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  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  Next

Comments 55251 to 55300:

  1. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    I forgot to mention, thanks for the article! This sort of long-wavelength attention span is one of the distinguishing and excellent features of SkS. Not to plot spoil, but readers willing to skip ahead will likely find the sea level effects of Greenland's ice mass pretty mind-blowing. Our planet is nothing if not full of dynamic potential. It'll be very nice to see a more elaborated discussion of the topic.
  2. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    What disturbs me most about this episode, and so many more like it, is the way that genuine valid criticism gets swamped by hyperbole. As Dana notes above it may be arguable, for example, that Field was not as explicit about economic losses as he could, or should, have been. However when Roger Pielke starts his post with claims that Field was 180 degrees wrong and fundamentally and unambiguously misrepresenting the IPCC it is inevitable that he will attract criticism for these claims. Certain commentators will then focus on the way that Pielke was 'attacked' and the impression will be given that anything critical of the consensus position is once again being dismissed out of hand. This seems a very common pattern to me.
  3. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    Thanks Doug. Will be getting to that in a later post in this series. I suspect a lot of this will seem highly unintuitive for a number of readers.
  4. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Thanks, DSL. That has spoiled my entire day. ;-b Here's a clickable link: Apocalypse Not: Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Worry About End Times Your characterization of his article is pretty good. It's mostly a polemic, cherry-picking the most extreme alarmist statements from the past and then helpfully reminding us that the world did not, in fact, end. He glosses over the fact that at the same time as these alarmist comments were made on HIV/AIDS, acid rain, DDT and the ozone layer, others were busy making unscientific and false claims that these things posed no threat at all. These counter-consensus claims were all given undue press attention and were embraced by reactionary political factions, indulging in wishful thinking in an attempt to preserve the status quo. Draw your own parallels with the climate crisis, because Matt Ridley won't do it for you. In the case of AIDS, for example, HIV denialism to contributed to what can only be described as an apocalypse in Southern Africa. Thanks to AIDS, there are an estimated 30 million people who no longer have to worry about the end times. (Wikipedia) It would be a disgraceful rhetorical sleight-of-hand to associate Ridley with the disaster made worse by fringe HIV/AIDS denialists. Nevertheless, he seems to think it is a legitimate tactic to associate anyone worried about the prospect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with the very worst alarmists, including Harold Camping and the Mayans. Ridley used to be a fine science writer. It is a shame to see him fallen to the level of a partisan hack.
  5. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    It's worth noting that beyond isostatic effects large ice sheets adjacent to oceans can influence sea level relatively local to the ice sheet quite dramatically by the gravitational anomaly they create. The numbers around this effect can be startlingly, nonintuitively large, particularly adjacent to such impressive ice masses as Greenland. Discussion toward the end of this article: The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly by Region More: Global geoid and sea level changes due to present-day ice mass fluctuations The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse The impact of Greenland melt on local sea levels: a partially coupled analysis of dynamic and static equilibrium effects in idealized water-hosing experiments
  6. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    BTW, the National Science Foundations is giving 19 million in grants for climate change education: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/08/nsf_promotes_climate-change_ed.html
  7. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    I think we all (even Pielke) agree that climate change has been linked to many types of extreme weather, which in turn can cause disasters, which in turn can cause economic losses. Taking the step from extreme weather to disasters/losses is difficult because as has been discussed here, there are other factors which come in to play, like improving technology - basically people adapting to extreme weather. So I think we're all generally in agreement about the science, and then the question becomes whether Field accurately presented the scientific literature in his testimony. I think my comment @114 showed that it did - Field never said climate change is linked to increasing economic losses. All he did was say there have been associated economic losses, so it's important to examine the role climate change has played. Then he talked about how climate change has impacted various types of extreme weather events. So as I noted @116, we're left with Field at worst not explicitly stating that the link between climate change and economic losses from disasters is complicated and unclear, despite the fact that climate change has been linked to an increase in extreme weather events. I think that's an exceptionally nitpicky criticism, especially when during the same hearing John Christy repeated a bunch of flat-out wrong climate myths without a peep of criticism from Pielke. Moreover I think we've clearly established that Pielke's assertion that Field's testimony was 180 degrees wrong is completely unfounded. Pielke still disgrees, but has failed to explain why or provide any evidence that his original criticism is valid. Pielke complains that we're only focusing on 1 of his 5 points, but the other 4 are very similar, an in fact some are even weaker criticisms (i.e. the drought criticism). So bottom line, Field's testimony was consistent with the scientific literature, did not mislead Congress, and at worst was not as explicit about links to economic losses as Pielke would have liked.
  8. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    By the way, Andy, your good friend Matt Ridley is at it again, this time at Wired: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot . His argument? False alarms have happened before, and lukewarmers don't get published; therefore, technology will save the day.
  9. Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
    Nice PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice animation (1979-2012) from RealClimate participant Andy Lee Robinson: http://haveland.com/share/piomas-arctic-1979-2012-07-pov-anim.avi Props, dude. You're my hero!
  10. Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
    IJIS sea ice extent has dipped below 5 million square km now, currently at a record low for the time of year, passing the 5M sq km mark at six days before it was reached in 2007, and 11 days before last year (the current 3rd lowest). It's unsettling to watch the graphs and look at the MODIS Arctic mosaic images, to say the least. Much informative talk as ever at Neven's great Arctic blog, but I'll restrict myself to an unscientific Excel estimation of the minimum ice extent from today: It's based on projecting the IJIS extent loss from the current date (yesterday, so as not to include the preliminary IJIS current day data) to the date of minimum. Minimum values are estimated from the losses between the current date and each year's minimum date. For example, 2009 lost ~911,000sq km from 17th August to bottom out on 12th Sept '09, so the estimate based on 2009 data is 12th Sept (day 256) and ~4.03M sq km. Estimates based on the last 5 years are open red circles, the previous four years (2003-2006) are triangles: It looks extremely likely that we'll see a new record this year, as many are forecasting. With losses like any of the last 5 years, the minimum will be close to or below 4M sq km. All sorts of uncertainty with this sort of estimate (not least that the ice lost is now in the central Arctic, rather than round the edges), but it's safe to say that those looking for "recovery" might want to look away for a while...
  11. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Tom Curtis @19, a very good point - one I need to start incorporating in my talks on the subject! I think that's exactly why good people like David Bellamy fall into denial. It's also a reason why people can be in denial about personal matters - like a failed marriage: the longer it goes on, the harder it is to admit that one has been flogging a dead horse and making oneself and others miserable. And again, the only way to move forward is to admit to oneself that the current course is wrong. So you're absolutely spot on, but it may be a tricky point to make with children. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
  12. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Monkeyorchid @13, another motive of some deniers is an unwillingness to accept the undermining of their life's narrative. These are people who have worked hard throughout their life trying to make the world a better place for their children. They are now being told that that hard work has polluted the atmosphere with CO2 in a way which may destroy their children's future. That is a bitter pill to swallow, and some simply will not accept it because it undermines their self narrative. I think this is a significant factor in the fact that so many deniers are fifty and over. Ironically, by not accepting it they are contributing towards turning a recoverable situation into one beyond recovery.
  13. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    @ 16 monkeyorchid Exactly, "If children *see* a container of C02 getting warmer than one of air, when both are exposed to re-radiated light, that's a big block of the science covered." and an historical experiment to boot. Discovery is always exciting and captures the imagination, placing that discovery in a context ensures that its meaningfulness endures.
  14. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    scaddenp@11 also, please provide the reference for your claim: "anthropogenic GHG is about 3.7W/m2". My reference: IPCC table, shows the anthropogenic GHG forcings as 3.0W/m2 (other forcings, mainly aerosols, are -1.4W/m2), so your number appears to be exagerated.
  15. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    @ Steve L 12 & Macro 14 I also agree - and perhaps one could build up to climate change from multiple angles. First, we'd need to get to the properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which could be covered by experiments on physical properties of different gases. If children *see* a container of C02 getting warmer than one of air, when both are exposed to re-radiated light, that's a big block of the science covered. This itself might be the culmination of gradual exploration of elements and compounds, with a constant eye on how they affect our lives. Indeed, CO2 and water are arguably the two compounds most relevant to life on earth and there is much that could be taught about them. Teaching the carbon cycle from the simple perspective of plants breath it in, animals breathe it out also kills off the absurd "humans only produce 3% of CO2" myth. A second angle might be the history of weather forecasting, which is full of exciting stories that could embellish the facts - for example Robert Fitzroy (captian of the Beagle) and his struggle to save sailors' lives by forecasting storms. Early heroes of climate science like Arrhenius and Keeling could then be brought in. Thirdly, aspects of the history of life could be covered - explaining how coal and oil formed, and how locking up of carbon cooled the planet. Timescale would need to be emphasised! I'm sure there are other angles too, but you're both right that just jumping straight in with climate change may not be the best approach. With building blocks of science i place beforehand, children will be able to work out for themselves that denialists myths are full of holes.
  16. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    scaddenp@11 Do you have a reference to the Milankovitch-number? It would be a great asset to beat the people who refer to the magical cyclical nature of climate. TIA.
  17. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    @ Steve L 12 Totally agree Steve. As an educator of 30 + years, teaching at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels the value of context is everything. When a subject is revealed as a process of the development of human understanding it gains relevance. In Physics, far better to start with the Ancient Greek world view, the questioning of Copernicus, and Galileo, etc.. (I'm missing out steps here - but I hope you get the drift.) Far too often a subject is presented as a unified whole - devoid of human spirit - here it is kids x, y z!) And we wonder why they are turned off - or fail to see the relevance! For instance, a few years back, my eldest daughter was beginning her degree in Chemistry, and the major topic of the year was oxidation, as one would probably expect. But no context, no hint of why this might be a relevant line of enquiry, nothing - just a whole bunch of "knowledge to be learnt". That's a big turn - off. Although a very competent A student, she decided Chemistry wasn't for her, and turned her attentions to other subjects that were presented in a more relevant way. I'm not saying she should have persisted with the subject - I'm simply saying that subjects need to be given relevance. The historical development of a subject as a process for revealing the emerging human understanding of the world around us, is a valid and useful pedagogical tool.
  18. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    4. ubrew12, Very good comments - as I wrote this, I felt that bright kids would keep asking valid questions like these, forcing teachers to keep expanding on the topic. "Why do otherwise sensible people say it isn't happening?" is a very likely question. Hence it may be necessary to equip teachers with an understanding of the causes of denial. I tend to think that there are three basic causes: Fear, Ideology and Profit. The man on the street doesn't want something so scary to be real (who can blame him?!); a lot of right-wingers hate the political consequences of climate change being real, so they pretend it isn't; a small but hugely influential group of people spew out disinformation to earn money or protect their profits. To really understand climate change, possibly children need to understand these motivators, too. 6. calyptorhynchus True, though the topics overlap. Ideal would be if science and sociology teachers could teach classes on this together, or at least collaborate closely over lesson plans. At very least, the sociology teachers would need a decent grasp of the science to deal with any awkward questions coming along. Of course, really teacher of every subject should understand the science, in an ideal world! 8. michael sweet The grant money question is a popular denialist myth precisely because of the difficulty you mention, which stems from most folk knowing so little about how science and its funding operates. Perhaps classes on critical thinking need to expand to how research is funded? Of course, you can point to the massive amounts of money paid to people specifically to deny the reality of climate change, and to Richard Muller, whose BEST work was only funded because the funders expected the opposite result to what he provided. Perhaps a case study of BEST would help address these points? Also you might ask why, if it really were a myth, politicians would continue paying scientists to talk about a problem that politicians are abjectly failing to solve!
  19. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    So the nearest we have of Roger Pielke Jr clarifying his understanding of the distinction between extreme events and disaster losses is his acknowledgement in #115 that SREX dealt with the state of the science quite well. That's vague, and far from what I was looking for from my earlier question, but better than nothing. Can we take from this comment, that Dr Pielke accepts the SREX position on the anthropogenic origin of changes in temperature, precipitation and sea level, as quoted in the post above? I hope so. If Pielke accepts that the SREX is correct on the anthropogenic change of certain meteorological events, we are left wondering how he disagrees with Field - because the SREX agrees with Field that the link between climate change and these kinds of extremes [temperature, precipitation, sea level] is clear. So does that mean Pielke disagrees with the other part of the statement? Does Dr Pielke think that these "kinds of extremes" [of temperature, precipitation and sea level] cannot "lead to disasters"? Ludicrous! This is not a position on which it is acceptable to merely "agree to disagree", as Pielke wants. He has made rather serious claims about Field's testimony, which he has been utterly unable to support or justify with evidence. When pressed on these matters, Pielke prefers to 'agree to disagree', muddying the issue, rather than considering that he might be in error. Consider me unimpressed by Dr Pielke on this issue.
  20. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    An article that is somewhat relevant to BodHod and Tom's comments is the paper by Freudenberg and Muselli (2010). The Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge concept (discussed in this SkS post) deals mostly with an effect that tends to draw research towards being more conservative rather than 'alarmist', but the concept is a bit similar to the media effect described above. Research that shows results to be 'about what we thought' get less attention. The closing paragraph of the SkS post is worth quoting:
    "If the intention is to offer true balance in reporting, the scientifically credible ‘‘other side’’ is that, if the consensus estimates such as those from the IPCC are wrong, it is because the physical reality is significantly more ominous than has been widely recognized to date".
    Will we see a point at which the media realises that it might be "worse than we thought" rather than the existing pseudodebate between "it's happening" and the misinformation of "it's not happening"?
  21. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    PZ Myers just recently linked to a cartoon in which someone questions a history teacher about revolution in the same way that biology instructors get questioned about evolution. The history prof relents and admits that teaching history is easier. I'm not sure that's always true, but I am frequently referencing the history of climate science and sending people to Spencer Weart's work. When we first take physics, we start with Newton. (Don't we? It has been a while for me.) Or in Chemistry, we go through a bunch of old models of the atom. It's useful to follow the historical intellectual development of how we have come to understand the world. Well, that's how I think climate change should be taught in school. Start with development of theory and how people tested it in the past. That's the curriculum in grade X. In grade X+1 more recent developments would be covered along evaluations of alternate 'theories'. What do these theories predict? Well, teach it when the kids are in grades 4-6, then don't worry about it. Teach them how to evaluate things in general after that. By the time these kids reach voting age, they'll be able to see if temperatures have dropped or sea ice has recovered. They should be able to look at the various predictions and figure out which are more useful.
  22. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    And to elaborate on that with a comment from a previous post.. The maximum milankovitch forcing that drives ice age is due to change in solar forcing that is about 0.25W/m2 per hundred years at 65N. Globally, its maybe a tenth of that. By comparison, anthropogenic GHG is about 3.7W/m2 over last 100 years on a GLOBAL scale. Think how much change is involved between glacial and interglacial for that small a forcing and then think about what 3.7W/m2 might do. In this respect, man is hardly insignificant compared to nature.
  23. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    This could really bogged down in semantics. "Man doesn't drive climate change, we influence it. Nature drives the climate change bus" would be better written as Man can drive the climate change bus and Nature can drive climate change bus. And note we are talking about change. Manmade forcings over the last 200 years are as powerful as those found in nature over a similar period. That is an accurate statement that teachers should be teaching.
  24. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Bodhod @8 touches on a very important point. Newspapers (and other news media) value stories only on the basis of how many readers they will attract. A story about the IPCC being wrong will interest people far more than, for example, a story about Anthony Watts being wrong. The former is a "Man bites dog" story, the latter is "Dog bites man". The result is that people whose only source of information will read detailed coverage of the few errors by the IPCC, but nothing about the innumerable errors by deniers. The picture they inevitably gain is of an inaccurate IPCC, and of deniers who make few or no errors - ie, the exact opposite of the truth. This institutional bias works to miseducate the public on climate change in a number of ways. Studies that can be construed as contradicting the IPCC will get more attention than those that confirm it (even if they have to be misconstrued to contradict the IPCC). Studies that confirm the IPCC will be ignored. Those studies that give results "alarmist" enough to generate controversy will have their "alarmist" conclusions exaggerated out of all proportion to make them more news worthy; and then the same reporters will happily run stories about failed predictions, never noticing that the failed predictions are not those of the scientists, but their own distortions. The media make strong claims of the rights of freedom of speech, of the press, and to the right to protect their sources. There claims, however, are premised on the notion that a free press contributes to the strength of democracy. Repeated recent experience shows that a commercial press driven only by commercial considerations cripples democracy rather than strengthens it.
  25. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    @Martin - hurricane formation is inhibited by wind shear. I recall hearing that this was supposed to increase in a GW world, but don't recall the source. Here's one: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100121/full/news.2010.24.html. What I'd expect to see with a hotter ocean is more years like 2005, placing 3 (Atlantic) hurricanes in the 6 most intense, and more rapid intensifications like Wilma's. 2005 was a WTF year for hurricanes.
  26. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Unfortunately there's now a media consensus that climate change is boring. "...surely reporters could at least write accurate stories on the state of the scientific consensus." Newspapers only really want to print headline grabbing stories and therefore love to report tales of scandal or the opinions of the latest eminent loon to come out with a contrarian rant. Reporters aren't encouraged to do in-depth research anymore - only to churn out copy. Sadly this is what informs public opinion. Am I being overly pessimistic? ;(
  27. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Answering the grant money question? Try Scott Mandia's pair of "Taking the money for granted" posts on the issue. Part 1 , Part 2
  28. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Keep in mind that teachers in the USA are similar to run of the mill people. That means that a lot of them think that climate change might not be happening. Two years ago one of my students (I teach AP Chemistry) told me that the Physics teacher had proved that the greenhouse effect could not exist. He was a popular teacher and students were inclined to believe him. In the past I was very frustrated trying to discuss climate change because students who were deniers would say that scientists only argue in support of AGW to get grant money. I cannot respond to this argument reasonably. I address AGW by assigning a several reports where the students look up their own data and write reports on sea ice or global temperature. The data is so strong I do not even need to discuss it in class.
  29. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Note that Heartland has been trying Fakeducaiton for years, some with Australian connection, some with Canadian. Do watch a few minutes of the video.
  30. calyptorhynchus at 11:22 AM on 17 August 2012
    Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    I reckon C, teaching climate science in the science classroom, and then in another class (sociology or whatever) teaching about climate change denialism.
  31. Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
    For my money, I think it should be used for emissions from steel works and cement - we cant easily avoid use of coal, especially for steel, but it does increase carbon efficiency.
  32. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Tom, that costs decline due to decreased vulnerability is a sunk cost and you have to discount it, which means that there is going to have to be a huge decrease in normalized losses to make up for it, and the data, such as it is pretty much shows that costs have increased slightly or held even. People and governments don't arbitrarily increase adaptive measures, they do so to match losses.
  33. Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
    scaddenp @47, I do not know about the economics, but that is one form of CCS that I do consider safe. The idea is that having harvested the algae, it is converted to charcoal by combustion with limited oxygen. That process burns of much of the hydrogen, leaving carbon behind, and is desirable to prevent the formation of methane after burial. The resulting charcoal is then buried in deep, anoxic conditions. This is effectively a coal to coal CCS storage sytem. It does not violate any law of thermodynamics because of the additional solar energy absorbed by the algae (which then becomes an upper limit on energy harvested). Of course, photosynthesis is not an efficient means of capturing solar energy, so I doubt this is economic. Without the burial, as you note, it is not CSS, and hence not a solution to the problem of excess CO2 emissions.
  34. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Hyperactive Hydrologist @119 re definitions, I wondered about the appropriateness of using the UNISDR definitions. However, they are standard definitions of the terms, and the SREX says:
    "The concepts and definitions presented in this chapter and employed throughout the Special Report take into account a number of existing sources (IPCC, 2007c; UNISDR, 2009d; ISO, 2009) but also reflect the fact that concepts and definitions evolve as knowledge, needs, and contexts vary. Disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change are dynamic fields, and have in the past exhibited and will necessarily continue in the future to exhibit such evolution."
    (My emphasis) UNISDR 2009d is in fact the UNISDR webpage from which I quoted. However, for accuracy, Hazard is defined in the SREX as follows:
    "When extreme and non-extreme physical events, such as tropical cyclones, floods, and drought, can affect elements of human systems in an adverse manner, they assume the characteristic of a hazard. Hazard is defined here as the potential occurrence of a natural or human induced physical event that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, and environmental resources. Physical events become hazards where social elements (or environmental resources that support human welfare and security) are exposed to their potentially adverse impacts and exist under conditions that could predispose them to such effects. Thus, hazard is used in this study to denote a threat or potential for adverse effects, not the physical event itself (Cardona, 1986, 1996, 2011; Smith, 1996; Tobin and Montz, 1997; Lavell, 2003; Hewitt, 2007; Wisner et al., 2004)."
    (Original emphasis) Under this definition, a Hurricane is not a hazard until it interacts with exposed humans or economic resources that are vulnerable. The distinction is still made between the adverse affects of the Hurricane (the disaster) and the Hurricane itself (the hazard), but under this definition not all Hurricane's are hazards. This may be one reason for Field's circumlocution of "the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters"; although I suspect he would have used that circumlocution because the accurate and equivalent phrase (under the UNISDR definition, but not the SREX definition) "meteorological or climatological hazards" would have required time wasting definition. In any event, throughout this discussion I have used the term "hazard" in accordance with the UNISDR definition. It is also used according to that definition in its single occurrence in the original article.
  35. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    jimspy@5 Well, it has been tried with the Oregon Petition. As has been pointed out by John Cook, some skeptics like to claim that "31,487 American scientists have signed this petition" (against mainstream climate science), while in the next breath they decry the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populi (popular vote). Of course, contradictions and climate skeptic arguments have never been strangers. In fact, no good scientist would ever claim that something is logically true because many other people believe it. It's just that most researchers know that there are certain areas of knowledge that are so well supported by evidence that it would be a waste of effort to try to refute them.
  36. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Hyperactive Hydrologist @119, no, the expenditure on decreasing vulnerability does not get factored in to the costs of disasters. Environmental costs, deaths and injuries may be converted to monetary value in some studies. In the Munich Re figures which are used by Neumayer and Barthel, some deaths and injuries are monetized in insured losses in the form of successful insurance claims - but other than that they are not SFAIK. Contrary to Eli, I don't think the costs of reducing vulnerability can reasonably be included in these studies, and inlcuding the costs of environmental damage and human injuries and/or deaths will always be controversial. It is better, IMO, to stick with more reliable information, but to keep in mind the limitations of the studies, as Neumayer and Barthel, and the SREX do, but Pielke Jr does not. Nor is Eli's final dilemma accurate. At least one study (Neumayer and Barthel) shows a declining normalized cost over time. It is possible that the decline represents the benefit of decreased vulnerability, which does come at a cost. But it is not possible a priori to conclude that the decline due to decreasing vulnerability is greater than the decline in normalized losses, as Eli's door A assumes. Never-the-less, by insisting that a lack of significant trend in normalized losses from meteorological disasters shows that hazards have not increased, Pielke Jr is assuming that efforts to reduce vulnerability have been ineffective so that they do not qualify the data. His assumption is completely unwarranted. I will further note that the issue of increasing hazards is only irrelevant to policy makers if decreasing vulnerability is a cost free exercise, which is of course completely false. In a world of increasing natural hazards, there are costs for humans. The question is only whether we will reduce those costs by decreasing vulnerability and exposure, or take them in large tragic doses as natural disasters.
  37. Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
    Carbon capture could also be used to drive CO2-enhanced algal farms though this is by no means "storage". However, using CO2 in this way would at least improve MJ/tonne CO2 emitted for the energy production.
  38. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Rust@4. Thanks. That paper led me to this study: Americans' Knowledge of Climate Change (pdf 8MB), which I have added a link to in the main text.
  39. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    BWTrainer and Dana - Thank you for both of those replies. All - Sadly the messages warning of eternal damnation to all non-Muslims are no longer visible on the GWPF website but they were amusing while they lasted. No doubt, by tomorrow, they will be replaced with the normal comforting messages assuring all readers (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) that there is no cause for alarm...
  40. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    FWIW the problem with determining whether economic damages from storms and the like have increased is that building construction is much improved, so if economic damages are constant, then the storm frequency and/or intensity has increased. Hurricane straps, satellite observation and evacuation orders strongly limit damages and deaths. If anyone is telling you that because direct economic losses have stayed the same there is no proof that storms have gotten worse, they are simply being extremely economical with the truth. The EPA had something to say about this ------------------- Regarding weather-related damages such as flooding, we note the conclusions of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) (2008i) which state that “Numerous studies indicate that both the climate and the socioeconomic vulnerability to weather and climate extremes are changing (Brooks and Doswell, 2001; Pielke et al., 2008; Downton et al., 2005), although these factors’ relative contributions to observed increases in disaster costs are subject to debate. For example, it is not easy to quantify the extent to which increases in coastal building damage is due to increasing wealth and population growth in vulnerable locations versus an increase in storm intensity. Some authors (e.g., Pielke et al., 2008) divide damage costs by a wealth factor in order to ‘normalize’ the damage costs. However, other factors such as changes in building codes, emergency response, warning systems, etc. also need to be taken into account. --------------------- A while ago Eli was reminiscing how he and Nils Simon had shown that Ethons source of little liver treats had made a living by omitting a whole lot of important things from his discussion of hurricane damage, and as is clear from this exchange other things. First, it is obvious even to a stuffed animal that the costs of flood control and surge barriers to limit damage from storms has increased substantially over the last fifty years. If such expenditures have not been included in the storm cost estimates, and the trend without them is flat, the trend with such costs must increase substantially. Any estimate that neglects these costs must be stated as a lower limit. Neither Eli or Nils can find any such statement, not just from Roger Pielke. Therefore in true "Honest Broker" form, Rabett Run concludes that (OK, draw your own conclusions from what Roger calls others who mis-state something) Second, and this is Nils' insight, not to include such costs or deal with their effect when you are aware of them, is either dishonest or a statement that such adaptation has no effect. Since we have been adapting to increased storm damage like crazy. Pielke is in Zugzwang. The Birdie or the Birdie Roger can choose door A, storm cost has been increasing mightily in the past century or door B, adaptation has no effect. Ethon is standing behind both doors. Which of his policy principles does he want to feed to the birdie?
    Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps converted to bold.
  41. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Martin - as BWTrainer notes, Hansen did not discuss hurricanes, so Watts' comments are not in conflict with Hansen's. Hurricanes are a tricky matter because global warming is expected to cause both increased ocean temps (which make hurricanes stronger) and wind shear (which disrupts hurricane formation). So most likely hurricanes will become stronger but probably form somewhat less frequently. That's still a cloudy area of research however. Watts is focusing on Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) - I don't recall exactly how this translates to hurricane intensity - and he also focuses mainly on the Atlantic. Research has shown that there does seem to be a long-term trend toward stronger hurricanes, i.e. see here. Also note that Watts is using the eyeball method - he hasn't actually shown what the long-term trend is in ACE. Long story short, Watts hasn't actually shown that hurricanes aren't getting stronger - he's just shown a graph and made an over-reaching assertion, and research suggests they are getting stronger. doug @20 - most of this post is just a summary of the peer-reviewed research, so as you note, if Mass thinks he's identified technical errors, his beef is probably with Hansen, Dai, Rahmstorf, Otto, Donut, etc., not with SkS. But if he would like to point out where he thinks we have made any technical errors, I'd certainly be open to constructive criticism, as opposed to the unconstructive vague criticism he seems to have provided thus far.
  42. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Is Joe giving out any autographed versions? Any book signings in the US West coast?
  43. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Off Topic and Probably Naieve Is there any kind of an organized or informal effort to use these wonderful posts at Skeptical Science to refute denialist nonsense that is so common in Internet dscussion forums and news article comment sections? Is there an article somewhere on this site on that topic? Here are my latest postings (under rwmsrobertw) in a current article from CNN on Mississippi river low water levels (in relation to global warming, which always comes up in the comments on extreme weather related articles). CNN - Salt Creeping up the Mississippi River I'd love some company (besides some great posts I'm already seeing there) on this if anyone else wants to play. Thanks for the great articles that I have been reading here for years that have taught me enough to get involved.
  44. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    My first statement was just a standard rant any time Watts is brought up, especially because I was forced to actually go to his site to see what you were talking about. As for the second part, I go back to your original post - you questioned how Hansen and Watts could both be true. Given that they were talking about entirely different events, I don't necessarily see the correlation. One of them being right wouldn't preclude the other from also being right. RE: hurricane intensity and frequency. I don't know much about it to say if Watts is right or not. But remember the lag time in the burning of fossil fuels and its impact on short term local climate events. Given the warming we have in the pipeline, an absence of stronger and more frequent hurricanes over the past couple decades (if true) doesn't mean there won't be for the next century. This SkS page discusses the impact of global warming on hurricane frequency and strength.
  45. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    The WUWT Tips and Notes page really is a great place to find out about interesting stuff: e.g. It would appear that a Saudi Arabian computer hacker - with some emotional intelligence clearly - has taken over the website of the Global Warming Policy Foundation...
  46. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    BWTrainer - I hope you do not mistake me for a fake skeptic? I am well aware of AW's track record of obfuscation, data misrepresentation, and support for conspiracy theory explanations for what is supposedly not happening. Therefore, returning to my actual question - why is the frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes not increasing? What form of data-mangling has AW performed in order to present this apparently well-supported conclusion? Presumably, whatever he has done, it is a similar trick as that performed to make it appear that tornadoes are becoming less frequent and less intense over time as well? I would therefore like to know how this trick is done (and I hope I do not need to join the Magic Circle to find out).
  47. The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
    Sorry - missed this (#15) - yes I'm well aware that the Cambrian Mountains see orographic enhancement on a routine basis. Was the 1947 high related to snowmelt? Locals in Talybont have long told me that the 1963 flood had that as a big factor. Not sure what you are saying with "I am also not convinced that the thermal conveyor is being disrupted by 'Arctic amplification' as has been suggested." That is not what has been suggested above.
  48. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    I think it's important to ask people WHY they hold opinions at all, especially about esoteric scientific topics. Why hold an opinion on climate change and not the Higgs boson? Who told you it was 'really important' to prep yourself on THIS topic and not THAT topic. An American farmer was asked whether he thought their drought was climate change, and he said, "I don't know, I don't go in for politics.". 'Politics'? People need to be challenged about WHY they hold opinions. If more people were challenged in that way, they might understand that their 'scientific' understanding was foisted on them by political forces. These forces are telling them that they must hold an opinion, not for any scientific reason, but as part of their political identity. A few years ago, that farmer would have told you, flat out, "there is no such thing as global warming". It is only in the grip of a horrid drought that his POLITICAL identity has come under question, so the best he can muster in response is that he doesn't go in for 'politics'. Its peoples political identity that you are 'attacking' by publicly worrying about global warming. Asking them WHY they feel the need to hold an opinion on a scientific subject can perhaps get the ball rolling to peel back their programming.
  49. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    All, my travel schedule that provided a bit of time to participate here has come to and end, so if I am unresponse from here on, please understand why. I do appreciate the opportunity to interact and now have a sense of SkS, which I was only vaguely aware of. Good luck with your future efforts, perhaps we will cross paths again .. RP
  50. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    @ Martin - For starters, it's Anthony Watts. He's been discredited so many times that nothing he says is worth listening to. If a person goes onto WUWT site not believing something, and then believing it after reading Watts, that person is most likely less intelligent than when starting, since he now believes something that isn't true. Now to your actual question - Watts posts some graphs about Northern Atlantic hurricane intensities. James Hansen is talking about an increase in high temperatures. I fail to see the connection here. Please explain if I'm missing something.

Prev  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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