasing if anything. Basically the Soon op-ed is a joke and IMO not even worth debunking.
  23. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    As important, if not more, is the ability of models to help us understand stuff.
  24. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Sorry, this is O/T but I was wondering if Skeptical Science will be posting a rebuttal to the Soon and Briggs Op Ed in the Washington Times yesterday. I am curious as to how the graph in the article shows and increase in TSI after 1970. Looking at the TSI from satellites or sun spot proxy data this does not seem possible. The graphs I've seen both show a decrease during this time period. - Thanks
  25. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Shorter Eric: Humanity's saviour is low CS-inducing Arctic dust. Until that's all modelled I don't credit a thing.
  26. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric (skeptic) - " I don't think "1°C is reasonable" but it is plausible." "plausible - Seeming reasonable or probable." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Given under the evidence the 90% probability of a sensitivity between 1°C and 5°C (and yes, that range does indeed represent the error bars on our knowledge), 1°C sensitivity to doubling of CO2 represents only a 5% chance - equally probable as a 5°C sensitivity. A 1°C sensitivity given our current knowledge is not plausible, it is possible but unlikely. You are claiming that a 1/20 chance is "probable", and that's just not supportable. Given the evidence, 1°C is not a good bet.
  27. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Sorry, I don't see any further point to discussing this with you, as you seemed to be totally and completely trapped in the mind set that 1) The models are inadequate 2) Everything is based on the models 3) Therefore any conclusions are inadequate As long as you are trapped in this mindset discussion hopeless, and your perception of and opinion on anything will remain too narrowly constrained to allow for any reasonable progress in the conversation. Sorry, but I just don't see the point in discussing this with someone who turns every single discussion, no matter what the details, back to "the models are inadequate."
  28. Dikran Marsupial at 00:45 AM on 9 September 2012
    A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric: "The category of "very likely" (90%) encompasses the range from 1C to well over 5C in most cases, so it doesn't help much." This comment strongly suggests that you don't understand the probabilistic arguments. A 90% credible interval is the error bars. The fact that they range from 1C to 5C tells us that there is a large uncertainty in our knowledge of the correct value. This is exactly the reason that it is unreasonable to assume it lies as the low end, as that is pretending we are more certain than we actually have evidence to support.
  29. Dikran Marsupial at 00:40 AM on 9 September 2012
    A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric (skeptic) You are merely changing the subject. In a Bayesian analysis you start of with a prior state of knowledge (the ranges of the parameters) which you then combine with observations (in this case the model runs) which gives you the posterior state of knowledge. Thus the range of parameters is merely the prior state of knowledge, so it is hardly surprising that it is included in the analysis. The reason for specifying a plausible range is exactly because we don't know the correct value with high certainty. P.S. You might also want to investigate the purpose of "perturbed physics experiments".
  30. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Sphaerica, here are no error bars in the depiction above. All the depictions with a model run density functions are from models, the others are volcanoes and paleo-derived. Both have forcings other than CO2 and may not be applicable. The category of "very likely" (90%) encompasses the range from 1C to well over 5C in most cases, so it doesn't help much. The weaker "likely" category is mostly 2C and above. As for dangerous, I noted here that stronger storms are cooling (although I made a mistake, subsidence is cooling on average, not warming, so if there are fewer but stronger hurricanes on average, that means negative feedback). I don't think current sea level rise is dangerous other than model projections. Dikran, how can we say that a critical parameter (say convection) is reasonable or not? A sensitivity of 2C might be realistic, given a number of simplifying assumptions, see here But the required calculations from physics or empirical data to model parameter values are difficult to determine in any case.
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 00:04 AM on 9 September 2012
    A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric (skeptic) The "model run density functions" are probability density functions, and have a perfectly reasonable interpretation within a Bayesian framework. "The choice of ranges of parameters to mimic natural variation determines the shape of the distribution." Well of course they do, the "model run density function" is an indication of the relative plausibilities of different outcomes, given what we know, so naturally this would involve using realistic parameters rather than unrealistic ones!
  32. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Your position is utter nonsense. First... you don't see error bars? Second... all you see is models? Third... so if the range is 1C to 5C, and anything from 2C up is dangerous (the higher the more dangerous), and it is possible, based on current events, that 1.5C is dangerous... ...then tell me again how you wind up at "let's be patient, because climate sensitivity is probably 1C"? Tell me again, too, how you can look at the K&H chart, with a marginal probability of a climate sensitivity below 2C, and see 1C as a shining beacon? Oh, that's right, they are "not actually PDFs" and you can't seem to see the bars and lines and words like "likely" and "very likely." And they're all models... including the "Instrumental Period" and the "Current Mean Climate State" and the "Last Millenium" and the "Volcanic Eruptions" and the "Last Glacial Maximum" and "Millions of Years Ago" and...
  33. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Michael, thanks for the challenge. I don't think "1C is reasonable" but it is plausible. As I explained here and previously, the apparent probability density functions are not actually PDFs but model run density functions. The choice of ranges of parameters to mimic natural variation determines the shape of the distribution. So I don't think it is reasonable to point to the center of "model density distribution functions" and claim that 3C is reasonable. The fundamental problem is sub-grid scale physical parameterizations which determine the density function, not reality or even simulated reality. More apropos to my previous post is that the paleo bars do not have any density function because there is really no way to know the distribution due to a lot of measurement error, localized measurements (ice cores) rather than global, changes in geography with large unknown effects, etc. One way to deal with some of the unknowns is by using models (e.g. feeding changed geography into the models). The full chart from Knutti and Hegerl is reproduced in post 72 above. It shows that the paleo estimates do not have a similar base state (far left red square in 3b) and do not have similar feedbacks and timescales (next red square). Those two red squares make the model estimates inapplicable to today's climate. To make them applicable, one must remove the uncertainties due to difficult-to-measure feedbacks. The result, at least in K&H08, is that the estimates of sensitivity from paleo data do not have a distribution, they could be uniform or more likely skewed left since other feedbacks also amplified the warming from glacial to current interglacial along with CO2. Today those other feedbacks are missing (e.g. dust, large weather changes, etc) As I said in the other thread there may be new positive feedbacks that were not in play in the glacial transition so that adds uncertainty on the high side.
  34. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Thanks for the in depth explanation chriskoz, though I think there is a simpler underlying psychological process going on here. Eric views himself as a rational skeptic, and would be embarrassed to get lumped in with the standard denialist crowd. Hence, he claims that he accepts the 97% scientific consensus. EXCEPT. Except that he won't until some arbitrary milepost of his own specification is met, which it wont be, at least for a decade or two. This allows him to present himself as rational, sane and objective, while still denying the consensus for the next 10 to 20 years. A denier in denial. Nice Work! Self contradiction appears also to be necessary for an accomplished denialist: http://www.skepticalscience.com/plimervsplimer.php
  35. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    52, chuck101. You didn't miss anything. It's "focused denial" dressed up as rational skepticism.
  36. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    chuck101@52 You got it essentially right. Furthermore, if you follow the link in JohnMashey@43, you better understand the differences between the problems answered by weather vs. climate simulations. The problems of climate (the changes in the average state of chaotic processes) prediction is not limitted by model accuracy in representing the chaotic processes. What is important is getting the roundings correct (e.g. to have constant mass and energy balance) and the model stability within given boundaries in accordance with observations. Accurate representation of the dynamics of the chaos is less important. As an example, Eric wants the models to calculate dynamic convections to have faith that cloud feedback is well represented. I argue that such calculations, apart from increasing the complexity and be source of potential bugs, may not increase models' reliability more than simple parametrisation tuned with observations would do. Eric displays a typical skeptisism of a weatherman: lack of confidence in simple science about average conditions, because he's an acclaimed expert in underlying dynmical models. A simplified analogy would be: to figure out the average properties of some gas in a container, an expert weatherman might ponder about (or even calculate) the resulting fluid motions, but I don't want to go into such details: simple laws of thermodynamics are enough.
  37. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Knutti and Hegerl summarize the climate sensitivity by a variety of methods. The overwhelming consensus is 3C with a long tail upwards. Anything less than 2C is unrealistic. Please produce a link supporting your claim that 1C is a number that is capable of being considered. Here is the key graphic. Image and video hosting by TinyPic Please describe using the graphic how you conclude 1C is reasonable. The lowest high confidence intervals stop at 1.5C and most stop at 2C. There are long high tails. This graph has been posted many times to SKS since you started posting. Can this graph be added to the climate graphics page?
  38. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    In that BBC video news pointed by shoyemore, from ~1:00 to 1:15, they used the PIOMAS ice volume animation by our own andylee just less than a week before! Congratulation to the team, for our science communication having such fast impact on mainstream media, and especially to Andy for this piece of animation well done!
  39. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I have read with interest the continuing discussion with Eric (skeptic) and his obsession with models. Forgive me, but I always thought that models are used to predict stuff. If the prediction eventuates, then we can have faith in the science and assumptions used in that model. By necessity, due to uncertainties in current knowledge and limitations in computing power, the models cannot predict reality entirely, but they are useful in projecting trends, and we need this to try to predict any consequences of continuing CO2 build up. Eric seems to have things precisely ass-backwards. What he is essentially saying is, forget all the overwhelming evidence we have now for AGW. Unless the models can accurately predict all this evidence (to his own arbitrary standards), we can't be sure that it is happening. Or did I miss something?
  40. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    @49 Lambda 3.0 However thankless and tiring it may be, it is important to rebut the denialists. Any wrong or misleading arguments used by denialists should be rationally corralled, lest they infect the unwary "Cautious" ... and outright conversion of denialists to Warmism is not unheard of.
  41. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge seems to be the one responsible for the "2015" prediction. Here he talks to the BBC, and I gather he is making a documentary with them on the Petermann ice island. Should be interesting. "Arctic melt is like doubling CO2"
  42. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    re: 44 chriskoz Thanks. This reminds me of a long discussion I had during a working lunch with folks at NCAR, after I'd done a lecture in mid-1990s: I'd asked them to assess the various impediments to progress. Someone categorized them as follows: 1) Data 2) Science 3) Compute power 1) DATA. the necessary data might not exist. Scientists might like satellite records going back 2000 years, including solar insolation and volcanoes. Such would be really useful in better calibrating climate sensitivity, which after all, is one of the reasons for doing paleoclimate reconstructions. Of course, and I forget who said this, but the idea was that people would love to have data from the future, but unfortunately it was not available. Even ignoring emissions choices, no one can possibly predict an exact path given ENSO transitions. Even if someone could, there are still volcanoes. 2) SCIENCE. In some cases, there weren't practical science models. Clouds were difficult. Inflection points / nonlinearities are tricky to model, etc. 3) COMPUTE POWER. And finally, some effects simply could not be seen without getting grid elements small enough or intervals short enough. Since I was helping sell supercomputers, I was always pleased to hear this. But as usual, for some kinds of problems, resolution might already be adequate, or could be known to become adequate, but the barrier might be in data or science. They were of course always making tradeoffs of resolution versus run-time, with bounds on CPU performance, memory footprint, disk storage, I/O bandwidth.
  43. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    @47 mikeh1 said, "Any communication strategy needs to be directed at the bulk of the population who are still open to the science." Relevant to action in the States, the Leiserowitz et al paper, Global Warming's The Six Americas shows that the hard-core denial community stands at 10% of the US population. At least if you can put the deniers and fake skeptics in the "dismissive" category. Another 15% are in the "doubtful" category and are mostly influenced by the dismissive. In the segment that accepts the scientific consensus, we have 39% (13% alarmed + 26% concerned). In the middle are the cautious (29%) and the disengaged (6%). Since we observe denialism is resistant to reasoning and observations, shouldn't we be focusing efforts on educating the Cautious? While it is interesting to understand the psychology of denial, it seems that a lot of the effort that goes into direct rebuttal may be better focused on educating those Cautious Americans who haven't tipped into outright support of opposition of a national response to climate change. I'd like to see thoughts and research on how best to reach, teach, and motivate the Cautious segment to support reasonable action to mitigate and adapt. Also, don't these numbers show that the elected policy makers shouldn't have that much to fear from the denial community (25%) when there is so much support for the scientific consensus among the 39%? But then, there are the trillions of dollars in proven reserves of fossil fuels that must be written off at some point. I'd rather write off the profits than our descendants.
  44. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Andy@40 "because of the deeper failure of all of us to respond rationally to a novel, slow-motion, global, invisible threat. We have not evolved the instincts nor developed the social frameworks to address a problem of this nature adequately." I'm not entirely convinced. The threats posed by acid rain and the ozone hole were equally 'novel, slow-motion, global, invisible' threats to the populace at large, but governments listened to scientists and enacted sensible provisions to deal with those threats. I'm guilty of never having doubted climate science right from the beginning but mainly of presuming that the response would take the same course as it did for CFCs and acid rain. When we installed our solar hot water service in the 80s, I really thought that they would be the only kind of basic residential hot water services newly installed in Australia by say, 2000. When the first Rio conference came out with its vaguely worded objectives I was still certain that it was merely the first step in a diplomatic process to pin down the specifics - just like CFCs. I turned out to be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that that is because the diplomatic, political and business environment changed. I'm very glad that we identified the ozone hole problem when we did. If we were trying to deal with it now, I very much fear we wouldn't succeed.
  45. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Back to the topic. I am a regular at The Conversation. John's article attracted all the usual deniers who troll the climate science articles there plus a few new names including a fake "anthropologist" and a fake "climate scientist". Reading the comments, it is pretty clear that they are hardcore deniers and would not be persuaded if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted tomorrow. Any communication strategy needs to be directed at the bulk of the population who are still open to the science. To that end, I am bemused by sites like The Conversation which has a large readership and this charter http://theconversation.edu.au/our_charter but also allows the climate science denier trolls free rein. They have some great articles from actual climate scientists which are impossible to have a sensible discussion about because of the organised and intensive trolling. In my opinion that is insane. It is like going to a public meeting where a few loud and aggressive voices are allowed to shout from the back of the room to prevent any discussion - there is nothing democratic about it. I like the "put up or shut up" moderation policy which is generally implemented here because to quite frank, I am no longer interested in reading the same recycled denier arguments for the umpteenth time. And as a communication strategy, allowing deniers to post their anti-science rubbish on a university/science site sucks.
  46. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sorry about the first paragraph, a little garbled. There is absolutely more uncertainty about potential positive feedbacks such as melting methane deposits. I am only claiming that the uncertainty about climate sensitivity calculated from paleo evidence is towards the low side of sensitivity.
  47. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I have hit one of the hazards of being off topic for which I apologize. My comment on uncertainty is narrow, only applying to the last paragraph in #31 by KR. There absolutely uncertainty in the realm of positive feedbacks, for example methane from permafrost, etc. Those are not what I was considering paleo evidence, namely the changes in conditions from glacial to present. I realize my narrower claim of uncertainty still needs support. Here's a post on that topic chriskoz, since we are trying to project for 100 years, we need to run for 100 simulated years and accuracy of the results does depend on the temporal granularity of the model. If the model cannot depict the evolution of convection then it can't determine the climate effects of convection. It must instead rely on parameterizations that can only be derived from the current (mostly inapplicable) climate. The faster sea ice melt should be expected following a positive AO winter (similar to 2007) and mostly represents a natural fluctuation. The models do poorly precisely for that reason.
  48. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Here's a paper Sea-salt aerosol response ... from the Cornell website. The paper uses a model to compare climate (precip, wind and salt aerosol loading between those four climate regimes. The precipitation shows a steady increase from glacial to preindustrial to present to future with doubled CO2. That represents a negative feedback as the increased latent heat transfer offsets some of the increased GHE. The wind shows a fairly drastic difference from glacial to the other three regimes indicating that measurements such as sensitivity of climate to a forcing change from the glacial to interglacial can't be applied to interglacial to future. Tom in #72 replies that even if we are in a "Goldilocks" climate state, BAU will lift temperatures by 2-3C. My answer is there are not sufficient changes in the climate regime (compared to LGM) to do that. There are large decreases in wind (and consequent dust and other aerosols) that will not be duplicated to any significant extent in the forthcoming change from current to doubled CO2. The precip increases will work against temperature increases. In fig 3b (post 72) the left two squares are red because the starting conditions (LGM) are too different from today's starting conditions and the sensitivity estimate cannot be applied. I am trying to show further that the sensitivity estimate is also an overestimate due to the greater magnitude of climate changes from LGM to present than present to doubled CO2. People may argue that the increased difference is accounted for simply by the increased GAT change, but that change was only 4-5C.
  49. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    I havent tried to do this calculation for rest of world, but for NZ (which is heavily agriculture based), it was pretty easy to supply farm fuel needs with biofuel, particularly if woody biofuels or algal fuel that use non-arable land. Could even do transport diesel. So, I dont think we would starve without fossil fuels. Doing biofuel for all the other things that we use fuel for (especially private vehicles) is another story altogether.
  50. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    JohnMashey@43, Well said. I especially like the distinction beetween weather and climate as "Initial Value Problem" vs. "Boundary Value Problem". Eric (skeptic) clearly ignores this distinction. The evidence supporting my claim here, is that Eric expressed so much concern about the resolution and accuracy of local processes in climate models, i.e. he's concerned that climate models are "unable to model 100 years at 10 minute and 1 square mile resolution to capture convective precipitation processes". Apart from obvious fact that the accuracy of results does not depend on how long the models runs; we all know, that boundary value problem is not resolved by increasing model's accuracy. That's nonsense, a common fallacy of those "researchers" who "look at the tree & don't see the forest". Eric is also concerned about the cloud formation dynamics: very localised processes. They have nothing to do with the actual science of water vapour feedback which is large scale (global) process. To fine tune the boundary value problem models, such as AOGCM, a well mixed system, you must seek to better understand global processes. A good way to do fine-tune a complex, turbulent system such as climate, is by careful observation and correction of parameters. E.g. latest observations in the arctic strongly suggests that our models underestimate the current AGW. The much faster than expected sea ice melt means the arctic ice albedo positive feedback (eqiv. to 20y of emisions at current levels see here) be indicative of higher than expected CO2 sensitivity, or faster than expected eqilibrium earth system response. Eric simply ignores that observation and blatently states that "climate sensitivity is low" against it. That's a classic cherry-picking. There might be other aspects of the denialist attitude represented by Eric, people like Steve Lewandowski might be able to point. I just pointed those aspects that I'm sure about.

Prev  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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