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  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  Next

Comments 70401 to 70450:

  1. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    I've read the entire report a couple of times and some chapters more. How you can misconstrue section 8 like that is beyond me, but sure, I would definitely encourage any skeptic to read the entire IPCC.
  2. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    RE the above in your post: "we commend the former Liberal leader, Malcolm Turnbull... David Cameron... John Key... Arnold Schwarzenegger..." There is another name to add: former Premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, who on July 1, 2008, brought in North America's first broad-spectrum carbon tax, a revenue-neutral (ie, income taxes have been lowered; BC now has the lowest personal income tax in Canada), slowly-rising (started at $10/t CO2 emitted in 2008, rising $5/y; now at $25/t CO2 emitted), and relatively comprehensive tax on combustion of fossil fuels. It generates ~$1B/y in revenue now, is having an impact (albeit still small, but growing) on fuel consumption and fuel switching, and is accepted (even applauded) by about 70% of BC's population. In short, it's a roaring success. Campbell is to be saluted, along with the other names you offer. Notably, Campbell is a politically conservative, but he never shied away from the word 'tax'!
  3. Models are unreliable
    dhogaza: The models do well with co2 because of the simple physics. However, there is a lot more to climate than just co2 levels. The hydro cycle is critical.
    Response:

    [DB] Please provide peer-reviewed evidence that models do not deal adequately with the hydrological cycle.  This is a climate science website; opinions are of no value without a scientific undercarriage to support them.

    Climate models have this scientific undercarriage; your opinions do not.

  4. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    HH#17: "the Younger Dryas?" It certainly appears to be. They show in supplemental information a detail of that anomaly. There's a big jump in methane (up to 800ppb), which settles to a plateau at a higher level (700) than prior to the jump (500). All from GRIP ice core, as are the data depicted here.
  5. Models are unreliable
    406, dhogaza, Let me see if I get this right: 1) Clouds are a factor that models do not handle as well as desired 2) Therefore clouds are not handled at all 3) Therefore models are unreliable and have no predictive skill 4) Therefore we don't know what climate sensitivity is 5) Therefore we don't even know global warming is happening (natural cycles!) 6) Therefore we can't be certain to what degree we should take action 7) Therefore we can't be sure if we should take action at all 8) Therefore we shouldn't take any action at all QED!
    Response:

    [DB] Moved to the appropriate thread.  My bad.

  6. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 05:13 AM on 11 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    Muon, Does the decline and then rise in N2O and CH4 between 13k and 11k have something to do with the Younger Dryas?
  7. Models are unreliable
    Camburn: "2. My impression of section 8 is that there is confidence in the output of the models concerning termperature because this is simple physics." This alone contradicts your claim that models don't have predicative ability. Of course you immediately contradict yourself to some degree: "As far as multiple model runs and picking the middle as a result. Being the models do not do well with clouds, hydro, etc which do affect not only weather, but clmate as well, the outputs of the models should be in question." Well, of course model outputs are in question - does the actual sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 lie a the low end or high end of the 2.5-4C range that's constrained by a bunch of scientific study, including but not limited to research involving GCMs? Just because modeling of clouds is identified as being an area where models don't do as well as one would like (because of restrictions on resolution, there are people who do very interesting work modeling clouds using high resolution models on small slices of the atmosphere) doesn't mean that there is no constraint on the magnitude of cloud feedbacks. Your - and the denialsphere in general - say "cloud feedbacks aren't as well constrained as the radiative properties of CO2" (for instance) and conclude "therefore, the magnitude of cloud feedbacks is not constrained at all" and furthermore argue that cloud feedbacks must be strongly negative to the point of counterbalancing CO2 and water vapor forcing. That's just crap.
    Response:

    [DB] Moved comment from the Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2 thread.

  8. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn#43: "a mistake of credibility on my part. " Isn't your bigger mistake the fact that you are basing your 'models are unreliable' case on this one section of some very long documents? Documents that contain, as both Sphaerica and Tom Curtis quoted, statements that models are indeed reliable? Some call that 'quote-mining;' others might call it 'cherrypicking.' BTW the models thread is 'Models are unreliable,' #6 on the thermometer at the upper left of every SkS page.
    Response:

    [DB] Agreed.  Any further discussion of models, as Camburn has persisted in, is OT here and should be taken to the Models are unreliable thread.

  9. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Albatross: I agree, my opinion is my opinion. I use the outcomes of the models to try and make long term business decissions. In doing so, I evaluate what is credible and what is not, as presented in AR4 by looking at the shortcomings as well as the confidence levels. I do appologize for representing something my memory failed me on in quoteing AR3 rather than AR4. That was a mistake of credibility on my part.
  10. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Sphaerica: I am not making stuff up and I can only encourage everyone to read Section 8. As far as 5 to 10 years, I am talking from present. Let's move this discussion to a models thread if there is one.
    Response:

    [DB] Take it to the Models are unreliable thread.

  11. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn, Your impressions and opinions do not count for much, neither do mine for that matter. What counts are facts and observations. You distorted and misrepresented the IPCC's assessment reports because of your confirmation bias. That is not how science is done. Now, the favourite crutch of the "skeptics" are the models, well, we can also learn a heck of a lot about the climate system from paleo data, and they show that the system is quite sensitive with a climate sensitivity for equivalent forcing to doubling of CO2 resulting in a warming of >2 C. And we will easily double CO2 on our current path, perhaps even trebling or quadrupling it. Your claim that "AS it is right now, it is a best guess. Kinda like flipping a coin" is simply ludicrous. But I can understand that if that is your personal belief how you are having reconciling it with the science and our current understanding of the climate system.
  12. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    Look on the bright side: Admitting that there's a decline in the rate of atmospheric CO2 buildup is at least an admission that it actually is building up. That's a baby step on the road to reality. But seriously, from Joos and Spahni 2008: The 20th century increase in CO2 and its radiative forcing occurred more than an order of magnitude faster than any sustained change during the past 22,000 years. The average rate of increase in the radiative forcing not just from CO2 but from the combination of CO2, CH4, and N2O is larger during the Industrial Era than during any comparable period of at least the past 16,000 years. -- full size For recent years, the analysis by (7) shows that CO2 emission from fossil and industrial sources, the primary driver of anthropogenic climate forcing, have been accelerating over the past few years compared with the 1990s. Note (7) refers to Raupach 2007: CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y−1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y−1 for 2000–2004. No decline there. But looky here, a ray of hope: Global CO2 emissions actually decreased by 0.5 Gt CO2 between 2008 and 2009, which represented a decline of 1.5%. So on the basis of one year (a year of worldwide economic recession and reduced industrial activity), we did indeed have a decline! But one year later, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to [2010] estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data. Hiding the decline (in rate of increase) was never even a question. It vanished into thin, 394 ppm (the 5/2011 peak reported by Scripps) CO2 air.
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 11 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    mdennison, fair enough! Many thanks for the clarification.
  14. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    13, JMurphy, Ick. I clicked it. Now I have to sanitize my mouse button. Really, how can people read such nonsense and (a) not be offended by the misinformation and (b) not be angered that such people (and so many of them) are putting so much effort into selling lies to the unwary but eager-to-believe?
  15. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Yes, you have to give the plaudits to Julia Gillard. We often forget, not matter what the science says, a political coalition will have to carry through the necessary measures. Forming such a coalition is not easy - in the richest country in the world, it seems impossible. Gillard seems to be able to keenly judge "the art of the possible". I wish Barack Obama had the same skills, but (as someone pointed out) he has to deal with a broken political system.
  16. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    39, Camburn, You're making stuff up. Anyone who chooses to can go read it for themselves. Hopefully, they'll read it to understand it, rather than to try to find in it what they'd like to read. You have been demonstrated to have fabricated your position on what AR4 does and does not say about models. Your own opinion on this is of little value. As far as "within 5 to 10 years"... you do realize that the report was written, um, 5 years ago?
  17. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    J. Everett's website, in case anyone is interested.
  18. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak, as usual your point is difficult to discern, beyond a typical 'If it is us, it won't be bad anyway'. You seem to prefer the tiny minority of cherry-picked experts, like J. Everett, whose own website, although providing lots of links to actual data, is lessened by use of the term "alarmists"; his indecision as to whether it is actually warming or cooling; his 'soothing' words about things not being too bad maybe; sources from the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Lomborg, Morner, John Daly, CO2Science, IceCap, CO2Sceptics, ClimateAudit, SEPP, WarwickHughes and IceAgeNow - with a link to RealClimate as some sort of 'balance'; and his use of the St. Roch/Northwest Passage, 'recovery from the LIA', UHI, Consensus, 70s Cooling 'scare' and Climategate fallacies. The whole thing is a glorified Gish-Gallop, with some credible links thrown in to make it look credible. Even the quote you have from him is as a minority voice in a hearing before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD of the COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 22, 2010 - a link you should have provided. Out of 33 references to the IPCC, his testimony has 32 of them, including his desire to change the make-up of the IPCC. Obsessed ? As for your link to the NIPCC - that is just laughable, I'm afraid.
  19. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    James Hansen has long demonstrated that Cap-and-Trade is "less than worthless" and is a wrong turn in the path to emissions reductions. Fee-and-Dividend is the only effective and economical method to achieve marked emissions reductions. Why are so many governments and activists so convinced that Cap-and-Trade is the right path? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
  20. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    1. I recommend that all read section 8 again. 2. My impression of section 8 is that there is confidence in the output of the models concerning termperature because this is simple physics. 3. The confidence of precip, soil moisture, clouds etc is not there because there is either not enough computation power, or it is not well enough understood to model at this time. 4. WG1-3 is quit plain in what models can do. WG-4 shows that the models have improved but still lack certainty in large areas that affect climate. As far as multiple model runs and picking the middle as a result. Being the models do not do well with clouds, hydro, etc which do affect not only weather, but clmate as well, the outputs of the models should be in question. AS it is right now, it is a best guess. Kinda like flipping a coin. So as far as predictive power? In my opinion, given the variables at present with present understanding, I will stand by my statement. As far as the future of models? I would hope that within 5 to 10 years that the items addressed in section 8 will be better understood which will result in more certainty of the results.
  21. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    On the other hand, with no computational effort at all (but using a very simple mental model), I was able to successfully predict that camburn was going to quote mine ...
  22. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn: "...that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." In simple terms, they can't predict the weather far out in the future. Predicting the weather is much like, as Sphaerica says, trying to predict the exact sequence of heads vs. tails in a 1000 coin toss sequence. This says nothing about being able to predict how many heads vs, tails we expect, with error bounds, if the coin is fair (or, for that matter, if it's not, if we can figure out how to model the unfairness). Climate vs. weather. Camburn vs. reality.
  23. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    DM #1 The longer term trend is statistically significant. The trend is exponential at about 2% per year. Knorr does not suggest otherwise - his paper was about airborne fraction not the the rate of change in CO2 concentration. If you analyse the data by looking at the annual changes (rather than cumulative total, which is the measured data) then you appear to lose statistical significance and risk misleading results due to noise.which is masking the true exponential trend. So it is fair to say "And he’s doing it in the face of a clear upward trend at longer timescales!"
  24. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    @ Bert. Well according to the brainiacs on the Opposition Benches, CO2 is not only colourless & odourless-its now apparently *weightless* as well ;-).
  25. Pete Dunkelberg at 00:20 AM on 11 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    "Next, Dr. Everett claims to find a decline in the rate at which CO2 is building up in the atmosphere." So although we are burning more carbon he says CO2 is not building up proportionally in the air or water. Where does he think it's going? Outer space? Case closed on this guy. Spelling note: it is usually written as Svante August Arrhenius. Thanks a lot for doing this work and writing this up! We do not have another decade to waste nursing nutters. Action is essential. There is still a need for division of labor, and this website makes a large contribution.
  26. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Dale, the nay-sayers have been predicting an early election since November last year. First they said it wouldn't last til the new year, then they said it wouldn't last til mid-2011. Here we are though, more than a year later, & we have a stable (albeit minority) government that has passed far more bills in 12 months than the Howard Government did in a similar space of time. Also, there is a trend appearing in all the polls-Labor & Gillard are slowly but surely creeping back towards a winning position, whilst the public appear to be growing tired of Abbott's Dr. No routine. When the Carbon Price doesn't bring about the predicted apocalypse, I predict that the polls will go even more against the Coalition. Even if the Coalition *does* win the next election, they won't be able to force a double dissolution until around late 2014 to early 2015-& even then its believed that such an election will favor minor parties in the Senate-which could leave a Coalition Government with an even *more* hostile senate.
  27. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:11 AM on 11 November 2011
    Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    I am decidedly in favor. In my family of 4 persons worked in coal mines. None of them lived to retirement ... I have, however, one question: where the money will go to a new quasi-tax? Is there a program to use them? In Europe, a large part goes back to the fuel companies which develop and fund research into green energy, invest in it (so monopolize the energy market), but also investing in Carbon Capture Storage ...
  28. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Watch out for Denialist chest-thumpers confabulating the current Italian virus infecting the European economic zone, with the Roonation-Caused-By-The-Carbon-TaxTM. And speaking of ruination - Dale, if the Coalition forced a double dissolution in order to repeal the price on carbon, they would ultimately be consigning themselves to political history, although not before doing untold climatic and economic damage. There's a lot of ignorance in the Australian lay public, but even a cynic like me would be hard-pressed to believe that Australians are so ignorance that they'd tolerate the Coalition accelerating the country toward the New Dark Ages. More likely, Malcolm Turnbull will slip the stiletto through Abbott's kidney at the next opportune chance, and quietly leave the Labor/Green initiatives in place so that he can eventually "own" the revolution in the eyes of the ignorant voting public, if not in the eyes of objective history.
  29. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:27 PM on 10 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    For me, the most important is this conclusion to "report" Dr. John T. Everett: “Before the next IPCC assessment begins, assemble a USA review team and nominees for the IPCC writing and Chair assignments that make up a cross-section of scientific viewpoints. There are qualified scientists in agencies, industry, and among the citizenry who can contribute. Just as we shouldn’t have too many from the energy industry, the same goes for the agencies, universities, and NGOs. We all have biases, even if we think it is the other person who is the one with an agenda. We cannot afford to have homogenous authoring and review teams.” It should read the full "report" (chuckbot ignores several important fragments concerning for example historical acidification, variation of acidification: regional, caused by changes in weather, ocean currents, escape response to temperature and CO2 increases, etc.). I - a long time - I was wondering how - as short as possible - to "help" position Dr. Everett. A good proof of the accuracy of his conclusions is to follow the concentration of CO2 in the period when the continents were already present in "their place" and at least 99% of the current plant and animal species already existed (Pliocene, Pleistocene) and the so-called: Biodiversity is defined as the largest in the history of the Earth. Seki, et al., 2011. write: “Past responses to pCO2 change are important components in resolving these relationships, and the most informative palaeoclimate analogues will be in the recent geological past, when geographical configurations, ocean currents and marine and terrestrial ecosystems were similar to today. “ ... of the current CO2 in the atmosphere: “The current increase in the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, from 275 to 285 ppm in pre-industrial times to N380 ppm today, is unprecedented in recent Earth history (Solomon et al., 2007), with present levels exceeding the natural range of at least the last 800 kyr (Siegenthaler et al., 2005b; Lüthi et al., 2008).” But what - really - we know about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time (Pliocene and Pleistocene)? Not much. Range of error (for those in scale not distant geological time) is huge, for example regarding the changes: “ However, current Pliocene pCO2 estimates are inadequate to examine such fundamental issues.” and: „Pleistocene pCO2 values range from 250 to 300 ppm and, where the data overlap, they are broadly comparable to EPICA (Fig. 9).” It should be noted that these "Comparable" exists only in pCO2 maxima shown by EPICA (Fig. 9a). The lowest indication of ice cores are well below the lowest (along with standard deviation) of other proxy. Some proxy shows throughout the Pleistocene CO2 concentrations similar to those present, and earlier: “Thus, although the Pliocene warm period pCO2 was higher than pre-industrial levels, it was comparable to current levels or to a level that will be reached in the near future (next few decades).” Is the CO2 pollution was - in this period - also? Changes in the CO2 were also rapidly: “The G. ruber boron isotope record indicates that pCO2 declined substantially from high Pliocene values over a relatively short period between 3.2 Ma and 2.8 Ma (Fig. 10).” In Figure 9a we see, however, that according to one of the proxy (high resolution in time) - in this period (3.2 Ma and 2.8 Ma) - changes can be extremely rapidly (practically vertical lines on the graph), from circa 300 to 450 ppmv - a even (Fig. 9b) the circa 500 ppmv CO2. Currently living plant and animal species on land and sea, or their ancestors had - in the process of evolution - to adjust to the rate of change - as he writes Dr. Everett in his "report". Currently, the theory of evolution tells us that we are dealing mainly with adaptation to rapid changes in the environment rather than adapting to the environment. Dr. Everett also writes about the sinks of CO2 - that may be greater than we think. The sinks of CO2 (for a change - 3.2 Ma and 2.8 Ma), little is known (“Pliocene pCO2 decline we record, the overall trigger(s) that led to these changes in oceanic carbon storage and pCO2 remain elusive.” - Seki, et al., 2011). It is worth to note that most sources of CO2 behaves in accordance with the bell-shaped curve. The increase in temperature often changes them: the sources are the sinks - as he writes NIPCC latest report, for example (page 34): “Wan et al. conclude, ―plant photosynthetic overcompensation may partially serve as a negative feedback mechanism for [the] terrestrial biosphere to climate warming, where ―the photosynthetic overcompensation induced by nocturnal warming can ... regulate terrestrial carbon sequestration and negatively feed back to climate change.” The acidity of the oceans in ancient times - well we know little about it - notes Dr. Everett. The same is found for example Tripati et al. 2011. Calibration of some - of even the best proxy (Boron)- may since lead to huge errors - Pagani et al. 2005: “... values for the Cenozoic yield pH estimates that are relatively invariant, but unrealistically high ...”
    Response:

    [DB] See Skywatcher's response to you below.  This is yet another instance of your furnished source not saying what you imply that it does.

    For the general reader, please note that the other source Arkadiusz uses, the NIPCC, is discussed here:

    Let the Prudent Reader beware.

  30. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    @2 Stevo: Repealing would be pretty easy for the Coalition if they win the next election, even with a hostile Senate. In Australia, if the Senate blocks a law it becomes a double-dissolution trigger. The lower house Govt can then use the trigger to call on the Governor-General to dissolve both houses of Parliament and force a full double-house federal election. Coalition could do this in the hope of gaining control of both houses, which would allow them to repeal the tax unopposed. Also, the state of some of the current Independents could end with them withdrawing confidence in the current lower house. This would force a federal election (since the Labor party couldn't guarantee control of the lower house). This again could lead to a double-dissolution, but earlier than the above "normal" situation. The likelihood of this occurring is slim, but still a chance in Australia's current unstable political environment.
  31. Sceptical Wombat at 21:00 PM on 10 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    The argument that because the oceans have a ph greater than 7 they cannot be acidifying is like saying that if I travel from Boston to New Orleans then I am not going south because I remain in the Northern Hemisphere.
  32. Bert from Eltham at 19:54 PM on 10 November 2011
    Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    I have known Julia ever since she was at UNI. She is part of a cohort of rational people in our current Government that believe in rational science. The opposition has and is still scratching and biting like a wild animal. Their alternative plan is to pay for the CO2 pollution with taxpayers money! Sound familiar? Bert
  33. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    Anything out of it's Natural Balance is a Pollutant Currently the CO2 levels are grossly out of their natural balance and anyone who is honest knows why that is
  34. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Susanne @ 5 Thanks. Date fixed.
  35. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    For those who would like something to back up the comment about Rupert Murdoch, this series of articles on Deltoid explains much. It's not called "The Australian's War on Science" for nothing! (for overseas readers - 'The Australian' is the only nation-wide daily newspaper in Australia, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation)
  36. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    History is made of nits: the date was Tuesday 8 November, 2011, not Wed 9th. Oz time is ahead of nearly all the world, but not that far. But who cares: the bills are passed. It's not even the end of the beginning of all that has to be done, but it's worth celebrating. And getting the date right :D
  37. Bert from Eltham at 18:45 PM on 10 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Sorry the previous post was meant to go in the relevant blog. Bert
  38. Bert from Eltham at 18:30 PM on 10 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    I have known Julia ever since she was at UNI. She is part of a cohort of rational people in our current Government that believe in rational science. The opposition has and is still scratching and biting like a wild animal. Their alternative plan is to pay for the CO2 pollution with taxpayers money! Sound familiar? Bert
  39. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    In case someone is thinking Lindzen & Choi 2011 is an improvement, please see here
  40. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    (-Snip-). Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] I said earlier that Gore was off-topic.  If it doesn't pertain directly to the OP, don't post it.  FYI.

  41. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Muon counter: thank you for the pointer to the Blog on the Wegman retraction. Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed text.

  42. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    63, cjshaker, You have misunderstood or misrepresented the quote (which isn't by John Kerry, by the way). What he said was:
    "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
    What you claimed he said was:
    ...claims that NO peer reviewed articles cast doubt on AGW were incorrect.
    Anyone can see the difference. The actual quote was citing a specific study that took a snapshot in time of a portion of the available studies and found zero. You are claiming that he said that no peer-reviewed articles exist at all (with the implication that such a statement must also have future predictive power, since An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006, five years ago). More importantly, you have still not even proven that statement to be false. Can you identify a peer-reviewed paper which has withstood scrutiny and is accepted to cast doubt on AGW? By the way, as far as I can tell the quote is in fact from "An Inconvenient Truth" (that's right, he did say it, but it still doesn't at all say what your paraphrase says).
  43. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    renewable guy @ 1 Yes, Australian is fortunate in that both houses of parliament have the option to set time limits for debate. If we had to contend with the filibuster (as used in the US Senate in violation of the intentions of your founding fathers) our parliament would be in perpetual gridlock. At the moment the hope for the US is in actions taken by the states, and I congratulate the good people of California on their cap and trade scheme, which will commence 6 months ahead of the scheme in Australia. As California is the 8th largest economy in the world, hopefully other states will follow suit.
  44. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    (-Snip-) Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Off-topic, ideology and inflammatory tone snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  45. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Some progress at last. Kudos to prime minister Julia Gillard!
  46. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    DB@ 71: Aww, just one more. cjshaker#66: "found an environmental science article which is being retracted" Yes, this was the Wegman 2008 paper noted here; it's critical of climate science. It is being retracted because of plagiarism. Please stop these link-bombs. Or at least look at the link before you post it to see if it even supports your case. This one didn't.
  47. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Interested readers can find the text of AR3 here, and look at the section presented by Camburn by following the links to section 14.2.2.2. Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles.
  48. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    31, Camburn, Your summation of what AR four said:
    They do not have preditive ability.
    is no where near the same as what you found in AR three:
    ...that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
    But more importantly, you have taken that statement grossly out of context. Specifically, the section is discussing the fact that computing needs as models become more intricate (i.e. finer and finer grid layouts with more detailed simulation of physical processes) were in danger of outstripping available computing power:
    These considerations must also recognise that the potential predictive capability will be unavoidably statistical, and hence it must be produced with statistically relevant information. This implies that a variety of integrations (and models) must be used to produce an ensemble of climate states. Climate states are defined in terms of averages and statistical quantities applying over a period typically of decades (see Chapter 7, Section 7.1.3 and Chapter 9, Section 9.2.2).
    This also reflects a basic aspect of climate modeling, which is that there are multiple future paths and no one is necessarily correct. The solution is to use ensembles... multiple runs which will produce an average prediction of climate change, with error bars.
    Ensemble integrations yield estimates of the variability of the response for a given model.
    Then comes your quote:
    In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
    Which is followed by:
    The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.
    Which, when coupled with your statement, shows that it doesn't at all say what you want people to infer that it means. This is a simple description of the fact that multiple iterations are needed to produce a range of predictions rather than one specific, perfect prediction. By way of analogy, imagine that I write a program that attempts to predict heads and tails in 1000 coin tosses. By your logic, I am unable to write such a program because I could never possibly, with any degree of certainty, predict the exact sequence of heads and tails that will actually come to pass. I can, however, run such a simulation multiple times and give good estimates, with ranges, of the likelihood of a certain number of heads and tails by the end of the run -- a prediction "defined in terms of averages and statistical quantities." You, sir, are quoting statements out of context and playing games with words. I would put forth that you have failed to prove your case, and are still required to openly and publicly retract your statement.
  49. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Regarding the much touted (in some circles at least) Energy and Environment (E&E). This claim was made above: "Appears that previous comments under this question denigrate that journal, Energy and Environment. The Wikipedia entry claims that it is peer reviewed, but also includes some negative comments about it" It is not clear whether or not all the papers published in E&E are peer-reviewed. There is another major concern with E&E, because its chief editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, is on record saying this: "The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” No, pushing one's political agenda is certainly not the right of the editor of a real science journal. The editor is denigrating her own journal by stating that. And as if it did not need more strikes against it, the co-editor of E&E is Benny Peiser, who is the director of the ideologically driven lobby group GWPF. I looked up the E&E's impact factor. I went to SCImago Journal and Country Rank, its impact factor for 2010 is 0.19. Compare that with Journal of Climate at 3.93. In 2010 the impact factor for Science was 28, and for Nature was 32. So E&E is clearly not a journal driven by science, but one driven by a political agenda and ideology, with a dubious review process to boot. Additionally, E&E is not a reputable, trustworthy or respected journal. I would not publish in it for all the tea in China.
  50. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    @AlexS Tom Curtis referred to the "third graph" (titled Various CO2 Projections, with an x-axis scale of 1900-2100). It should, indeed, have its y-axis units as ppmv, not ppm/yr.

Prev  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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