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  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  Next

Comments 55301 to 55350:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Is Joe giving out any autographed versions? Any book signings in the US West coast?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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...
  11. 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).
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    If deniers have their doubts about Doran & Zimmerman, how hard would it be for them to try to duplicate the study, "correcting" the methodologies they find fault with, and perhaps expanding the participation? It certainly wouldn't be expensive for them - they could pay for it with the money found in the Koch brothers' couch. That they haven't even attempted to do so speaks volumes, and in fact strikes me as another nail in the coffin.
  17. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:31 AM on 17 August 2012
    Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Tom, Good posts at 88 and 111. I found reading all those definitions particularly useful. I notice they differ in, some respects, to the IPCC definitions although the IPCC is specifically referring to Climate Change. Does expenditure on reducing vulnerability get factored in when calculating economic costs? What about environmental losses how are they accounted for? And what about the social impacts? It seems to me that approaching this issue from an economic perspective makes it very difficult to draw any definitive conclusion. There is also the danger of ignoring many other critical issues relating to disasters.
  18. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Which is why the latest Texas republican party platform is against teaching critical thinking in schools.
  19. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger, you may reject dana's 'characterizations' of your remarks, as is your wont and right: However, as someone who's been actively reading this entire thread, who's watched the video of Field's testimony at *least* 4 times now, I can see *no* other interpretation/characterization of your words 'at variance' with dana's et al exegesis of them. Fields did not say what you infer he did say. You declaim the process of exegesis of a given scientist's recorded words, but when rigorous, well-documented exegesis of your own (and I'll go on record here) MIScharacterizations of Field's testimony, all you seem to be able to offer is...."let's agree to disagree." At this point, the only disagreement I can see extant is your outright rejection of commonly- and widely-held norms of scientific grammar, intent and sentence structure, *all* of which shows Field did ~not~ 'grossly misrepresnt SREX, or the IPCC. You may, at your convenience, reject my characterizations, however. Perhaps if you feel this strongly that Fields "...is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong.", then might it be to your best interests, professionally, to do a peer-reviewed rebuttal to his testimony? I had hoped that Fields himself might weigh in on this thread, too. Thanks!
  20. Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
    Feel free to use my rebuttal to the Wall Street Sixteen Three: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/and-then-there-were-three/
  21. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Cliff Mass replies on his blog: "That skepticalscience piece is FULL of serious technical errors. They are a climate advocacy groups run by non-atmospheric scientists. Groups like that ( and others of similar ilk, et.gClimateCentral)are part of the problem..." I've suggested to Cliff (who is in fact an admirably skilled meteorological researcher and runs some very excellent modeling efforts here in the Pacific NW) that if we are to evaluate arguments by affiliation and specialty rather than specific analysis then of course we'll go with Hansen's results. Hopefully he'll offer something more tractable for purposes of discussion than a caps-lock invocation. For what it's worth, I don't think Cliff is very well calibrated against the nuances of this matter. He's nothing if not extremely enthusiastic and that energy shows in everything he writes, right or wrong.
  22. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Dana, I have read this post (which is very good) but you do not address storm intensity -vs- heatwave intensity? For example, why (as WUWT appears to show here) do changes in storm intensity appear to be cyclical (rather than steadily increasing)? How can Hansen et al (2012) and Watts et al (2012?) both be true? Also, what criticism by Muller was Mann was reacting to in the 'On the Green Front' broadcast (yesterday - as embedded on WUWT above)? That is to say, has Muller been attacking Mann because of the sarcastic Tweet (to the effect that Muller is likely to catch up with climate science eventually)? What have I missed?
  23. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -116-dana1981 Thanks, but I reject your characterization of my remarks. Of course, so far the discussion has only focused on 1 of the 5 issues that I raised with Field's testimony. Again, we shall agree to disagree. Thanks!
  24. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Also, isn't it *interesting* that such a bill would be introduced in Tennessee, where the Scopes trial took place?
  25. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger @115
    "To ignore that science is to leave oneself open to charges of misleading the listener"
    Yes, you have made that quite clear by yourself charging Field with misleading the listener (though I haven't seen anyone other than you level these charges). So here's where we started, with Roger claiming:
    "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress."
    And now we have whittled the criticism down to Field not explicitly stating that a clear connection between climate change and monetary disaster losses has not yet been made. We began with the claim 'Field is blatantly wrong' and have come to 'Field wasn't quite as explicit as I would have liked'. That's quite a large evolution.
  26. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    I've been a docent at Dinosaur Ridge, for nearly 15 years; even back when I started, there would be groups of tours, mainly children, that when I'd be talking about the signs of ancient life and geology so richly displayed there, almost inevitably there would be a 'creationist' kid who'd challenge my ancient Earth ideas. Needless to say, it would be an *uncomfortable* moment, and it remains so. I guess all we ("we" being those who believe in the scientific method, data, and facts, both professional and lay persons) can do is to continue to battle this ...scourge. Thanks for the article, monkeyorchild.
  27. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -114-dana1981 You write: " I'm left concluding that Pielke thinks that even mentioning the word "disaster" or monetary value losses is impermissable when discussing the link between climate change and extreme weather" No, it is not impermissible, of course, but a responsible and not-misleading discussion actually mentions the state of the science of disasters on monetary value losses in the context of climate change, when mentioning then issues together -- as SREX did quite well. To ignore that science is to leave oneself open to charges of misleading the listener -- not good for IPCC WGII Co-Chair testifying before Congress. Of course, the importance of sticking to the science when it comes to economic losses is a point I am colleagues have been making for >10 years, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone with the least familiarity with my work or views. Thanks!
  28. rustneversleeps at 01:51 AM on 17 August 2012
    The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Just to re-emphasize the points you make in the final section "Why is the climate science consensus important?", and your closing paragraph... cf. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement, Nature Climate Change, November 2011. Abstract: "Although a majority of US citizens think that the president and Congress should address global warming, only a minority think it should be a high priority. Previous research has shown that four key beliefs about climate change - that it is real, human caused, serious and solvable - are important predictors of support for climate policies. Other research has shown that organized opponents of climate legislation have sought to undermine public support by instilling the belief that there is widespread disagreement among climate scientists about these points — a view shown to be widely held by the public. Here we examine if this misperception is consequential. We show that the misperception is strongly associated with reduced levels of policy support and injunctive beliefs (that is, beliefs that action should be taken to mitigate global warming). The relationship is mediated by the four previously identified key beliefs about climate change, especially people’s certainty that global warming is occurring. In short, people who believe that scientists disagree on global warming tend to feel less certain that global warming is occurring, and show less support for climate policy. This suggests the potential importance of correcting the widely held public misperception about lack of scientific agreement on global warming." And from the closing paragraphs: "Importantly, these findings are actionable: the myth of widespread disagreement among climate scientists over whether global warming is happening has little to no basis in truth, and it emerged, at least in part, as the result of a concerted effort to deceive the public. Purposive campaigns can be mounted to correct important misperceptions. "... efforts to `debias' audiences should repeatedly assert the correct information for example, `the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is happening' because repeated assertions, in time, become more familiar and therefore more likely to be deemed true. This strategy is consistent with the literature on public information campaigns, which has long emphasized the importance of the repetition of simple, clear messages to communicate effectively with the public."
    Moderator Response: [AS] Fixed broken link
  29. Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
    We've got a rebuttal blog post to that WSJ nonsense in the works, Lionel. Look for it next week.
  30. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    At this point I think we've established that Pielke's problem is with Field even mentioning the word "disaster" in his testimony. So let's look at the context of each example and see if there is any ambiguity: 1) "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear." I don't see any problems here. Clearly the types of disasters being discussed (e.g. hurricanes) are climate-related, and there is indeed a link between climate change and many types of extreme weather. 2) "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011...The 2011 disasters included a blizzard, tornadoes...." That's obviously correct. 3) "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known." I know Pielke wouldn't have a problem with that statement. 4) "The evidence pointing to the driving force behind the extra risk (either the climate change of the excess speed) can be strong, but it is still difficult to predict exactly when and where disaster might occur." No issues there I presume. Climate change is certainly one driving force behind extreme weather-related risk. 5) "And just as many factors influence the risk of a car accident, the risk of a weather-related disaster is strongly influenced by disaster preparations, early warning, and the integrity of local infrastructure like buildings, roads, and the electricity grid." That's certainly true - a point Tom Curtis has made here. 6) "There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risk of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster." Very clearly and accurately stated. That's it. I'm left concluding that Pielke thinks that even mentioning the word "disaster" or monetary value losses is impermissable when discussing the link between climate change and extreme weather, even if the speaker does not link disasters and losses to climate change, which Field clearly did not.
  31. Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
    Richard Lindzen coughs again in the WSJ citing John Christy's Senate Testimony in: 'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look
  32. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger wrote: "I agree with your interpretation of what Field testified to. I disagree that it is scientifically supportable." Which part do you believe isn't scientifically supportable? "climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters" or "disasters have economic impacts"? I have not previously seen you deny the first, and the second falls under the category of blindingly obvious. Are you really saying that a scientific case cannot be made for climate change having caused an increased incidence of heat waves (for example)? Or, in the even less plausible alternative, that heat waves have no economic impact?
  33. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #110 - on (a) I see nothing in Field's testimony that contradicts the point that we cannot yet with strong confidence link the disasters referenced directly to climate change (which is not, of course, the same as saying there is no link between them). On (b) clearly he was making such a link, though moderated appropriately as I noted. I note in your quote from Field that your ellipses have the effect of disguising the distinction between 'disasters' and 'climate and weather extremes'. The second set of ...'s includes a paragraph break, which I think is significant when reading his testimony. I don't see how you can realistically expect us to "agree to disagree" when you have made such strong statements as "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong" and "Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate". If you are prepared to moderate this language and accept that it was unjustified then I might be prepared to agree to disagree.
  34. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Pielke Jr @104 pretends to ignorance of the basic terminology of his own field as a debate tactic. The term "hazard" is a standard technical term in disaster management, and is defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) as follows:
    "Hazard A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: The hazards of concern to disaster risk reduction as stated in footnote 3 of the Hyogo Framework are “… hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks.” Such hazards arise from a variety of geological, meteorological, hydrological, oceanic, biological, and technological sources, sometimes acting in combination. In technical settings, hazards are described quantitatively by the likely frequency of occurrence of different intensities for different areas, as determined from historical data or scientific analysis. See other hazard-related terms in the Terminology: Biological hazard; Geological hazard; Hydrometeorological hazard; Natural hazard; Socio-natural hazard; Technological hazard. 30 Aug 2007"
    A "natural hazard" is further defined as:
    "Natural hazard Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: Natural hazards are a sub-set of all hazards. The term is used to describe actual hazard events as well as the latent hazard conditions that may give rise to future events. Natural hazard events can be characterized by their magnitude or intensity, speed of onset, duration, and area of extent. For example, earthquakes have short durations and usually affect a relatively small region, whereas droughts are slow to develop and fade away and often affect large regions. In some cases hazards may be coupled, as in the flood caused by a hurricane or the tsunami that is created by an earthquake. 30 Aug 2007"
    A "Disaster" is defined as:
    "Disaster A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Comment: Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation. 30 Aug 2007"
    Following this terminology, a hurricane is a hazard. If it remains at sea, far from any shipping, it is a hazard, but will not cause a disaster because nobody is exposed to it. That introduces the new important term, "exposure":
    "Exposure People, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses. Comment: Measures of exposure can include the number of people or types of assets in an area. These can be combined with the specific vulnerability of the exposed elements to any particular hazard to estimate the quantitative risks associated with that hazard in the area of interest. 23 Jan 2009"
    Should that hurricane strike the shore near a settlement, it may still not cause a disaster even though people are now exposed to the hazard. That is because their houses may be robust enough, and their sea walls high enough to protect them from wind and storm surge. They would not be vulnerable:
    "Vulnerability The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. Comment: There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, economic, and environmental factors. Examples may include poor design and construction of buildings, inadequate protection of assets, lack of public information and awareness, limited official recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and disregard for wise environmental management. Vulnerability varies significantly within a community and over time. This definition identifies vulnerability as a characteristic of the element of interest (community, system or asset) which is independent of its exposure. However, in common use the word is often used more broadly to include the element’s exposure. 30 Aug 2007"
    If, however, the people have poor building standards, or live in low lying areas. When people who are vulnerable are exposed to a hazard, then you have a disaster. Now, given that we now all know the meanings of the words involved consider Field's phrase, "extreme events that can lead to disasters". Given that Field is talking about extreme events, he is not talking about disasters per se, ie, about the serious disruption of a community etc. Rather, and very clearly, he is talking about natural hazards. The type of extreme events that can lead to disasters are hazards, by definition of the term hazard. Now, consider Pielke's position. He purports that any talk about "the kind of extreme events that can lead to disasters" is talk about disasters only, and not about hazards at all. In defense of his claim, he points out that Field does not use the term "hazard". That argument is akin to the argument that somebody who mentions "the organ that focuses and detects light" is really only talking about light, not eyes, for he mentions light but does not mention eyes by name. Bizarrely, given his profession, Pielke is in the position of an ophtamologist who makes that argument. His position really is that stupid.
  35. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -108-OPatrick Thanks, if you believe that (a) Field was not linking climate change to disasters that have occurred in the past (only into the future), or (b) that he was not linking climate change to disasters at all, then clearly we will disagree on his statements. I do note that Field clarifies the phenomena that he is referring to explicitly in his testimony: "The 2011 disasters included a blizzard, tornadoes, floods, severe weather, a hurricane, a tropical storm, drought and heat wave, and wildfires. . . For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known . . . For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear." He then goes on to discuss several of these "categories of disasters" in detail. I don't see much ambiguity, but accept that others read it differently. Fine. Seeing as we are well into the area of textual exegesis I do not see any point in further repetition, and we simply accept that we agree to disagree. That is OK by me, I appreciate the chance to present my views and your listening to them. Thanks!
  36. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    (my last comment now currently refers to #105, not #109)
  37. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #109 - I can't see that either your comment #72 or your original blog post give a clear answer to my question. In your comment #72 the closest I can see is "I critiqued Field's testimony on 5 points: 1. Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes ... 3. Citing the NOAA billion-dollar disasters....", but these criticisms refer to supposed over-statements about the influence of climate change on currently observed 'disasters', whereas Field's point 3 is about increasing risk of extreme events, which can then lead to disasters - this seems to be more about future projections. In your blog post you say "Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear,"" - and it is clear, but that clarity comes from his moderation of the link via the words "...kinds of extremes that lead to...".
  38. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -106-CBDunkerson Apologies, let me be more precise. You wrote: "From my reading, Field limited his testimony to issues which are scientifically supportable... climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters and those disasters have economic impacts." I agree with your interpretation of what Field testified to. I disagree that it is scientifically supportable. I hope this is more clear. Thanks.
  39. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    RogerPielkeJr wrote: "I note that in -101-CBDunkerson is now making the ... case ... that Field was indeed linking climate change and disasters ($$) and such a linkage is supportable. Here we are in agreement on how to interpret Field's testimony." Ummmmm... that is not what I said and I specifically stated that I did not agree with your interpretation of Field's testimony. Seriously. When you can read something and come to a conclusion exactly the opposite of what the author stated it is time to take a step back and examine what has gone wrong in your thinking... and that applies equally to your 'reading' of Field's testimony.
  40. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -103-OPatrick My objections are summarized in #72 above and detailed in my original blog post. Rather that replow plowed ground I simply point you there. I note that in -101-CBDunkerson is now making the opposite case from OPatrick and several others -- specifically that Field was indeed linking climate change and disasters ($$) and such a linkage is supportable. Here we are in agreement on how to interpret Field's testimony. Thanks!
  41. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Let me try that again, looks like my comment disappeared. On Neumayer and Barthel, they conclude: "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Discussed here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html On the claim that Field references "hazards" not ""disasters" -- the word "hazards" does not appear in his testimony, "disaster(s)" appears 12 times. Thanks!
  42. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #99 - can I clarify, which part of 3 do you object to? Is it that 'climate change leads to changes in the risks of extreme events' or that 'such extreme events can lead to disasters'? Also can I remind you that your case is that "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate." Is this the case you are resting?
  43. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -100-Tom Curtis While I assume that much of your comment will be taken away by the moderators, let me respond to the science. Neumayer and Barthel write of their study: "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Discussed here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html The word "hazards" does not appear in Field's testimony. Thanks!
  44. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Logically, it would seem that if there is a clear link between climate change and an increase in certain kinds of disasters (e.g. heat waves) and a clear link between disasters of those kinds and economic impacts (e.g. loss of crops) then surely there must be a link between climate change and increased economic losses from those kinds of disasters... we just can't precisely differentiate between increased losses due to climate change and increased losses due to growing population and wealth. Whether climate change as a whole, rather than just in reference to specific kinds of disasters it is known to exacerbate, has had a positive or negative effect on economics thus far is even more difficult to sort out. From my reading, Field limited his testimony to issues which are scientifically supportable... climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters and those disasters have economic impacts. He did not say that we can determine how much of the economic impact from those events is due to climate change vs other factors nor that we can determine what the net economic impact of climate change overall has been thus far. RogerPielkeJr's position thus appears to me a radical interpretation of the text. The contention that because Field mentioned economic impacts in the same sentence where he first mentions disasters must mean that the 'frequent' (actually only about a dozen times total) subsequent uses of the word must all be taken to be in the context of economics is unsupportable. Field's testimony was not some sort of legal contract where he was 'defining' how the word "disasters" would be used subsequently in the text as Pielke claims. Rather, Field was using plain English and each of his uses of "disasters" should be evaluated within the context of the sentence where it appears.
  45. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Pielke Jr @94 attempts to spin my 88 as,
    "Commenters here are beginning to identify a basic problem with Field's testimony."
    and
    "Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above."
    Does he think nobody actually read my comment? His gall is beyond belief. However, let me make this quite clear for him: 1) Roger, I am appalled by your persistent attempts to spin this case, and to ignore fundamental distinctions central to your profession; 2) There is nothing wrong with Field's testimony. Contrary to your claim, he does not conflate hazards with disasters. Rather, you do by persistently treating him as talking about losses from disasters when he talks about hazards; 3) Your desperation in misrepresenting Field shows only that you are incapable of arguing against his testimony on its merits;
    Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped
  46. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -97-OPatrick I do not object o 1 or 2, 3 yes, obviously. The words "disaster," "billion-dollar" and "income" had no place in Field's testimony unless he were to discuss the science associated with economic losses, which he did not. -98-JasonB If we are reduced to discussing the effects of a comma, then I rest my case. As well, Field repeatedly uses the word "disasters" in his piece, after defining it the first time. I am in agreement with this commenter at my blog: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html?showComment=1343917020804#c5632425002505277530 Thanks!
  47. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    OPatrick #95, I think even "not unambiguous" is too strong -- it takes special effort to read the sentence as Roger wishes to. Punctuation matters. A comma may seem like a silly thing to be arguing about, but the only reason we're arguing about it is because Roger wants to ignore the structure of a sentence and what it actually says in order to construct his strawman. Now I can accept that initially it was an honest mistake -- goodness knows that there are hot-button issues for me that I often imagine someone to be talking about because they made the mistake of uttering the keywords I'm on the lookout for in the same sentence -- but I don't understand how, once the misunderstanding was pointed out, someone would persist, and even attempt to mischaracterise the point as arguing about the placement of a comma, rather than accepting that the real point is that Field was actually talking about the link between climate change and extremes (as he plainly stated). Scientific writing abounds with comments that "set the stage" for the work in question; if we started going through every paper's introductory paragraph and removed punctuation willy-nilly I'm sure we'd come up with all sorts of absurdities to waste time arguing about. Maybe even accuse people of "fundamentally misrepresenting" the scientific knowledge. But I see communication as fundamentally an attempt to convey information from one mind to another and prefer to look at what is actually written. All that sentence is saying is that there is a clear link between climate change and certain kinds of extremes -- the kind of extremes that lead to disasters. If he intended to say that there was a clear link between climate change and disasters or climate change and economic impacts he could have actually said that. He didn't.
  48. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #96 - where else in his testimony does Field use "disasters" in a way that you would object to? And do you object to anything in Field's own summary of his testimony: 1) Overwhelming evidence establishes that climate change is real 2) Strong evidence indicates that some kinds of climate extremes are already changing 3) Climate change leads to changes in the risk of extreme events that can lead to disasters ?
  49. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Thanks Dana good post. It is interesting that the mean is shifting a lot and the curve is flattening, a similiar thing has been noticed in the Indian Monsoon details. Is this pattern sort of a choatic shift pattern? As in when a choatic system approaches a shift in regime its variance increases and its self similiarity increases, which sort seems to be happening in several systems, e.g. Arctic Sea Ice melt time series. And therefore with the mean already shifted could all increasing weather extreme's (keeping in mind a 3SD cold event is know a 4SD cold event, so a 2SD cold event is a 3SD cold event), be a prelude to a regime shift? A shift to a Pliocene climate? Surely any chaotic energetic system will try and equalise itself in the quickest way possible? Just speculating, and things are bad enough already, but it does look more and more like a summer ice free Arctic is closer and closer, (2012 none optimum weather for melt, but record melting occuring), so does anyone have a low down on what an ice free Arcitc in summer might mean for the world's weather systems? Not to mention and expanding tropics and poleward shifting jetstreams?
  50. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -95-OPatrick Field defines "billion-dollar climate-related disasters" in his first paragraph (as you excerpted) -- clearly and unambiguously associating "disaster" with economic impacts. The word "disaster(s)" subsequently appears on average once per paragraph in his his short 12 paragraph testimony. The alternative, that Field was not referring to economic impacts when freqeuntly mentioning "disasters" I find implausible (others may disagree). Thanks!

Prev  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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