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  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  Next

Comments 55351 to 55400:

  1. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    dana1981 @84 - You are correct. I should not have assumed so. The alternative just seemed so improbable.
  2. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    rojimboo @83 - while I agree that the confusion seems to boil down to an issue of reading comprehension, I don't think it's fair to accuse Pielke Jr. of "intentionally misunderstanding" Field's testimony. It's entirely possible that the misunderstanding boils down to careless reading - seeing the monetary value, seeing the reference to climate change and disasters, and incorrectly assuming the latter are being linked to the former. Regardless of the reason, the point stands that Pielke is misreading/misinterpreting Field's comments, which as we have noted many times now, are consistent with the body of scientific literature.
  3. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    I just would like to say a word or two from a layperson's view. But before I start. First, you, scientists can not compromise science when you talk science and explain. We do know and expect scientists talk weired. I agree 100% with KevinC "Beyond that, it gets messy. The problem with communicating in metaphor is that metaphors can only be pushed so far. If you give your audience a partial understanding of a system based on a metaphor, you also give them the tools to reach wrong conclusions on the basis of that incomplete understanding. That's a tough problem. I'm not saying don't use metaphor (indeed arguably all of science is an exercise in metaphor), but that doing requires care - it can backfire." Thus my original idea of cultivate more sarogates in the public here. However, I must add that 'metaphors' are not an explaination. It is actually asking you to acknowledge the obious. It just makes it easier for us or me to (mis)understand it. I tend to use analogies in my life around me to see what becasue this science things are not easy or familier thing to understand it. So I have to resort to everday analogy even though I'd know it's not exactly the same. What else should I do? Would I have to take a lesson on the net? That is why they use it. What you have to understand is 'why' and 'how' do they use their metaphors and rhetorics, their basic premisses and logic for them, misunderstandings. For example, they say "Why greenland is called Greenland?". What they mean is that it was warm before even Greenland was green once. But if you relpy by saying "Oh, it was a viking named Rick the red once named it so becasue .... " But, but that's not gonna do it. It just becomes he says and you say. Both are not on the same premise nor logic. they apeal to my intuition and you apeal to my understanding of history. What if I don't remember? They'd just keep repeating it. I'd say "Why Iceland is called Iceland, then?". Now both are on the same illogical premise and would give the 3rd party, the public to rethink their basic logic and hopefully would be willing to listen to real scientific explainations. By the way the 3rd party, the majory of the public is the one you'd have to explain not the sceptics. One more thing about 'rhetric' and 'metaphore' or using big words is that they prey on people's vanity, pride, fear of embarassment(and lack of knowledge). They always dance around it. Idea is they don't give you a chance to think for ourselves. We'd rather keep our pride, vanity. My point is that you don't have to or necessary to use it but you should understand why and how we, I tend to fall into their rhetrics and metaphores. You could explain it if you understood how we, I misunderstood it. Oh, one more thing, you'd have to be careful when you use everyday words like, "warm water from equator is cooled when it reaches the poles" or "Heat is lost (or leaked) when ... " something like that. I tend to hink "lost" "leak" "cooled" mean heat is gone, gone for ever. Then I ask myself "Huh?", am utterly confused after I read some of your stuff. As for Lady Gaga, I don't care for her, I'm too old but I think she speaks young people's language. I don't think it's something to do with rhetrics. Just my 2 cents.
  4. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    At the risk of repetition, I really believe this a simple exercise in reading comprehension, exemplified by Roger Pielke Jr's first point on his blog regarding Field's testimony: "1. On the economic costs of disasters: Field: "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." What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change" Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. " Either one believes Field is using his monetary example to support an assertation that there is a link between financial loss and climate change (which he never asserts, so I assume we must somehow infer this, because they happen to be in the same sentence), or he sets the contemporary scene in terms of recent events and the resulting financial loss, and then explains there is evidence of climate change and extreme events. I have to say, based on point 1 alone, it is clear that the blogger must be (Snip-) Field's testimony, and as a consequence throw the rest of his analysis into question as it is very clear Field NEVER asserts the first position that RPjr accuses him of. You may possibly accuse Field of misleading the public with such a statement, if the public in question is quick to jump to conclusions and infer things the speaker does not say. (-Snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. Caution is given regarding speculated intent (cf Comments Policy), which was also snipped.
  5. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Another one is American Institute of Professional Geologists, whose tagline is "competence, integrity, ethics." Read pp.78-81 of the PDF @ Fake science, .... basically, a subgroup got their information from Heartland, synthesized it, passed it to legislators. The effort's leader got an award from the national organization.
  6. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Followup on Tamino hypothesis: The increase in variation is even more apparent, if you look at the seasonal records, as was done in the first graph by Hansen. The NH mid-latitudes have cooled appreciably in the last 22 years in the NH winters. The cooling appears to be due to prolonged cold spells due to blocking events in the jet stream. If you remove the NH mid-latitude winter cooling from the records, the warming over the rest of the globe over the rest of the year, climbs over 0.20 deg C per decade, and the NH mid-latitude lands (where a lot of people live) are heated up by over 0.60 deg C per decade since 1979. In fact, the 3-season heating in the mid-latitude lands was so strong, it pushed the entire NH heating rate to about 0.40 deg C per decade during the spring, summer, and fall (See Cohen et. al. 2012, "Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends", Figure 3). The models have been spot on predicting the warming trend in the NH for these seasons, but blown the winter prediction (Figure 4). This information quite effectively silences much of the "lukewarming" promoters. The problem with lukewarming is illustrated by a comment of mine on another site: …
    Notice that even when we dilute the heat waves and cold waves across the entire NH mid-latitudes, the seasonal trends still show up. Only the NH winter mid-latitudes are heating less than forecast from the climate models. (and there seems to be a very good reason for that… think Arctic ice pack and NH snow cover). Now, most people would say, winters are currently getting colder with lots of cold spells, and summers are getting hotter with lots of heat waves, that ain't good! But not this site. Nah! That's just Lukewarming! (psst… wanna buy a mug?) After all, the chances the heating trend observed in the US over the last 13 months was a whopping 1 in 10, (oops, or maybe 1 in a 100,000… but not to worry, its clearly not one in a million or so!) Now most people who have one arm in a freezer, and their legs and other arm in an oven, would think there is a problem. But nope. According to this site, their average temperature is only rising 0.13 deg C per decade, instead of 0.20 deg C per decade, so its just Lukewarming! And the Midwestern farmers watch their fields die in the heat and drought. What can we tell them? You know: Its just Lukewarming! The uneven heating and variation is hiding a lot of useful, and worrying, information.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] <blockquote> added for clarity.
  7. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Okay, so there you have it from Roger Pielke, Jr. himself. He misrepresented (as clearly evidenced by the original post) what Field said in Congressional testimony, and now he is unable/unwilling to defend his own statements in that regard. If anyone is able to find any quote from Field's testimony that gives some insight as to how Dr. Pielke might have so misunderstood what was said as to publicly charge him with malfeasance in Congressional testimony, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it. [I'm sorry, but to me this -- the public admonishment of a professional giving testimony before Congress -- is not an area where we should "agree to disagree." That is an unacceptable outcome to the discussion, and I am very disappointed that it is merely being left where it stands -- unresolved, but clearly a poor reflection on Dr. Pielke's interpretation of events.]
  8. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -8-dana1981 Thanks, on the science we appear to agree. We shall simply have to agree to disagree on Field's representation of the science in his testimony. It is always a good political strategy in Congressional testimony to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want ;-) (That last comment is tongue-in-cheek) Until next time ...
  9. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Essentially repeating the content of the above post (and I agree with Sphaerica @79): Linking climate-induced extreme weather to changes in economic losses is a difficult proposition, and as I understand we cannot yet definitively make that link. I'm not sure how this is relevant, since Field did not claim otherwise. However, as Field correctly noted, there are many types of extreme weather events whose increasing long-term trends have been linked to climate change. While the USA has been fortunate not to see more frequent droughts up to this point, that luck has likely ended (see Dai and SREX). While Field accurately described the body of scientific evidence, John Christy's testimony in the same hearing was grossly inaccurate.
  10. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -79-Sphaerica thanks ... While I appreciate the interest in a further exegesis of Field's testimony, the specific issue that you raise has been well dealt with over at my blog, so I point you there: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html?showComment=1343917020804#c5632425002505277530 So, given that lengthy discussion, when I say I have no interest in further parsing those comments, I hope you will appreciate that. Arguments have been presented on both sides, and I am satisfied that my views have been well presented. So, I will restrict my further comments here to science. Thanks!
  11. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    RogerPielkeJr, The original post here at SkS was clear in saying (emphasis added):
    When Field accurately describes the SREX findings about extreme weather hazards, Pielke Jr. misrepresents it as a claim about financial losses
    You responded in the comments here by saying (emphasis added):
    4. Asserting that the role of climate change in hurricane disasters ($$) is "mixed" 5. Implying that the role in climate change in flooding disasters ($$) is increasing
    Dana has responded by saying (emphasis revised):
    To be clear, it's probably true that the SREX doesn't say what you claim Field said. The problem is, as we showed in this post, Field didn't say what you claim he said.
    It is clear to me from this exchange, and I think to anyone reading it, that you do continue to not merely ignore but also reinforce the claim of the original post, that you have misrepresented what Field said and argue against a strawman (what you claim he said, not what he said). Please address this one issue directly and clearly. It can be done in one simple way. Provide a quote, with context as necessary, from Field's testimony which unequivocally supports your contention.
  12. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -76-dana1981 Good, sounds then like we agree on the science, specifically the follow conclusions associated with IPCC SREX: 1. Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes is not scientifically supportable 2. The US has seen a long-term decline in (midwestern) drought 3. Citing the NOAA billion-dollar disasters is a scientifically unsupportable to claim anything to do with long-term changes in climate 4. The role of climate change in hurricane disasters ($$) is not detectable 5. The role in climate change in flooding disasters ($$) is not detectable Let us please leave aside whether Field stated or implied anything to the contrary of these five, people can well look at his testimony and decide that for themselves (here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=fe138741-9ce8-4444-9912-c2004ae9e955) If we agree on the science underlying these five statements, then this has been a productive visit. Thanks!
  13. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger, again I remind you that your points #1-5 are strawmen. I don't know who your beef is with, but it's clearly not with Field. What Field said was accurate, and you're still arguing that nobody has addressed the discrepancy between the SREX and your charicature of Field. To be clear, it's probably true that the SREX doesn't say what you claim Field said. The problem is, as we showed in this post, Field didn't say what you claim he said. We have demonstrated that Field's testimony (i.e. what he actually said) is supported by the scientific literature. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
  14. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -74-dana1981 Thanks ... of the five papers that you cite in the post above, four were in fact reviewed by the IPCC SREX (Pall, Min, Dai, Zwiers), thus have been determined to be consistent with the findings of that report as judged by its contributors all the way through the SPM. So citing them as a defense of Field's deviation from SREX won't work. In any case the four papers have nothing whatsoever to do with the points 1-5 that I summarized in #72 above. The fifth paper that you cite Coumou and Rahmstorf, is not cited by IPCC SREX, so it is properly post-SREX, however, it has nothing to do with the 5 points that I raised in #72 above. In any case, Field cites none of these five papers you bring to his defense to make any of his points. He does however cite 2 NOAA websites plus 3 post-SREX papers from the recent BAMS special issue on attribution. But again, neither of the NOAA press releases nor the BAMS special issue speaks to the science underlying the five points that I list in #72. [off-topic snipped] Is there post-SREX literature which justifies overturning findings of the IPCC SREX as described in the five points listed in #72 above? Either there is or their isn't. MacCrcken argued the former (i.e., SREX is outdated by new science), which I think is unsupportable (maybe if he accepts your invitation to participate here he can point to that post-SREX literature that he alluded to but did not cite). If it is the latter then you will have to argue that the SREX got things wrong, which is always possible. Either way, to make your scientific argument, you will need to discuss post-SREX literature. [off-topic snipped] Thanks!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can everybody keep to the science and avoid any further complaints about the nature and/or tone of the discussion, which are off-topic and potentially inflammatory. Please leave enforcing the comments policy to the moderators.
  15. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    There are two major problems with your comments, Roger. Number 1, as we showed in the above post, the points on which you "critiqued Field's testimony" are largely misrepresentations of his actual arguments, which are both accurate and consistent with the findings in the SREX. Number 2, regardless of its consistency with the SREX, the far more important point is that Field's testimony was an accurate representation of the full body of scientific evidence, as MacCracken noted in his comments. So basically you're criticizing Field for giving scientifically accurate testimony by shifting the goalposts associated with one relevant report, while remaining silent regarding the scientifically inaccurate testimony in the same hearing from John Christy. Coincidentally, I've invited MacCracken here to give his own opinions on the issue, rather than having third parties (mis)interpret his comments. I hope he accepts.
  16. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    I forgot the link to my site in the above, it is here, Thanks! http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html?showComment=1345047334032#c1263983918677994022
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Link activated.
  17. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Wyoming (just north of me?), I appreciate your post, and your efforts; however, as this blog, among many other as scientifically robust, prove is that mere "facts" and "data" don't matter to WUWTers (I like that term!). If all it took was facts and data, we'd be well along a path of CO2 limitation. As it is, we're not. Kudos to all here who post (fight) the good fight. I simply cannot imagine being where the temperature of the rain approaches that of pain: here in Colorado, on the HOTTEST of days, if--IF--it rains, you'll freeze!
  18. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    dana1981- To set the record straight, MacCracken said: "it appears to me they [Congressional Democrats] invited two leading scientists (McCarthy and Field) to testify about what science is now finding, and that is what Chris did. That it goes beyond IPCC, well the science has gone beyond IPCC." Obviously, there is no doubt that Field's testimony "goes beyond" what the IPCC SREX reported. Now, whether that "going beyond" is appropriate is worth discussing. In what ways did Field "go beyond" IPCC SREX? As I explained to Mike in that thread: "I critiqued Field's testimony on 5 points: 1. Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes 2. Neglecting to mention that the US has seen a decline in drought 3. Citing the NOAA billion-dollar disasters 4. Asserting that the role of climate change in hurricane disasters ($$) is "mixed" 5. Implying that the role in climate change in flooding disasters ($$) is increasing Each of these 5 are at variance with the conclusions of the IPCC SREX." I offered to Mike the chance to back up the appropriateness of each of these 5 deviations from IPCC SREX with specific post-SREX scientific references. Contrary to what you report, MacCracken declined the opportunity to discuss the science: "I made my comment on this blog as I really only wanted to discuss the context for the discussion, not the science, as was going on on your blog. I have been working mainly in other areas of research and am just not going to get into a detailed discussion with you on all of this." As far as SkS, it has been eye-opening to see what you do, from your gratuitous insult of my father and me via a Tweet to the above characterization of my interaction with MaCracken, what I have seen is a lot of innuendo/insults and little actual science. I really did expect better. [snip] Anyone wanting to discuss issues 1-5 above is welcome at my site. Thanks!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Comments regarding moderation policy are by definition off-topic, so please do not include them in a substantive post. I have snipped this time, next time I will delete. Note also that a private communication does not necessarily represent SkS, any more than I would regard a tweet from a contributor to your blog as being representative of your blog as a whole. Lastly, we would welcome a discussion of the science here, but that is difficult if you do not post comments on the science. Please do discuss any scientific point relevant to the article, it is exactly the purpose of the site.
  19. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    For the doubting WUWT'ers here is hard data proof of the Hansen paper. Yesterday in Needles, CA when it was 118 deg F It RAINED. The rain was measured at 115 deg F - a world record The humidity was 11% - also a world record Previous world record was set on June 5, 2012 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia at a temp of 109 F Previous world record to that was Marrakech, Morocco on July 10, 2010 also at 109 F. Considering how far back such records go, just what do you think the odds of that was. A 9 deg F jump in a historical record only 2 months apart. Teh 3 hottest rains in history only 2 years apart. How many standard deviations out was that? The case appears to be closed. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2186
  20. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    I managed to get access to the Linkedin Climate Policy group, and found the discussion Pielke Jr. references. Not surprisingly, he has not accurately characterized MacCracken's comments. It's a long discussion and MacCracken has a lot to say on the subject. The general gist is that Field was speaking as an extreme weather expert and not limiting himself to the information in the SREX. As such, MacCracken feels that Field's testimony was accurate and appropriate, saying for example
    "it seems to me that scientists in the field should be speaking out with the full results coming from leading research groups that seem very likely to be the leading papers and research cited in future IPCC assessments. And that seems to me to be just what Chris did, and was expected to do as a leading scientist in the field."
    Pielke Jr. then kept pushing him to say that Field's testimony was not consistent with the SREX, which MacCracken did not do, for example responding
    "No. On (a) he was giving his professional views as an EXPERT SCIENTIST relying on work published in the literature per the many citations, key ones being quite new (so post-SREX)"
    Long story short, MacCracken feels that Field's testimony was consistent with the body of scientific literature (which we showed is true in the above post) and that he was not just referring to the SREX in his testimony (which is probably also true). He does nto specifically say whether Field's testimony was inconsistent with the SREX, and in any case, we showed in the above post that it is not. Most importantly, MacCracken agrees that Field's testimony was scientifically accurate, and all Pielke Jr. takes and relays from the discussion is that MacCracken agreed that it was inconsistent with the SREX. I suspect MacCracken would be very dissatisfied with this description of his comments.
  21. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    I can't cite the provenance, but I have read elsewhere (and possibly on comment threads here) that "humans are feeling animals that think, rather than thinking animals that feel". In my (admittedly nonexpert) opinion, communicating science effectively to people not trained or practiced in emphasizing rational-type thinking means appeals to both the knowledge and to emotion. It means including the data and illustrative anecdotes. By contrast, we see how promoters of pseudoscience and (with regards to climate science & policy debate) pseudoskepticism tend to resort to appeals to emotion only, or appeals to ignorance, or rely on anecdotes as a substitute for data. Effective communication, perhaps, but without the backup of good science that makes it effective science communication.
  22. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    The repetition thing works in other ways. People tend to forget that there is always a someone new in the audience who have never heard it before. Always. I learned that by teaching Gr 8 Maths. We tend to get bored with repeating our own ideas. But if its a good one, and it works, remember that there is someone who hasn't heard it, even if it is a Gr 8 Maths student. You see, I just repeated myself. Subtle aren't I? Also I am reminded of a recent (6-12 months) controversy here in Australia about a minor paper on sea level. From memory the paper reported on the decrease in acceleration of sea level rise in the south-west Pacific. By the time a certain newspaper chain was through with it all anyone ever remembered was the word "decrease".
  23. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Good conversation. Andy - I agree that some people may be turned off or feel manipulated by something like this picture, but I also think that's a small subset of people. Those of us looking at SkS (or Planet 3.0) are "high information", at least on these topics. So we're probably more likely to recognize the rhetoric and not be swayed by it, or even be angered by it. We're not representative of the population at large though. Knowing how much people like pictures, and knowing that most people only read headlines, I think the overall impact will be beneficial. While some might consider it intellectually lazy to resort to pictures and vivid headlines that appeal to emotion rather than reason, the pictures and headlines are (generally) supported by data. We all know that no one ever let facts get in the way of a good argument, so facts can't be the lede. Emotions rule, so effective communication must play to them.
  24. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Chris G: I've been working on this, and there are multiple confounding factors. But roughly speaking, if you correct for the change in local climatology over time, you still see broadening of the curve, but the broadening is reduced from ~30% to ~15%. Did Hansen get it wrong? The original paper was rather vague about what he was trying to measure, and he is measuring something meaningful, just not what Tamino or you or I expected. What he is measuring is precisely in line with his update however. That glosses over a lot of messy details. Dana and Tom want me to do a blog about it: They are probably right, but it's going to be dull and heavy. Against that I've got work pressures, and a much more important and exciting climate project which is just producing results.
  25. Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
    @Sarah BTW, it should be 22.8 MJ/kg, not J/kg, if converting from the Btu number. This comes (roughly) from 393 kJ/mol / 12 g/mol * coal carbon content
  26. Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
    @All, I have communicated much with Jeffrey Michel (engineer who lives in Germany), who has researched (power-plant based) CCS for many many years. I will forward his research to SkS, potentially for a follow-up post. He has not yet attempted to publish it I think (its too long for a journal article), but extracts can be found in various of his writings and testimony in German parliaments. The conclusions are sober, some of which have been hinted to above, such as, e.g., the required excess energy: To extract CO2 from the flue gas stream, you need 20-30% more energy (CC only!), which means you have to burn MORE coal per plant and therefore also use more cooling water (a problem often overlooked), which is already limited in some locations. And, BTW, the effectiveness of CC is around 90% (target value used by the industry), not 100%. Economically, CC makes currently sense only for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which actually leads to increased carbon emissions (at current recovery rates) as a result of that oil being burned. The question then about why CCS gets pursued lies in the simple fact that the industry is trying to protect its assets, the FFs in the ground. Most of us indirectly benefit from that as our pension funds invest in FF and related industries ... On the other hand, I think the industry knows well that the carbon problem cannot be solved by CCS. Even if you equipped all FF power and cement plants around the world with CC, you'd only have "covered" the large stationary sources, maybe 20% of all anthropogenic emissions ... Andy Revkin once had a post Smil on Hummers in which Vaclav Smil sums up this sysiphos task in a few sentences. Some realistic statements can be found through this site (if you bypass the advertisement video). Also: The Carbon Capture Journal makes for interesting reading and updates. My simple conclusion: It may be a dumb idea scientifically and economically, but there is so much capital in it already that it is going to go ahead. Eventually, it may become useful to remove most CO2 out of waste streams that are not FF related, such as cement production or biomass fuel plants, assuming a product is developed to store the CO2 (some Texas company developed a carbonate I think).
  27. New research from last week 32/2012
    Thank you for comments. Lazarus, that study seems to present a special case, so I doubt that it can be generalized to the whole divergence problem. Hard to say for sure, though.
  28. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Andy S @20, I have difficulty buying that the person you quote is both intelligent and uncommitted. It never escapes my attention that the various "sins" of communication supposedly violated by those trying to communicates mainstream climate science, and which supposedly have turned people of, have been committed in spades by opponents of mainstream climate science without turning anybody of. That means the supposed sin did not turn anybody of, but was merely seized upon as a pretext to allow the person to stick with the belief they found comfortable. It also means that no matter how well crafted the communication of mainstream science, because the failures are typically due to pretexts rather than reasons, some pretext will be found. This does not mean the communication of climate science cannot be improved. There have been some genuine howlers by people advocating for action on climate change. But the primary need is not some fundamental change in the way we report climate science - but a fundamental recognition of by mainstream media of the institutional barriers to accurate reporting on climate science, with an effort made to eliminate those barriers.
  29. The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
    This article is about the public perceptions of climate change. I think we need to be very careful about the language used. I am not a mathemetician, luckily I did do first year stats at uni and although I can't remember the specifics, I do understand what a standard deviation is. However, I think most of the non-specialist audience is lost once terms like standard deviation are used. I know this is very difficult but the language really has to avoid technical terms, even simple technical terms. The dice analogy is good but deniers just come back with statements disparaging analogies! I know this is a difficult issue to explain at times and there are a lot of people out there who are willfully ignorant and wish to remain that way, but we do need to find language that works. Anyway, great site, it's going to take a lot of thought to work out how to convince people the science is correct but if we all put our minds to it we can find ways to communicate complex issues to non-specialist audiences without dumbing it down.
  30. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Bernard @1 - yes it will be a combination of effects, which is why I worded it 'whether the increase is due more to...'.
    Fair point dana. Mea culpa - I should paid greater attention to the adjectives!
  31. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Tom@18 The kind of person who I quoted in my comment @3 (intelligent and apparently uncommitted) ought to be our target. If they take the trouble to tell us why our message is not getting through, perhaps we should listen. We shouldn't blame them for not reacting in the way that we think people logically should react. It's not, after all, as if we are actually winning the communication war. I sometimes feel that our opponents are better at messaging than we are, not because they are more skilled in rhetoric but because they understand how to appeal to people on an emotional level, at the level of instinctive values. This area has been explored recently by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. This book review sums up his argument quite well.
  32. Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
    CBC takes creative license with the '150 year' quote in their recent article about the rate of Arctic sea ice decline:
    NASA stressed that the massive melt occurs roughly once every 150 years, and that records showed the last time it happened was in 1889.
    Ouch.
  33. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Esop, Yes, we have covered the Francis work here briefly at SkS. It is certainly worrying, but still on the cutting edge. What is worrying mostly is that even without the sea ice/jet stream connection we would still expect to see a shift in the distribution. It's more or less an 'Oh crap' thing. Since we have had blocking events and jet stream anomalies in the past, the shift in distribution will only make the weather within those events more extreme. If, and that's a big if at this point, those blocking events themselves are more extreme because of sea ice loss and Arctic amplification (and change the temperature gradient between temperate zones) then that is very alarming. And I'll leave it at that.
  34. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Tom Curtis @18-I agree,and your comment made me reflect back on Barry Bickmore's idea (paraphrased),that when AGW "skeptics" pick on minor points and employ logical fallacies to "win" and argument,that they are "trying too hard".
  35. BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
    I just finished listening to the Diane Rehm show for Aug 14th on NPR titled New Consensus On Climate Change. It was very frustrating to listen to Dr. Muller undermining the importance of climate change,and the proposed solutions.I suspect that he will be back in another 10 years telling everyone why we need emergency and drastic action to reduce greenhouse gasses and why he was justified in downplaying the importance of that message in the record breaking summer of 2012. It seems as though Muller has not really learned his lesson yet.
  36. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Andy S @16, we cannot judge an attempted communication by the fact that it has a negative effect on a given person unless that person was the particular target audience. Some people, quite simply, are primed to find fault with certain messages, or messages from certain people. Such people will then seize on anything as a reason to not like the message, or to reject it. That they should do so is no indication of the effectiveness of the communication. Indeed, that one such person should seize on the picture of a forest fire in a discussion of extreme heat events to reject the message is probably an indication that the communication was effective rather than the opposite. What did that person expect? That discussions of extreme heat should be entirely isolated from any mention (or illustration) of the potential consequences of extreme heat?
  37. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Just what is wrong with Cliff Mass's method of attribution can be seen by comparing it with a similar but statistically justified method as used in Otto et al, 2012. They calculate a mean increase in Moscow temperatures 1.9 times the GISTEMP 1200 km smoothed increase, or about 0.9 C for July. Using Cliff Mass's method of attribution, we would therefore attribute just 0.9 C of the 5 C anomaly in the Moscow 2010 heatwave to global warming. In fact, however, Otto 2012 shows an approximately 1.5 C increase relative to events of equivalent return interval in the 1960s as the Moscow heat wave had in the 2000s (as determined by models). That is, Mass's guesstimate would have been out by 40% for Moscow 2010. That does not mean it will be out by similar amounts for other heat waves. It may be out by smaller or larger amounts. Because of the crude nature of his method, we have know way of knowing in advance of a decent analysis just how much.
  38. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    I think Tamino has it. I think you can get the results that Hansen has if the cooler areas warm more than the warmer areas. Not that Hansen's results are inaccurate; I think you just have to understand them within the correct context. From a global context, the distribution has gotten hotter and flatter, which is what Hansen shows, but that does not imply that the change has to be spatially uniform. IDK, have to read his paper again, but it may be that is what he meant the whole time. Esop, I'm thinking 'yes', but there is more to it than that. The jetstream(s) pattern is determined by where the major convective patterns, Hadley, intertropical, and polar, meet at a downwelling. The latitude of the downwelling is affected by how long it takes to radiate off the energy gained at low altitude, and that is a function of GHG content, as well as how much energy is gained low altitude, which is affected by surface albedo. Someone please tell me if there is something wrong with my understanding. In any case, I can't see why anyone would doubt that an increase in energy content would manifest itself in the form of hotter temperatures, and you can't get hotter temperatures without shifting the distribution.
  39. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    dana1981, Lionel A & DB, The URL worked out and I saw the animation. Very impressive. Thanks.
  40. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Isn't it correct that the Russian heat wave of 2010, the US heatwaves of 2011 and 2012 as well as the miserable 2011 and 2012 summers for Northern Europe seem to have been mainly caused by the rather major changes in the jetstream, which is linked to the rapidly diminishing Arctic sea ice, whose disappearing act is very, very likely mainly due to AGW. Thus, I would think that the causal link between AGW and said heatwaves should be fairly solid?
  41. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    re: "photographs" to accompany message Lady Gaga can sing and flaunt and make music videos. She can fill a small stadium. Madonna in concert mentioned the trials of the Pussy Riot hoolicanistas.. and in a few seconds greatly influence their fate. When the world, when all media voices decides to face up to global warming, we will. For now we are on the edges, the mainstream media is in a plundering carbon mode -- practicing various forms of denial - and I suspect fully aware of the bubble.
  42. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Tony #3, Not very scientific, but in the sense that any short curve can be approximated by a line, and projecting BAU, the eye-chronometer tells me that we will hit 20% land surface area covered by 3-sigma events (or greater) in about 25 years. Not much time all things considered.
  43. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    BWTrainer@14 I fully agree that using photographs or other images can be very effective in communication, even the "decorative" ones used in the study you referred to. The point about the forest fire photo was that it apparently (er) backfired on the writer of the comment that I quoted. I saw the same photo and it had no conscious effect on me (it was included, coincidentally, in the previous SkS post to this one), but it obviously caused a negative response in at least one person. Incidentally, this discussion led me to check the wildfire statistics for the USA and it appears that this year-to-date is bad but not exceptional, despite the record heat and drought. Thus, this photograph not only raises hackles but also provides a segue for an otherwise irrelevant "skeptic" talking point. My concern is simply that rhetoric, because it appeals to the emotions, can have unpredictable effects on those who do not share your worldview. We have to be careful to measure our success not just on how we rouse the people who already get it on climate change but on the unintended reactions of the those who don't.
  44. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    shoyemore On FF 14.0.1 here Figure 1 when right-clicked on indicates a Quicktime plug-in is required.
  45. The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
    Sorry Try this
  46. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    Ah... how great this moment is.... we fully accept the science of global warming. Now, we arrive at a point of studying human reactions and the psychology of communicating needs to change. We are fully confident that the physics of climate change will unfold as they must - and that humans will meet and respond as we can. The science is now shifted from climate science to studying our species.
  47. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    tony - I think you would probably have to answer the question regarding how much of the distribution is due to shifting means and how much due to increasing variance etc. in order to accurately extrapolate to the future (as well as knowing how much warming to expect). shoyemore - you may need some sort of plug-in to see the video, but it's essentially just an animation of the four bell curves below in Figure 1.
  48. New research from last week 32/2012
    Does the study about air pollution masking climate signals in tree rings infer anything about the divergence problem found in some tree rings?
  49. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Figure 1 is totally a blank to me ... though I can see four bell-curves at the bottom. The main rectangle is apparently empty.
    Moderator Response: [DB] As Dana says below, possibly a plugin/browser issue (looks fine in FF 14). The URL for the animation is http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003975/bell_final_comp.m4v.
  50. Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
    Albatross@4: As is my norm, I'm drilling into each and every post here, at SkS, reading all the referenced links and data sources and in the spirit of open mindedness, I went and read up at WCR: Pray tell, is there any eye bleach you'd recommend, or where would I find an "unsee" button? And I thought WUWT was painful. Onwards and upwards!

Prev  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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