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  1444  1445  1446  1447  1448  1449  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  Next

Comments 72551 to 72600:

  1. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Hello Dr. Pielke @65, Just though that you should know, the press release that you linked to does not contain the quoted text.
  2. The Earth continues to build up heat
    It's interesting that not only does the Earth continue to build up heat, but the rate of build-up over those 5 years appears to hardly even have slowed. The "skeptics" won't be happy.
  3. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    critical mass #64 - yes, a challenge in this sort of calculation is the overlapping of various effects. We've discussed the warming effects of aerosols and black carbon quite a bit, but the actions which result in their emissions actually have a net cooling effect through the negative aerosol forcing. Personally I prefer to parse it by net forcing by effect (i.e. net warming from GHGs, net cooling from aerosols and black carbon)as opposed to trying to break out net positive and negative forcings. Dr. Pielke #65 - yes, we've previously touched on the possibility that human land use change may have impacted the climate during pre-industrial times. I think it's a very interesting theory. However, the IPCC does discuss CO2 changes associated with land use changes.
  4. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    @fydijkstra #17 Another thing to look at when it comes to sea levels: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/02/332364/nasa-rained-so-hard-oceans-fell/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html
  5. Understanding climate denial
    Elsa, if you have any integrity toward the science, please watch the first minute of this video and then post your response on this thread. We have to start with the basics, unless you are uninterested in understanding the theory that you are attempting to argue against. If you do have a good understanding of the physical model, then you will be able to engage in a useful discussion of the basics. If you don't have a good understanding, then start asking questions. Otherwise, you're simply a mindless troll (and this doesn't seem to be the case).
  6. The Earth continues to build up heat
    Arkadiusz @2, You will be interested to know that the NODC is now showing oceanic heat content data data for 0-2000 m [H/T to Dr. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate]. The oceans are not 700 m deep, and the Argo data do not extend down to only 700 m either. I think that you know that. Here is what it looks like when one looks at all the data available: [Source] The climate system is continuing to accumulate heat as shown by Church et al. (2011) and von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011)
  7. Understanding climate denial
    I believe the "95% confidence" thing came from a throwaway remark that Fisher made. I fought against it throughout my stats courses, to little avail. My lecturers were sympathetic but that's the way they taught stats. The best use of a predictive model with substantial error bars is to hit it with an actuarial analysis and determine what level of expended utility gives the best payout.
  8. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    This press release on a research paper regarding the land use effect on the global average radiative flux might be of interest. ”World-lead​ing scientists will shed new light on climate-ch​ange mitigation in Garmisch-P​artenkirch​en, Germany, 18-23 September” http://www.ileaps.org/phocadownload/SC2011/SC2011%20press%20release%20080911_NB.pdf "Deforestation has resulted in emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, but clearing the forests may also have cooled the climate because forest is darker and heats up more than agricultural and pasture land.” The increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human land-cover change became significant long before the Industrial Revolution and by present day its overall effect amounts to about 20 ppm: human changes to land cover appears to explain about one eighth of the observed 1 K global warming." This is still a CO2 effect but the basic forcing is land use change. It is, regardless, a separate issue from the role of industrial and vehicular emissions. It does show how complex and interrelated the climate forcings are.
  9. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr Pielke #32 Correct me if I have misundertood but the calculation of current radiative forcings is not derived from changes in OHC. The AR4 forcings are largely derived from models and theory. Historical forcings and the historical planetary imbalance are important in determining the heat energy accumulated in the oceans since the base date of 1750. As you have correctly argued elsewhere, the key metric is changes in heat energy in the oceans (Joules) in measuring the magnitude of the global energy imbalance. The point no-one seems to be discussing here is that the sum of all forcings (both positive radiative and climate response negative) is what counts in determining the imbalance. For example if Asian aerosols are increasing the negative forcing (which might be linear - who knows?) at the same time as fossil fuel burning is adding to CO2 positive forcing (which is logarithmic), then the net result could be Dr Jim Hansen's net reduction in the forcing imbalance.
  10. Understanding climate denial
    238, elsa,
    I think I have studied this subject in some detail and I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it.
    And I note that you have not followed or read the links that I already provided in response to this (-snip-) wrong position, at comment 206 02:17 AM on 12 October, 2011. Just to save you the trouble of going back, so this time you can follow it and learn exactly how your statement is grossly flawed: RealClimate FAQ on climate models RealClimate FAQ on climate models Part II
    Nor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at.
    Do you even read the responses to your propositions? He did in fact respond to your false assertion in comment 232 21:35 PM on 12 October, 2011. He said:
    Perhaps you are unaware that all of the data is available for download. Given that the data is freely available, perhaps you'll then consider it outrageous that those proclaiming to be skeptics have done little with it other than to confirm the "hockey stick" is replicable using as little as 10% of the data because that is what the data show: a hockey-stick-like rise in global temps. Yet the anti-science drum beat continues.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

    Links to raw data, processed data, model outputs, and model code are handily collected on RealClimate's Data Sources page.

  11. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:27 AM on 13 October 2011
    The Earth continues to build up heat
    “The Earth continues to build up heat [?]” Well, it is difficult not be skeptical (in this question) if you look for example at the figure and reads the comments: “The linear trend of the observations is approximately 7% of the trend projected by the model mean of the GISS Model-E.” In work Church et al., 2011. this sentence: “Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing.” if we compare “it” whit a first sentence - comments above, it “receives” a slightly different meaning ...
    Response:

    [DB] Per your link, 0-700 meters is not the whole ocean, and is thus not considered global.

    Per the third sentence of the OP above:

    This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.

    Emphasis added for clarity.

  12. Understanding climate denial
    For the casual reader... Please, by all means, read through elsa's posts, and the responses. If you want a textbook case of denial, as evidenced by... 1) An absurd level of confidence and arrogance in a complete misunderstanding of the science. 2) An unwillingness to listen. 3) An unwillingness to follow informative links to learn. 4) The constant repetition of falsehoods, in the face of all evidence. 5) An almost fanatical faith in her position. 6) A complete lack of links and citations : everything is categorically and definitively stated, yet this truth is expected to be taken at face value simply because she says so. 7) The aggressive and rather comically repeated use (in pretty much every single post) of a term ("warmist") that she hopes will push people's buttons, even though no one actually cares. ... and so much more. Elsa provides you with an insight into exactly how emotionally wedded and intellectually detached a denier can become. From the original post:
    The most common response was attitude bolstering. This involves bringing to mind arguments that support pre-existing views while denying any counter evidence. The process is reflexive and almost sub-conscious.
  13. The Earth continues to build up heat
    Church's et al paper is a nice summary of a number of hydrological/oceanographic parameters, and ones that toll a grim knell. Now that attention has been drawn to it on Skeptical Science, I expect that there will soon be a glut of denialist 'rebuttals' attempting to discredit the numbers...
  14. Understanding climate denial
    elsa#238: "I think I have studied this subject in some detail" You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence for any of your 'positions.' If you have studied, show what you have studied. If you have some expertise, show it. Until such time as you can prove that you know what you're talking about, your comments here are of neither substance nor interest. Of opinions, we have plenty. Of noise, there is no shortage.
  15. Dikran Marsupial at 23:41 PM on 12 October 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    elsa wrote: "I think the more normal confidence limit is 95% which I guess the warmist view has been unable to meet." The comment to which you were referring described a likelihood, not a hypothesis test, they are not the same thing. The initial comment was analogeous to the statement "it is highly likely that if I roll a ten sided die I will get a score less than two". Obviously there is no hypothesis test implied in that statement either. BTW, the 95% significance level has no statistical basis whatsoever, and is merely a (rather lazy) tradition in the sciences. Fisher, one of the fathers of statistical hypothesis testing said that the significance level should depend on the nature of the problem. BTW2, most people don't understand hypothesis testing anyway, failing to reach the significance level does not mean that the alternative hypothesis is false, it just means that the available evidence does not allow us to rule out the possibility that the null hypothesis is true. The idea that you shouldn't claim a hypothesis is likely to be true unless you are able to reject the null hypothesis is a safety measure to help prevent people overclaiming on their results, but it has no real rational basis.
  16. Understanding climate denial
    elsa,
    There is no equation linking CO2 and temperature given to us from physics that we can test. That is why we have to do it the other way round. We assume that there is a link (and incidentally I would not question that there is, it's just that we do not know what it is; there is no "hard physics" contrary to what someone put to me earlier) and then build models that fit the data to the theory.
    Please listen carefully. The above statement of yours is 100% wrong. It is full of false statements. You need to study and learn that your entire position is founded upon a lie. Since you clearly haven't studied the actual science I can only assume that you "learned" this tripe from disinformation sites like appinsys, WUWT and other places. Whatever the source, your information is wrong. You have an abysmal understanding of the science. Physics predicts that CO2 will cause temperatures to rise. This was established more than 100 years ago. That temperatures really are rising is not a mere coincidence. Models do not fit the data to the theory. They emulate the physics, and the end result is a system that looks and acts just like the earth's climate, and who's results parallel what we observe in real life. Stop spreading falsehoods. And stop believing them yourself. The topic of this post is understanding climate denial. Have you read it? Do you read anything? You need to stop ranting, open your eyes and learn... not from disinformation sites that tell you what you want to hear, but rather from actual scientific sites where you learn actual science. Everything you think you know is wrong. You need to stop ranting and lecturing and start learning.
  17. Understanding climate denial
    elsa wrote : "JMurphy I guess we can take it that you accept the 95% has not been met so a lower standard needed to be adopted; I will leave it to you to determine the definition of warmist, a term which is at least more attractive than "denier" even if it is one that you dislike or cannot understand." I don't know what more anyone can do to show you where you are going wrong with the first part of your statement, so I will just refer you back to my original response to you, where anyone who is actually interested can see the difference between the use of 'very likely' and 'statistically significant', and when such terms can be used. You also don't seem to realise that not using the 95% confidence level doesn't mean that it could be used. Please look at the links I provided, to find out more. As for the definition of "warmist" - you are the one using it, so I presumed that you would have some idea as to what it means : at least to you. If you don't, fair enough : at least I know. And how can I dislike it if I don't know what it means ?!
  18. Understanding climate denial
    Elsa, There has been an increase in Greenhouse gases which is quit capable of explaining the warming over the past fifty years. There has not been the sort of solar variation or change in volcanism or orbital and rotational parameters that could give rise to that variation in that time. Greenhouse gases are the only thing known to have changed in a way that could have caused the observed effects. Further the pattern in space and time of temperature changes it that expected from greenhouse gas increases not that from solar variation. These are the reasons why we know it was us. If you claim it was not then you have to come up with an alternative explanation and explain why it is mimicking the behaviour of a greenhouse gas increase.
  19. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    Tom Curtis: Have you seen this new exposed land, it is not arable and will not be for centuries. #28 Good questions and I only have to time to briefly address #3. The key glaciers with large floating tongues, not really considered ice shelves, are Petermann, Zacharaiae and Nioghalvfjerdsbræ (79) and Storstrommen. As Petermann the thinnest has shown these large floating sections are not that stable. All of these are still outlet glaciers feeding into a fjord and the loss of the floating ice results from thinning and will in turn lead to some acceleration. Ryder Glacier is another example but this glacier is small with respect to the others. Zacharaieis the most important because it taps into the heart of the ice sheet. Note figure 7 in that link.
  20. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 22:56 PM on 12 October 2011
    Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    I have few questions: 1) What is the error associated with the GRACE measurements of Greenland? 2) How much will the central region of the ice cap be affected by accelerating glaciers around the fringes of Greenland? 3) How stable are the ice shelves in northern and eastern Greenland and how soon can we expect to see acceleration of glaciers in these regions? 4) What will happen once the glaciers retreat from the coast and the process of ocean carving ceases? Apologies for all the questions.
  21. Understanding climate denial
    DB] "It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all." If you have an actual example to cite, please do so. In the absence of concrete examples, please refrain from such blandishments. "But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have." The modest acknowledgement of a lack of understanding on your part does not preclude the existence of greater knowledge on the part of science. I recommend studying more and commenting less. I think I have studied this subject in some detail and I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it. Nor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at. JMurphy I guess we can take it that you accept the 95% has not been met so a lower standard needed to be adopted; I will leave it to you to determine the definition of warmist, a term which is at least more attractive than "denier" even if it is one that you dislike or cannot understand.
    Response:

    [DB] "I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it."

    That would be because models have far more appropriate threads than this one, so are OT here.  And your "critique" lacks bones as well as meat.  If you wish to focus on models, take that portion of your commentary to one of those threads (Search function).

    "Nor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at."

    Again, OT here because there are many threads dealing with this, old, issue.  Again, take it there.

    And please note that block quoting, which you do, is considered poor form.  Reserve quoting for a point-by-point dealing with things; otherwise, just referring to the particular comment with a link will do.

  22. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Perhaps this came up before, but I think something useful for this type of analysis would be to estimate uncertainties in each term. Also, more useful from a policy perspective would be to estimate forcing from categories of human activity, such as fossil fuel production/use, forest clearing, etc.
  23. Understanding climate denial
    elsa#234: "My position is that we do not really know whether or not CO2/humanity is responsible for such warming as has taken place." Perhaps it is time you substantiated your position, for such is the expected behavior at SkS. Rather than declare, support. On what evidence have you formed these positions? References to literature? Peer-reviewed research? Analytic work? Because the critical question really is not over your opinion, but over what facts you have chosen to form your opinion.
  24. Sea level fell in 2010
    This also comes from the same source. Putting the recent drop in the longer term context makes the "pothole" look relatively smaller, and well within the longer trend. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/revisiting-earths-sea-level-and-energy-budgets-1961-2008
  25. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Jonathon: "What I found surprising was the exclusion of albedo and aerosol contributions." I think you may have misunderstood the discussion. Aerosols (e.g. black carbon) are included. What is in dispute are additional 'knock on' "indirect" and "semi-direct" effects (basically hypotheses that aerosols impact clouds and precipitation) from aerosols. Dr. Pielke apparently believes these are significant while other research suggests they are negligible. Similarly for albedo. No one has suggested that it isn't a significant factor. Only that albedo changes due to ice loss are a feedback and thus not relevant to this discussion of human forcing effects. I believe Dr. Pielke's position is that human land use changes have resulted in a significant albedo shift, but again that is a dispute over a particular subset rather than the entire topic of 'albedo'.
  26. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    It appears that too many people are getting hung up on the exact figure that CO2 is contributing to the warming. Whether CO2 has contributed 30% or 50% to the observed warming is helpful in making future projections, but is not critical. Considering the uncertainties involved in all the measurements, determining the contribution to within 20% would be amazing. What I found surprising was the exclusion of albedo and aerosol contributions. Do people here really believe that they are irrelevant?
  27. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    I have read the 2009 EOS article. Given what it contains, the question which should be asked of Pielke Sr's is not what % of human-caused forcing from CO2 but what % of human-caused forcing from all greenhouse gases. EOS 2009 presents three “mutually exclusive” hypotheses (1) Human influence on climate is minimal, (2a) Alongside important natural variation, human influence on climate is significant due to a diverse range of first order climate forcings which includes CO2, (2b) Alongside important natural variation, human influence on climate is significant dominantly due to GHGs, the most important being CO2. Two of these hypotheses are then dismissed. “We suggest that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., as summarised by National Research Council (NRC) [2005]) is predominantly in support of hypothesis 2a, in that a diverse range of first-order human climate forcings have been identified.” These non-GHG forcings are “...spacially hetrogeneous and include...” aerosols on clouds, aerosol deposition, reactive nitrogen & changing land use. Their effects are estimated to be multi-decadal and longer. If this diverse range of non-GHG forcings are a significant influence on climate, how big is that significance in comparison with human GHG forcing? Pielke Sr appears to be presenting mankind with an additional crisis caused by non-GHG forcings on top of that caused predominantly by GHG emissions stating “global climate models do not accurately simulate (or even include) several of these first-order human climate forcings.” If EOS 2009 is to be taken seriously, the first step must be to quantify the “significance” of these non-GHG forcings.
  28. Understanding climate denial
    elsa, it is unfortunately obvious (but, perhaps, not to you yourself) that you are posting about things about which you appear to have very little detailed knowledge. A previous response of yours (I think the more normal confidence limit is 95% which I guess the warmist view has been unable to meet) highlights that very well, and shows that you need to read more on this site : "Very Likely" - See Box TS1 in the last IPCC Report - "> 90% probability" (Working Group 1 of which you would be well-advised to actually read). Confidence Intervals - In common usage, a claim to 95% confidence in something is normally taken as indicating virtual certainty. You are not doing yourself any favours by constantly misrepresenting/misusing scientific terms or ideas, and I would still advise you to also read Spencer Weart's History of Global Warming, as has been suggested to you many times already. Is there any reason why you are ignoring what others are suggesting you look at ? And do you have a definition for "warmist" (even if it's just one you have made up for your own benefit), so we can see who or what it is you are actually arguing against.
  29. Understanding climate denial
    Skywatcher, Diversion, a great tactic. Especially when you attempt to transpose onto someone else what you in fact are doing yourself. Focusing on something new to avoid the original discussion, then claim that it was your opponent, not you, who changed the subject. Very nice, but flawed. I guess we will just have to disagree on the definition of consensus. If you think that consensus applies to a wide range, so be it. I prefer to think of consensus as being a general belief in a narrow outcome. Who is the one actually playing word games with Webster here? Your attention to catastrophic is, in your own words, a strawman.
  30. Understanding climate denial
    While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take." For someone so unacquainted with the field, you continually make similar statements. I don't think I have ever pronounced as to why warmists hold the views that they do. If I were to hazard some guesses I would say (1) that people can get carried away with maths. As Lovelock has put it "We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate." and (2) that humans seems to have a tendency to prefer an invalid or untestable explanation to no explanation at all (think of the 14th century doctors). However I would also say that for the most part they are concerned people of good intent and actually I can see that there could well be truth in what they say. It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all. My position is that we do not really know whether or not CO2/humanity is responsible for such warming as has taken place. I fully admit that I do not have a better explanation and I am prepared to face the fact that mankind does not have a detailed knowledge of what drives the climate. But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have.
    Response:

    [DB] "It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all."

    If you have an actual example to cite, please do so.  In the absence of concrete examples, please refrain from such blandishments.

    "But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have."

    The modest acknowledgement of a lack of understanding on your part does not preclude the existence of greater knowledge on the part of science.

    I recommend studying more and commenting less.

  31. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    MMM - Society and the environment are influenced by regional and local issues, including climate. The use of a global average is of much less value to determine risks. In terms of how long each forcing affects these spatial scales land use/land cover change, nitrogen deposition, black carbon deposition, and mineral dust deposition are examples of four other human climate forcings with long residence times in the climate system.
  32. Understanding climate denial
    "This is in the scienctific sense. In this case, it means a greater than 90% likelihood." I think the more normal confidence limit is 95% which I guess the warmist view has been unable to meet.
  33. Understanding climate denial
    I would like to add a short comment on the subject of consensus and peer review. I think a meaningful consensus can only be arrived at after debate and discussion and peer review, not by those that agree with you but rather those that do not. A review of the reasons for the existence of god by ten thousand clergymen is hardly likely to lead to pick up a fault in the logic. Here there has been a remarkable unwillingness on the part of warmist scientists such as Phil Jones to subject their work to review by anyone who disagrees with them, while those that do agree are shown the numbers. It is outrageous that he only releases data to his opponents when forced to do so by FOI Act requests. This sort of attitude is another reason why denialism will continue for if the warmists are so sure of their position it is impossible to understand their need for secrecy.
    Response:

    [DB] "It is outrageous that he only releases data to his opponents when forced to do so by FOI Act requests."

    Perhaps you are unaware that all of the data is available for download. 

    Given that the data is freely available, perhaps you'll then consider it outrageous that those proclaiming to be skeptics have done little with it other than to confirm the "hockey stick" is replicable using as little as 10% of the data because that is what the data show: a hockey-stick-like rise in global temps.  Yet the anti-science drum beat continues.

  34. Understanding climate denial
    "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." This is a quite carefully worded statement. I don't think I have questioned that the world is a bit warmer today than say 100 years ago. That is a measurable proposition and while I have seen questioning of the extent of the warming I don't really think anyone denies it. What is interesting is the second part because the certainty is removed from it; it says only that the warming is likely due to human activities. That is rather in contrast to this article and much of the thrust of those who have disagreed with me here. Both seem to take it as proven that human activity has brought about the warming and that anyone who disagrees is either ill informed, stupid or deluded. While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take.
    Response:

    [DB] "What is interesting is the second part because the certainty is removed from it; it says only that the warming is likely due to human activities."

    This is in the scienctific sense.  In this case, it means a greater than 90% likelihood.

    "While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take."

    For someone so unacquainted with the field, you continually make similar statements.

  35. Understanding climate denial
    Sphaerica You say I am wrong so tell us what the information is that we have been given by physics. We have no starting point. There is no equation linking CO2 and temperature given to us from physics that we can test. That is why we have to do it the other way round. We assume that there is a link (and incidentally I would not question that there is, it's just that we do not know what it is; there is no "hard physics" contrary to what someone put to me earlier) and then build models that fit the data to the theory. But this is just a circular argument. Of course the data will fit because we made it do so, it does not test the theory at all. Then we come across awkward patches of time when the temperature falls in the face of rising CO2 concentrations. The models get round this by adding in other variables. But in doing this the models are not testing the CO2 theory they are assuming it is correct and giving it a let out. Here any pretence to science really disappears. If we have a theory that fits the facts whatever happens (if temperature goes down it is true just as it must be when the temperature goes up) then we have a theory that is completely beyond testing. That is one of the reasons why denialism will continue and be able to fight back.
  36. Dikran Marsupial at 18:01 PM on 12 October 2011
    It's cooling
    NETDR writes: "I contend that we are at the start of a 20 to 30 year cooling cycle" I very much hope you are right; sadly your reasoning is very shaky. Looking at time series data and detecting a pattern does not mean that the pattern inquestion has any physical basis, but without a physical basis there is no good reason to think that the pattern will continue intop the future. In the case of the cycles linked to PDO, the problem is that there have been changes in other forcings, so how can you tell that the cycle is real rather than being the result of changes in other forcings that have coincided to form what appears to be a cycle and a bit of an oscillation? You can't tell by statistical means which is which (as correllation does not imply cuasation), you can only tell the difference via physics. So, has anyone produced a physical model that reproduces the observed cycle as a result of PDO, rather than as a result of known changes in the other forcings, such as solr forcing? I think you will find the answer to that question is "no", simply becuase once you include physics into the argument it quickly becomes apparent that PDO can have caused little of the observed variation.
  37. Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
    Just for the record,the "Carbon Tax" bill was passed today through Australia's federal House of Representatives. With no chance of the legislation being blocked in the senate, we'll have a carbon trading scheme in place on July 1 2012. Despite claims by the leader of the opposition to repeal the legislation should he win government at the next election in 2013, he will not have the numbers in the senate to make good such a promise. The long and the short of it is, Australia has at least 4 years to get accustomed to, and to refine, a carbon trading scheme.
  38. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    In my rush to comment, I made a mistake at 24. Hansen and Sato predict doubling of GIS ice loss per decade which, by 2050 would result in cumulative loss of 48,000 gigatonnes with annual loss increasing to 3,200 gigatonnes per annum. Tom Curtis - I think that is right, mildly beneficial until the last 20 years of this century when RSL as much as ice loss seems likely to cause problems. Though I hear from Greenlanders in the far north west that they are already being caused problems by lack of sea ice inhibiting travel and hunting.
  39. Sea level fell in 2010
    Thanks Papy, demonstrates the relationship nicely.
  40. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    Thanks Mauri.
  41. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    "and the fact that CO2 is not even the large majority of the positive radiative forcings underscores this need. " But CO2 _is_ the single largest contributor. Moreover, emissions of CO2 lead to changes in atmospheric concentrations that can last 100s or 1000s of years... many of the other forcings are much more transient (eg, CH4, O3, BC, contrails, etc.). So, while I agree that these other forcings are important, and we certainly shouldn't ignore them, CO2 is clearly, at the global scale, the primary contributor to long-term climate change. If, in the next half century, human society realizes that global climate change is a problem, it will be possible at that point to reduce CH4, BC, and O3 concentrations fairly quickly. All the CO2 we've emitted between now and then, though, will be pretty much permanently in the carbon cycle until we figure out air capture... I'm also unconvinced that the IPCC hasn't adequately addressed most of these other contributors. I'd certainly admit that the IPCC could do a better job on the causes of weather events, but that is a hard problem, and they are building up to it (In my opinion, interesting recent papers have included interactions of large scale weather with sea ice retreat, solar fluctuations, and historical attribution of southwestern megadroughts to ocean cycles and other factors). But they _do_ make their best attempt at characterizing global forcing from as many sources as possible, and between AR4 and AR5 are probably putting a lot of effort into getting better numbers for the most uncertain of these (such as BC and other aerosols).
  42. SkS Weekly Digest #19
    Bern & panzerboy: There is a technical glitch embedded in the toon, but I do not know how to fix it. Perhaps one of my tech savy colleagues will be able to do so. I use Internet Explorer and I do not see a toon on either the home page or on this version.
    Moderator Response: [DB] It's there in Firefox 7 but not in IE 8.
  43. It's cooling
    NETDR - right. And if climate science turns about to be correct (ie it keeps warming as predicted), will you graciously return here to agree and then move on to work for GHG reduction? Or it will it be try to find another excuse for inaction?
  44. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Rob Honeycutt - You wrote that people will say it's only 28% of the forcing" so they will translate "Dr Pielke says we don't need to worry about CO2." I do not know how many times I can state it, but I certainly agree that added CO2 is a first order climate forcing (with the biogeochemiccal effect being the larger issue, in my view), and have said so repeatedly in my weblog posts and in my papers. I support my son's approach, as presented in his book "The Climate Fix" as the way forward to promote limiting the increase. However, all of the first order climate forcings are important (the global average negative radiative forcings, the regional heterogeneous radiative forcings, and the "non-radiative" climate forcings). In my view, the IPCC has failed to adequately consider these other human climate forcings and the fact that CO2 is not even the large majority of the positive radiative forcings underscores this need. Most, if not all, of these other climate forcings will persist at some level for the foreseeable future and, in terms of how they affect atmospheric circulations, could be much more important than the effects on weather patterns from the radiative effect of added CO2. This is the perspective that we presented in the 2009 EOS article and in the 2005 NRC report. The precise fractional value with respect to preindustrial and 2011, however, is not an important issue. In the biogeochemical perspective, it is the atmospheric concentration that matters, and it is continuing to increase.
  45. Models are unreliable
    It also looks like your friend is confusing physical models (used by climate scientists) with statistical models. However, for a purely phenomenological approach, then perhaps he should look at Benestad and Schmidt
  46. Understanding climate denial
    well said Composer99 - we have an example of word games with Jonathon here. I was refuting his suggestion (in #214) that a large range of values does not equal consensus, Jonathon comes back (in #226) with "ah, but it might not be catastrophic", reframing the question and trying to divert attention from the incorrectness of his original fallacy. Jonathon, whether or not it's catastrophic is irrelevant in this context. The point is that, either when heading towards the cliff face, or being on whatever floor in a burning building, there would be a clear consensus that bad things will happen if no action is taken. Consensus can exist with a large range of possible outcome values, you were disputing that in #214. I showed your dispute to be wrong, so you changed the subject. Another view into the world of denial? A couple of decades ago we were on the ground floor with an easy exit, now we are well on the way to the second floor, heading up. Nearly everyone's saying the building's on fire. Do you believe the one crank saying all the smoke is an illusion?
  47. Understanding climate denial
    Jonathon - "If you were trapped in a burning building and had to jump, would it matter if you were on the 1st of 5th floor?" To quote Herman Daly: "But as long as we focus on measuring these inherently uncertain empirical consequences, rather than on the certain first principles that cause them, we will overwhelm the consensus to “do something now” with ditherings about what we might someday consider doing if ever the evidence is sufficiently compelling. I am afraid that once the evidence is really compelling then our response will also be compelled, and policy choice will be irrelevant. To make the point more simply, if you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter." (emphasis added) If, given the vast quantities of evidence available, you feel that we are not 'falling' at some rate, not suffering a changing climate with consequences to ourselves due to our actions, then you are in denial. Which is the topic of the original post of this thread.
  48. Understanding climate denial
    Mark Chu-Caroll over at Good Math/Bad Math often points out that the worst kind of math is no math at all: a lot of math/physics cranks play language games when attempting to advance their position or refute whatever mainstream position opposes theirs and then fail to back their claims up with actual calculations, data, or other evidence. I suggest that a lot of climate science denialists are engaged in the same behaviour: playing language games, semantics games, quoting Popper without regard to context or other aspects of scientific thought, and then failing to back it up with actual science. The big difference is that your garden-variety math/physics crank has a lot less company.
  49. Understanding climate denial
    Skywatcher, If you were trapped in a burning building and had to jump, would it matter if you were on the 1st of 5th floor? I think it might. Just because you are not on the ground floor with an easy egress, does not mean that the outcome will be catastrophic.
  50. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @ 208 Thanks for the link to the Peterson Paper. I am reading it now.

Prev  1444  1445  1446  1447  1448  1449  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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