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  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  Next

Comments 69751 to 69800:

  1. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    Steve, I wouldn't put Myers approach to humiliation on the same footing as your 'concern trolls'. I'm not fond of humiliation as a teaching, tutorial or discussion technique, but I know it has many adherents and a long, not-so-glorious history in universities. It's an extension of not suffering fools gladly. Probably marginally useful in training where people are looking to enter professions (in medicine or the military for instance) where clear thinking and rapid judgments can be crucial. I see it as a form of intellectual bullying. Mainly because it tends to become an habitual, charmless style rather than an occasional startling wake-up call. It's only saving grace is that it's honest. The same cannot be said for the 'concern trolls'. Where I see such interventions in discussions, I'm prepared to bet my wardrobe that it's the thin end of a wedge which generally finishes up going in a very unpretty direction.
  2. Newcomers, Start Here
    I think I can answer one of my questions. Pressure broadening in wikipedia is "Impact pressure broadening: The collision of other particles with the emitting particle interrupts the emission process, and by shortening the characteristic time for the process, increases the uncertainty in the energy emitted (as occurs in natural broadening)[3]. The duration of the collision is much shorter than the lifetime of the emission process. This effect depends on both the density and the temperature of the gas." Apparently the heating of the rest of atmosphere by GHGs is one part of pressure broadening. Then the other effect of the rest of the atmosphere is stability from thermal inertia. Both imthedragn and I may have been conflating warming and stability.
  3. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    Question: Those of us most interested in the science are upset about political attacks on science and personal attacks on scientists. It happens that a lot of those attacks come from members of given political parties and people with strong political leanings, so a lot of us might identify those parties and leanings as being our enemies. Does this simple identification hurt our chances? Scientists may say, "The world is very likely X and it is very unlikely Y." Then someone jumps in from Political Group A and generalizes on the basis of their own conservation bias, "Yeah, those stupid Political Group B people are all idiots and deny logic and science." Are these people hindering progress by increasing the defensiveness with which anyone who identifies with Political Group B will approach the topic? Should we be trying to censor such supporters of science? Should we censor ourselves when identifying groups who resist the finding that "The world is likely X" and inhibit the dissemination of that finding? To make this 'real' in the context of internet discussions, are the 'concern trolls' correct about tone? Is PZ Myers wrong about the value of humiliation?
  4. Newcomers, Start Here
    Thanks skywatcher, I read the paper, but it merely repeats Tom's explanation about pressure broadening (as shown in Tom's diagram above). Is the lapse rate responsible for the 33C GH effect? If so, are changes lapse rate caused by uneven pressure broadening of increased CO2 (with more broadening at the bottom)? Seems like a valid but only partial explanation. What about heat transferred from CO2 to O2 and N2? I do not believe that can be ignored for both stability and warmth.
  5. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    Back to the issue of economic growth influencing CO2 production, a headline in our local business section says "Oilsands output could triple by 2035", citing a report by the National Energy Board (Canada). Included in the article was a comment from the Pembina Institute that the government had to address mounting environmental challenges if Canada was to reach its 'energy potential'. So far it seems that economic growth is the main consideration.
  6. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    MA Rodger#19: "Hansen & Sato 2004 see the wobbly soak-up rate as important enough to spend one page of a six page paper discussing it." Not so much. Here's H&S' main point on that question: Year-to-year fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 growth must reflect fluctuations of the land and ocean sinks for CO2 and the biomass-burning source. Most of the rest is about other GHGs. "40% is a more usual number" Is it? Again H & S: Fig. 5A shows the CO2‘‘airborne fraction,’’ the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Despite large year-to-year fluctuations, the airborne fraction has been remarkably constant at ~60% of emissions during the post World War II period Nor is there any mention of ENSO or either NinX in this paper. Again, I'm not seeing the point of this wobblometry.
  7. Newcomers, Start Here
    Eric, on temperature stability, I'm not sure what your point is. Have you read the Lacis et al paper DB linked to inline at #141? The remaining atmosphere without GHGs can provide a stable temperature ... if you like your temperature to be stable at -21C! Given the lack of water vapour in that atmosphere, I suspect the diurnal range would be pretty brutal round the mean figures too, though cloud cover would tend to moderate it.
  8. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    "Another way in which information can be made more acceptable is by “framing” it in a way that is less threatening to a person’s worldview. For example, Republicans are far more likely to accept an otherwise identical charge as a “carbon offset” than as a “tax”, whereas the wording has little effect on Democrats or Independents—because their values are not challenged by the word “tax”.6" Somebody should really forward a copy of this to the Labor strategists that allowed the "carbon tax" to become the commonly accepted way of referring to the policy.
  9. Newcomers, Start Here
    Tom, my understanding is that the CO2 more or less immediately transfers energy from outgoing IR to the rest of the atmosphere. Wouldn't that heating of N2 and the O2 raise the temperature of the atmosphere from bottom to top (more at the bottom) and thus explain the higher lapse rate? Another way to look at it is that the overall mass of the atmosphere dictates the heat capacity but additional CO2 raises it slightly. Thus I think that imthedragn's point about temperature stability (141) is valid.
  10. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    The bottom line: Hacked emails are a sideshow and cannot take away from what many business leaders already know and what the IPCC’s extreme weather report confirms. Climate change is real and we’d better buckle our seat belts for more costly extreme weather if we carry on with business as usual. Source: “IPCC Report Confirms What Businesses Already Know: Extreme Weather & Climate Change Has Economic Impacts” by Mindy Luber, President of CERES, Forbes, Nov 23, 2011 Click here to access this article.
  11. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    MA Rodger - sorry to butt in here, but I'm just joining in near the end of this to-and-fro. You are aware that ENSO affects atmospheric CO2 because of the extra rain that falls over land during La Nina stimulates vigorous plant growth, and cooling of sea surface temperatures? Conversely El Nino warms the sea surface (particularly the equatorial Pacific) which increases CO2 outgassing from the ocean, and the marked drying of the tropical basins diminishes plant growth, and therefore they too give up CO2 to the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions tend to ramp up CO2 uptake by land-based plants because the diffraction of sunlight enables light to better penetrate the forest canopy. If none of this has anything to do with what you guys are debating, please disregard.
  12. Newcomers, Start Here
    Sphaerica, with respect, I believe your explanation @143 is incorrect. Placing imthedragon's question into context, the Earth's atmosphere contains just 8% of the CO2 contained by Mars'atmosphere. Further, CO2 provides approximately 20-25% of the greenhouse effect on Earth, or about 7 degrees C of warming. If the Earth's CO2 was doubled 3.5 times it would equal Mars' CO2, so on a simplistic view, Mars' greenhouse effect should provide about be 11 degrees warming. That is approximately double the warming it actually provides. A major reason for the shorfall is the lack of pressure broadening. Increased pressure widens the absorption band at the expense of reduced probability of absorption in the central peak. (From Science of Doom) Because in the central peak the atmosphere of both Mars and Earth have an optical thickness greater than 1, the effect of reducing pressure is to increase the altitude of effective emission from CO2 to space. However, it also greatly reduces the bandwidth of that emission, thereby allowing far more heat to escape directly to space from the surface, thereby greatly reducing the greenhouse effect. Mars' surface pressure is 4 to 8.7 mb (depending on season), so the effect is far greater than that illustrated in the diagram above. There are two other significant effects reducing the greenhouse effect on Mars. The first is that the adiabatic lapse rate on Mars (4.5 degrees C per km) is less than half of that on Earth, and significantly less than the environmental lapse rate of approx 6.5 degrees C/km. By itself, this factor would reduce the strength of the greenhouse effect on Mars by about 30%. The second is simply the other gases in the atmosphere. Given a layer of CO2 sufficiently thick to absorb all IR light in its absorption band, if we add another gas that does not absorb IR sufficient to double the atmospheric pressure, the thickness of that layer of CO2 increases. In doing so, the effective altitude of radiation of that CO2 also increases. The strength of the greenhouse effect is most simply calculated by assuming that the temperature at the effective altitude of radiation to space equals the equilibrium temperature of the planet (ie, that temperature which will result in outgoing radiation matching incoming radiation), and then deriving the surface temperature by the lapse rate. Increasing the effective altitude of radiation by adding neutral gasses therefore increases the strength of the greenhouse effect. Consequently, the large concentrations of oxygen and nitrogen on Earth increase the strength of the greenhouse effect on Earth relative to Mars, in addition to the other effects. As a final note, while adding neutral gases does increase the strength of the greenhouse effect, they do not have a direct effect on surface temperature (other than by equalizing the distribution of temperatures). In the absence of a greenhouse gas, adding neutral gases would have no ability to raise surface temperatures above the equilibrium temperature as greenhouse gases do.
    Moderator Response: I suggest adding an Argument: "Why is Mars so cold when it has so much more CO2?" Include not just these reasons, but also an explanation that (and why) the amount of energy from the Sun reaching Mars is so much smaller than that reaching Earth. And give it a link to the Mars is Warming argument.
  13. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    @18 The links have picked up extranious characters. They are in order:- http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
    Moderator Response: (Rob P) Had to excise your last link, it was messing with the page layout.
  14. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    Muoncounter @17 Hansen & Sato 2004 see the wobbly soak-up rate as important enough to spend one page of a six page paper discussing it. It is as you say but an oscillation on a rising trend but big enough to reduce annual increases by 70% in consecutive years. The causal link – high MEI will restrict ocean absorption of CO2, low MEI will assist it setting the CO2 wobble in motion. (One comment – I was surprised to see the 55% figure for CO2 remaining in the atmosphere on your second graph @14. 40% is a more usual number. I linked back to the graph's origin & CO2 data source & saw two problems. The USEIA CO2 data is a bit low but more worrying, the emissions for land use change appear not to be included in the analysis.)
  15. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    Sphaerica @16 You're asking a bit too much here. The lag (always present) is variable in length and perhaps could be due to the season the El Nino/La Nina occur in. Also the ampitude. Or whatever. That use of an index like MEI comes so close to the CO2 rises with only a starightforward linear re-scaling I fine pretty impressive. And getting a better fit would require a step into the modelling arena, a major piece of work. The “2002 on” section – I wonder that if the next El Nino sees CO2 rises passing well above 3ppm pa, those wobbles wouldn't then look so odd. Your requested 'third line' will require a mix of annual data & monthly data so this is a little more of a task than something done over a cup of tea. And I do wonder what would be gained by plotting CO2 emissions as a separate line. If this does gain a place on my to-do list, I would see more to be gained by subtracting the emissions increase to leave the wobble without the trend. (Of course, it doesn't have to be me that creates the graph when the data is available to all.) MEI data monthly CO2 data CO2 emissions – FF & cement CO2 emissions – land use
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Links fixed. When you post links, try not to use "curly" (“curly” instead of "straight") quotes (or to copy from Word, which tends to automatically give you curly quotes). They aren't the same (to HTML) as straight quotes, and hence the problems (the "extraneous characters" were the curly quotes themselves).
  16. Bert from Eltham at 11:38 AM on 24 November 2011
    Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    I wonder if Pielke would think that it would be quite acceptable for me to urinate and defecate in my or any other street. Or maybe his street or front yard. Could I just throw my rubbish anywhere I liked? Say out in the same street. Surely as I am only some miniscule proportion of any large group this would not matter? There is no linkage proved with my waste and any disease or annoyance. So if we all did this and put billions of tonnes of this waste into the environment it has absolutely no harmful effect! My body waste and rubbish are very nutritious foods for all sorts of living things such as plants and bacteria and will neatly add to productive food for all! In the middle ages people used to throw their rubbish into the street and waste ran down the gutters. It did them no harm in fact they flourished along with rats and other benign native animals. They even grew grapes in Scotland! We just do not need sanitation or clean water as it costs far too much. Anyway nature or providence will take care of it. There is no evidence that all this expenditure will make an iota of difference! All these people worried about 'pollution' are just anally retentive. They have a secret agenda for world domination by regulating our lack of anal retention. Bert
  17. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    MA Rodger, I'm not seeing the point of this wobblometry. Hansen and Sato's 2004 analysis was reproduced here by D. Kelly O'Day. If you are suggesting there's some sort of causal relationship between MEI and deltaCO2, what is it and why does it work? And why would that be important, as it is little more than an oscillation on a rising trend?
  18. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    lurgee -- "Thus far, the most 'exploitable' line seem to be Phil Jones's comment about the IPCC being above national FOI requests, which seems a reasonable enough statement when referring to an international body" I'm sure that's covered in the first set of emails and jumped on by denialists last time (Caspar Amman, IPCC?), but probably just an email that wasn't cherrypicked for the first release. Zombiegate/Sloppy-seconds-gate/Whatevergate. Same crap, different conference.
  19. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    MA Rodger, What about 2002 on? What about amplitude, as well as an apparent "lag" in some cases but not others. Your eyecrometer seems to be malfunctioning. You are seeing strong correlation and stopping your thought process dead because, in your mind, it's "close enough." Again, why only include those two variables on your graph? Add emissions, then you can make your case more clearly and completely.
  20. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    Sphaerica @14 My apologies but I'm at a loss what you mean by "a lot of major disconnects." This leads me to wonder what you are defining as "short-term". The CO2 increase trace is characterised by a series of wobbles superimposed onto a rising trend of increasing slope. With the exception of the volcano years (63, 82 &91) the MEI matches the CO2 wobble for wobble with perhaps the exception of 2005-8. If the wobbles are the short-term features, surely ENSO represented by MEI is "the major short term factor." That's where I'm coming from. Until I can grasp where you're coming from, thoughts of "a third line" (which will require the use of annual data on a month graph) would be premature.
  21. Newcomers, Start Here
    141, imthedragon,
    So it is really the atmosphere and not greenhouse gasses that provides the stability of the temperature...
    No. You are very grossly understating the role of greenhouse gases. As you already pointed out H2O is a very strong greenhouse gas and, as both skywatcher and I have explained, it dominates near the surface. So where do temperatures vary the most on earth, in a desert or in a rainforest? The latter has nice, cool trees to shade you, and yet it is stiflingly, achingly hot during the day and gives you little respite at night, too. The desert has burning sands in the day, but temperatures plummet at night. The difference lies in water vapor, the powerful greenhouse gas, that is pervasive in a tropical rain forest and prevents it from losing heat, but almost totally absent in a desert and so allows the heat to escape the moment the sun goes down.
  22. Newcomers, Start Here
    140, imthedragon,
    CO2 and water vapor both absorb infrared from a nearly identical portion of the spectrum
    This is wrong because, just like the radiation/collision aspect of things, the system is far more complex than that. It's not nearly as simple as just saying they overlap, so the change can't matter. For example, the concentration of CO2 proportionally in the atmosphere is fairly constant regardless of altitude, while the concentration of H2O drops the higher you go, because temperatures drop as you get higher and the ability to hold moisture in the air is temperature dependent. Why does this matter? Because a big part of what is changing, and causes greater surface temperatures, is that the altitude from which the planet radiates away its energy is increasing. The earth must have a mean global temperature of 255˚K when seen from space. It must, because that's the amount of energy that it absorbs from the sun. That can't change. What can change is the distribution of energy beneath the point where it radiates the energy into space, and the altitude where the radiation occurs. Picture the atmosphere, for the sake of argument, as a series of layers. Every layer absorbs IR, gets warmer, and radiates IR up and down. Above the lowermost layer, every layer is receiving IR from above and below. As you go up the air is less and less dense, with proportionally less H2O and the same concentration of but less total CO2. So as you go up more and more IR succeeds in radiating upwards, working it's way out into space, rather than downward and warming the surface. When there is less CO2, the layers above have less chance of trapping the outgoing energy. The radiation to space effectively occurs at a lower altitude. With more CO2, the layers above trap more radiation. Things progress upward, and the ultimate radiation to space occurs from higher layers. Add H2O, which overlaps with the CO2 absorption range. But H2O is not evenly distributed. It is more present in the lower layers, and more rarefied in the upper layers. So if you add CO2, and radiate the energy into space from high enough up, the overlap of CO2 and H2O is irrelevant. CO2 dominates.
  23. Newcomers, Start Here
    #140 imthedragon - it's important to remember that, although there's overlap between CO2 and water vapour, one condenses and precipitates at Earthly temperatures and one does not. Additionally, in the upper atmosphere, it's the radiation from CO2 that dominates due to pressure effects (see for example this RealClimate article or this excellent series by ScienceOfDoom). So while it's tempting to think of CO2 and water vapour similarly, you cannot, as one is doomed to be a feedback to the other's forcing, and one is not so prevalent or effective in the thin upper atmosphere.
  24. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    I notice that advertising companies have picked up on this. Can't remember the company (I've already got mine) but "I'm not trying to save the world. I'm just saving up for a trampoline." is advertising genius.
  25. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Suggested reading: “Climate-Control Policies Cannot Rely on Carbon Capture and Storage: That’s My Side of The Economist Debates” by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, Nov 22, 2011 Click here to access this article.
  26. Newcomers, Start Here
    So it is really the atmosphere and not greenhouse gasses that provides the stability of the temperature. Instead of frigid cold overnight and scorching heat during the day, the temperature stays more moderate because of the atmosphere even if the atmosphere were devoid of greenhouse gasses. The additional heating of the greenhouse gasses by their absorbtion of the infrared radiated from the planet's surface allows that average temperature to be nudged a bit higher.
    Response:

    [DB] "even if the atmosphere were devoid of greenhouse gasses"

    Umm, no.  Please read Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob
    Governing Earth’s Temperature

  27. Newcomers, Start Here
    Sphaerica, that is by far the best response I have ever seen to that question I had of Mars. The fact that surface temperatures are both much cooler and much warmer than they would be otherwise and that the "global warming" simply refers to the shift in those average temperatures really puts things in perspective form me. The remaining item in my mind that I need to clear up is defining a "static" greenhouse effect. By that I mean if we raise the CO2 level by x amount and then keep it there perpetually, the global average temperature will eventually stabailize to what. In my mind, regardless of how much you try to categorize things as forcings or as feedbacks, CO2 and water vapor both absorb infrared from a nearly identical portion of the spectrum, I still conceptualize them as if they were acting as a single gas.
  28. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Suggested reading: Real 'Climategate' Scandal: UK Police Spent Measly $8,843 In Failed Attempt to Identify Criminal Hacker” DeSmog Blog, Nov 22, 2011 Click here to access this article.
  29. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    12, MA Rodger, I see a lot of major disconnects in your graph between MEI and CO2, which clearly points to MEI being only one factor, and not in any way the major short term factor in comparison to emissions. Clearly there is something missing, and changes in actual emissions are the obvious candidate. You should amend your graph to clearly include a third line demonstrating actual human emissions each year.
  30. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Suggested reading: “East Anglia SwiftHack Email Nontroversy Returns: What You Need To Know”, DeSmog Blog, Nov 22, 2011 Click here to access this article.
  31. Newcomers, Start Here
    138, imthedragon, The thinner atmosphere is crucial. People often get so caught up in the radiative aspects of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) that they lose track of the collisional transfer of energy. In the Martian atmosphere there is little to be heated except for the CO2 itself, so radiation dominates, and energy transfer up and out is quick, even if it must "make some stops along the way." In the Earth's atmosphere a very, very important piece of the puzzle is that closer to the surface, where the air is denser, CO2 absorbs IR, but before (usually) it is able to re-emit that energy, a collision with O2 or N2 transfers that energy to those molecules, which do then not as easily or as readily emit energy in the infrared. The end result is that surface radiation heats the CO2, and the CO2 heats the surrounding atmosphere. As one gets higher and higher in altitude the atmosphere becomes less and less dense, and the balance shifts, so that eventually radiation becomes the key factor, and CO2 acts to cool rather than to warm (i.e. collisions between O2/N2 and CO2 transfer energy from the O2/N2 to the CO2, which is then emitted as IR and potentially lost to space). Admittedly, this interaction is not crucial to the greenhouse gas effect (see Venus, which has roughly the same proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, but where the atmosphere is far more dense and the GHG effect still dominates). But it is important to what happens on Earth, and to understanding some of the differences between the Earth, Mars and Venus.
  32. Newcomers, Start Here
    GREAT comments gentlemen. Look again at Mars. The realtive amount of CO2 is higher (by several thousand percent), but the absolute amount of CO2 exceeds that of the earth in excess of 10 fold. The thinner atmosphere effects the ability to retain heat. It also effects the "well mixed" amounts of CO2 in the dry upper atmosphere the same way. where the air is half as thin, the greenhouse effect of CO2 at that altitude is less than half (no idea by how much, just believe it not to be a linear realtionship)
  33. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    Wikipedia has a nifty list of human biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
  34. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    29, Albatross, I would note that when the problem ripens, and adaptation is required because hesitant, faltering, too-little-too-late mitigation has failed, the rich countries will successfully if not easily adapt as well they can, armed with reasonably robust economies, infrastructures, industry and technology. The poor countries (and poor people within rich countries) will adapt as people traditionally have, by up and moving. Mass migrations, refugees, population culling by starvation and resource wars, and more will be the adaptive tools of the poor, developing countries. Everyone will adapt, just in different ways.
  35. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    5, Ian, Excellent point, and something that always amuses me. Climate science "believers" are often accused of being in a religious faith (thus completely subtracting the word science from any meaningful sense in the debate). Yet this is exactly how deniers are viewed, as clinging to their position religiously, in spite of the evidence. And yet, now we must turn this back on ourselves, and ask if we aren't being religious in our secular appreciation of the science, by projecting this religious faith view of belief on the deniers who project it on us. Perhaps it is us who are so religiously wedded to science and facts that we can't see that we are unable to shed that burden and free ourselves from the need to believe in evidence and logic, or at least to realize that the evidence and logic, no matter how strong, are countered by the equally powerful forces of wishful thinking and common sense. [Okay, sorry, I just can't bring myself to even imply that full scale denial is anything but a bizarre, psychological impediment.]
    Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead. Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You've made your decision then? Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I? Man in Black: Australia. Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're just stalling now. Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work. Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
  36. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Dana @30, His/her motives also further undermine the whole "whistle blower" myth.
  37. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    The Climategate hacker is clearly very misguided and misinformed in his misplaced motives for releasing these stolen emails. As a result, he's harming those he claims to want to help (poor nations). We'll have a post on this subject in the near future.
  38. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    MA Rodger#10: "The wobbles you tabulate & shown in the lower graph are climatic wobbles not economic ones." Sphaerica is, of course, correct; the growth of atmospheric CO2 is modulated by both economic activity and the absorption by the oceans. But emissions are clearly driven by economics and global events: data from CDIAC, graph source Finer scale graphics reveal no coincidences in this behavior. The annual increment in atmospheric CO2 bumps up and down, but tracks emissions very consistently. --source
  39. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    Sphaerica @11 I don't think one displaces the other. Surely they just have different impacts. The short-term wobbles from the climate are going to be there whatever the emissions. It's the emissions, driven by economics, that ramps up the CO2 over the longer term. And to hone my graph-upliading skills, a wobble graph for you. (Hey, spot the volcanoes!) Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  40. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    This excellent article from Richard Black at the BBC is well worth the read. "I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack, not a leak by a "concerned" UEA scientist, as has been claimed in some circles. The Norfolk Police clearly see it as a criminal act too, a spokesman telling me that "the contents [of the new release] will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing" And "In some reports, these figures were combined to form $37 trillion. But the bulk of that is to feed power to the poverty-stricken people FOIA 2011 cares so much about - nothing to do with climate change." And "The majority of poor countries lobby for more, not less, action on climate change"
  41. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    Interesting examples! Confirmation bias has many causes and is difficult to "turn off," no less so for climate science than for other domains. There's a sort of opposite effect to the self-affirmation findings in the post. Specifically, showing your "credentials" on a topic can leave you free to express the opposite of what the credentials imply. For instance, proclaiming yourself to be non-racist first can make you more likely to display racism later, such as making a race-based hiring decision. This would seem to point in the opposite direction to the self-affirmation effects; I don't know if these two have ever been reconciled. (good ref is Monin, B. & Miller, D. T. (2001), Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81). And I'm not trying to be contentious, but it's important to note that a die-hard WUWT fan could read this post and think "Yes, confirmation bias is exactly why those SkS and Real Climate people believe what they do. If only they could open their eyes and drop their preconceptions." The processes that underlie, say, confirmation bias, or the illusion of truth effect, don't work one way for info that matches the real world and another way for info that's fantasy, they'll operate no matter what the actual veracity of the information.
  42. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    The real motivation for this whole affair is so transparent, and I sincerely hope that the media, politicians and public are not duped a second time. First, this release of the emails stolen back in 2009 has occurred a week before the climate talks Durban. The emails were initially stolen before climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009. Second, the hackers have explained why they think this is necessary and it has nothing to do with the science. The hackers say: "One dollar can save a life" "Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." So this is about them pushing their ideological, and horribly misguided agenda. People really need to understand where this is coming from. It is not about transparency, scientific rigor, complying with vexatious FOI requests from "skeptics" and deniers, or the IPCC review process. This pathetic and desperate ploy is only about people who are in denial about AGW pushing their ideological agenda, in the process holding us all back and ultimately bestowing more suffering and pain and poverty on those very people who they so righteously allege to care so much about. They are using those poor people in developing nations as pawns in a political game. And who alleges to care so much about such poor people and who weaves their plight into their narrative to stall taking action on GHGs? Those in denial about AGW Monckton, Christy, Spencer and others. Spencer and McKitrick (Steve McIntyres buddy) are members of the Cornwall Alliance who believe that: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception." In other words, burn fossil fuels at will because it (supposedly) helps the poor and the earth is self-regulating and self-correcting.
  43. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    10, MA Rodger, I'm not sure why this has to be an oversimplistic either-or. Clearly the two largest factors in CO2 level are going to be: 1) Economic activity which directly generates CO2 2) Ocean surface temperatures that directly impact the ability of the ocean to absorb (or even release) CO2 More activity generates more CO2 -- a lot more. Higher temperatures retard the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 -- a lot more. Why must one completely displace the other?
  44. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Suggested reading: "Climategate 2.0?: New Emails Hacked -- Pay No Attention to the Energy Industry Behind the Curtain" by Shawn Lawrence Otto*, The Huffington Post, Nov 23, 2011 Click here to access this article. *Author, 'Fool Me Twice'; science advocate; filmmaker; co-founder, Sciencedebate.org,
  45. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Sally@14: You've prompted me to download the guide. I also bought a copy of "Climate Change Denial" when it came out, but still haven't had the time to read it. Now there are two things on the list. Doug@15: From a Devil's Advocate position, I'd be tempted to argue the elitist opinion that "average intelligence" and "stupid" aren't mutually exclusive, depending on your definition of "stupid". For practical purposes, though, "stupid" (or a more diplomatic term) should be reserved for the small minority at the low end of the distribution. I am reminded of a comment on a course evaluation back in my teaching days that said "the mid-term was so hard that half the class got below average". My thought was "the mid-term was so easy that half the class got above average!". A first-year class, where the student clearly hadn't taken (or understood) statistics, yet. Another throwback from my teaching days: the course outline for the first-year climatology course (half of one term) was very similar to the outline for the third-year climatology course (a full semester). The level of detail in the course was much different, though. Start with simple explanations and gloss over the details, but have a way of coming back to the details when a deeper understanding is needed. The difficulty in the "debunking" process is that the "skeptical" position is often based on either a strawman version of the simple explanation (which might require details to show why it is wrong) or an inflation of the uncertainties in the details (thus trying to make it look as if climatologists know nothing). For that reason, the SkS Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabs are a great idea. Sometimes, however, complex subjects just require complex explanations.
  46. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Further to my point (4) @25, Peter Thorne (one of the misquoted scientists) has this to say at Real Climate:
    "It seems that a couple of my mails have been highlighted by people wishing to take them out of context. Both related to a very early draft of the IPCC fourth assessment observations chapter that I was asked to review informally as part of the accepted report preparation pathway. This would have been in 2005 or 2006 not 2011. IPCC has several review cycles and numerous lead authors on each chapter to ensure balance and representivity. However, the very earliest drafts inevitably reflect the individual contributor’s perspectives. The review which I undertook was and still is intended to catch such cases and rectify before the formal reviews. I would note that none of the formal review versions retained the vast majority of the text that was being discussed in this email. In other words the process worked. I would note in passing that my understanding is that US FOIA precludes early drafts of papers and discussions thereof precisely because it is vital to be able to discuss fully and frankly scientific work prior to publication, peer review being a necessary but not adequate condition. It is good that scientists care about issues and imperative that they are allowed to discuss report and paper drafts openly if we want the best reports and papers possible."
    Peter Thorne's full comment is well worth reading.
  47. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Robert @9, I agree, but only to a point. Surely, you being in academia, you know that discussions whether it be in person or by email can be heated and emails are often really badly worded/phrased. People (including scientists under pressure in a highly politicized playing field who are being antagonized and misrepresented by "skeptics") are not perfect and that holds for you, me, your boss and perhaps even the person in your field who you admire and respect the most. How would we hold up under such scrutiny and relentless pressure? I'll be honest, probably not very well at all, especially after a while. Let me give readers an example of how an email exchange can be distorted. I sent a draft of my first PhD paper to my committee, most of them thought that it was a good start but that it needed more work. But one of them said it was half baked science and that he did not want to be associated with it. That really hurt, and in some ways they were right, so I buckled down and in the end we produced a solid paper that made it though peer-review, and the person who was originally so unhappy remained on as an author. Now, imagine someone quote mining my emails. They could easily infer three things: i) That I am incompetent and that we were conducting "half baked" science. ii) That there was not consensus and we were in-fighting. iii) That in subsequent dialogue when I was defending certain choices that I was trying to hide or cover something up. Science is not pretty, email is an awkward form of communication, people say stupid things in emails (period). It would be nice (but naive) if that were not true, but that is reality. The thieves and ideologues know that.
  48. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    muoncounter @9 Absolutely true. 2010 was not a record year for CO2 level increase. The coincidence was simply this above average 2.3ppm (or 2.42) increase coincided with record emissions. I cannot agree with your final statement however. The wobbles you tabulate & shown in the lower graph are climatic wobbles not economic ones. They match the wobbles in ENSO pretty convincingly.
  49. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    MarkR @19&20: 1) There is a difference between auditing and replicating. The gold standard in science is that all results should be replicable, and results which are not replicable are considered suspect. To replicate a result, you design an identical or equivalent experiment, gather your own data, analyse them and publish the result. There is no need to have access to the original research's data in order to replicate the observations. The Met Offices (Hadley) and University of East Anglia (CRU) papers on global temperatures where clearly replicable based on the information released with their papers. I know that because their results have been replicated by NCDC, GISS, and most recently by BEST. In auditing, the "auditor" tries to use your exact original data, and to reproduce your stated techniques to ensure that they reproduce the results you claim they reproduce. The difference between them is that replication shows a result to be robust, while auditing shows that no fraud has been committed. However, if there is no reason to suspect fraud (and there is not, in this case) there is also no purpose in auditing. Consequently, it has not been the standard in science that raw data has been preserved after the publication of a paper. Still less has it been the standard that that raw data has been made available to any and all that request it. Indeed, before the advent of modern PC's and the internet, such a standard would have been impossible to satisfy. Clearly what the FOI requesters where attempting to do was to audit the HadCRUT index, not replicate it. Given that there was good reason to think the "audit" would be a hatchet job rather than a genuine audit, and given that this supposed standard of free release of all data was in fact not the common standard at the time, there was no ethical (as distinct from legal) reason for Jones to release the raw data. 2) It is very far from clear that we should move to a standard of free access to raw data. If we were to do so, it would prevent any scientific publication of results from private or military research. Such publication would require release of either propriety information, or sensitive military information. Given the frequency of research partnerships between universities and private (or military) researchers, much university research would also be unpublishable for the same reason. Further, such a standard imposes significant cost and time constraints on researchers who would then need to fund both storage and access of the data, and its distribution on request. Storage would also require periodic transfer of files to more modern storage media, and updating of file formats to meet modern protocols. Given the large amount of research scientists can be involved in, this is a large commitment. 3) As it happens, both considerations apply to HadCRU. The Hadley SST index used information obtained from navy ships that was sensitive for military reasons. CRUTEM used data from propriety sources (mostly national meteorological offices) that could not be released in raw form except by agreement. And in fact, most of the raw data was not kept by the CRU in the form of a single file in any event. 4) Finally, with respect to emails, the notion that scientist's communications should all be available for selective and out of context misrepresentation to a scientifically illiterate public is absurd. If scientists have to treat every interpersonal communication as a press conference (as they would need to in such a situation), that would preclude any brain-storming. Nothing would be a quicker bar to effective research than an effective bar to scientist's being able to kick ideas around with each other without fear of misrepresentation.
  50. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    The comments on FOI say nothing more than anything that was already said in other e-mails. Clearly, the thieves went through every e-mail they could already, looking for the juiciest bits, and released them in 2009. Today, unable to hack into another source of fodder that they could manipulate and count on sorry bloggers like A-"the cause"-W to trumpet and misrepresent, they are left with instead releasing the stuff that didn't cut it the first time. They are counting on the fact that those same fools that crowed and bleated before will get their undies all in a bunch this time, too, and do it again, making a big, huge deal out of absolutely nothing (but even less nothing than the last time!), while giving a free pass to the thieves themselves, the shabby journalists that use this stuff for their own gain, and whatever selfish interests there are in the world who benefit from fooling the general public and undermining the science and the scientists. My sole consolation in this is that 10 or 20 years from now there's not going to be any doubt at all. Everyone is going to know and admit what is going on, and everyone is going to look back on this and the culprits -- not only the thieves, but far more importantly the suckers who fell for it and magnified it and used it to promote their own sad, distorted, and valueless position -- are going to be vilified. As they should be.

Prev  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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