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  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  Next

Comments 73551 to 73600:

  1. Philippe Chantreau at 14:33 PM on 30 September 2011
    Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Jennifer Marohasy is endorsing these proclamations? What a joke. This is a brave new world we live in. Aldous Huxley must be chuckling in his grave but, really, that's sad. And there are countless people like Saltspringson who buy into the snake oil these charlatans sell. Better keep up the work on SkS.
  2. actually thoughtful at 14:15 PM on 30 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    rcglinsk - I am sympathetic to your approach, but you must acknowledge Tom Curtis's framing. (Hint, if Tom Curtis ever posts; read and reflect carefully - he is a real gem (one of many) on this site). I think those of us who follow the science do tend to fall into the simplistic arguments you presented (not calling you simplistic), rather than the two paragraph version that Tom Curtis presents. To our detriment.
  3. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Stevo @29, Thanks. You made me look closer at the Galileo Movement, and what I read is very interesting/disturbing. Look who the advisors are for the Galileo Movement in Australia: Professor Tim Ball Warwick Hughes Professor Fred Singer Professor Dick Lindzen Bill Kininmonth Professor Bob Carter Professor Ian Plimer David Archibald Professor Peter Ridd Professor Garth Paltridge Dr Vincent Gray Dr Jennifer Marohasy Jo Nova Des Moore John Nicol David Flint Andrew Bolt John McLean David Evans Pat Michaels Joe D'Aleo Viscount Monckton [Source] Their purported guiding principles ironically include: "Honesty: rely on factual data, ensure decisions are based on facts; Fact based science: protect and use science, a key to human progress, objective and fair decisions and freedom" and under "Purpose and Aims" ironically include: "Protect science and restore scientific integrity" Sounds great does it not? But, there is a very big problem with those proclamations, because unfortunately those lofty ethics and goals do not seem to be endorsed or even practised by several of their advisers, as has been demonstrated multiple times here at SkepticalScience and elsewhere. Some of the names on that list shocked me. What are Drs. Lindzen and Gray thinking?
  4. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @106 You quote Jeff Masters "Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen." This is not a scientific position, it would be considered an expert opinion. In his post he does bring up some other years to compare to. This approach does not give one the true extent of the weather conditions. One claim was that a storm over Minnesota had a pressure reading that was the lowest since records were kept (all records seem to be broken eventually). He compared one other year that was a previous record. What is missing is a historical view of a large number of low pressure readings to determine it this reading was way off the charts or just a little above what has already been taking place. Two other meteorologists do not share Jeff Masters Expert Opinion. One is Anthony Watts and the other Joe Bastardi. Both of them are meteorologists that have been in the field for many years. They would see similar data that Jeff Masters is exposed to. Why don't they see this same extreme year?
  5. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Bibliovermis @107 "You are eyeballing charts and declaring that they support your already held convictions. That is how you can be wrong by compiling data; fallacy of composition and confirmation bias. You are picking any iota and clutching it, such as total days over 105 in Dallas, to prove that the observed weather is not unusual." I am not claiming the observed weather is not unusual, the drought in Texas is extreme. It is still unusual as such droughts do not occur often, but they do, and eventually you will have one that was worse than the previous ones. I would suggest you try the challenge I gave muoncounter in post #90. Do your own "eyeballing" of two animation runs of NOAA drought conditions for US. See what you think.
  6. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @113, Thanks for fixing the tags and letting me know how to close them if I choose to use them in the future.
  7. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    DB @106 and adeladay @85 Both of your posts are similar and I would expect to see warmer weather patterns around the world as it has heated by about 0.8 C since pre-industrialization. Warmer temperatures are not necessarily extreme. You can have patterns that make one part of the globe very warm (which has been happening as long as temperature records have been taken, in the area of Omaha NE the record high temp is over 20F above the average high temp). In my area as a low pressure system approaches from the west, it rotates counterclockwise first will pull up warm moist gulf air into the region raising the temperature maybe 20F above normal, than as the low passes it will bring down cold air from the north and drop the temp about 20F. These temperature swings are not like a random dice throw. They are predictable and have an established linking mechanism. One thing is certain in all the variations of temp. When all added up the amount above the historic average is about 0.8 C. If half the globe is 5 C above normal, then the other half has to be 4 C below normal to balance the total anomaly for the globe.
  8. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    DB @101 Your statement: "You discount adaptation as a human response to minimize damage to property and loss of life due to severe weather and constantly cherry-pick isolated events to support your adopted position. There is nothing scientific about that approach at all." Cherry=picking "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally." What I am doing is not cherry picking, it is random picking. It would be like reaching blindfolded into a basket and pulling out cherries at random and presenting this. I go to the NOAA site looking for past examples of severe weather events. I just picked a date a random that was far away from recent times and presented it to demonstrate that extreme weather takes place maybe more often than a randomized statistical approach would allow. I do not think extreme weather is the same as a random event like dealing a straight flush from a deck of cards. My perception (from what I have read on meterology is that extreme weather occurs because of some known atmospheric event...it would be closer to someone manipulating the cards in the deck to favor the dealing of a straight flush). I am not convinced that one can use random event statistics to determine the likihood of extreme weather (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wind)
  9. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, My proposed disparity metric is on the Dai After Tomorrow article. You were making the assertion that the current extreme dry and extreme wet weather is not unusual by providing a few images. I want to create a more robust way of validating such an assertion.
  10. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    phantum#75: "what about the interaction of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields (solar wind)? this effects the temperature as well" If you have data to substantiate this claim, please provide links to it on the cosmic rays thread. I've looked and haven't found much of any quantitative information. "maybe we should be more worried about the things we cannot change than the ones we can." That is an interesting suggestion. After we've worried about the things we cannot change for a while, what do you propose we do about them?
  11. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Bibliovermis @111 "I would appreciate your input on the quantitative PDSI disparity metric." I will have to claim stupidity on this one. I am not sure what you are asking and could not find a link to give an explanation of what you are asking.
  12. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    KR @108 * Earthquake numbers are underestimated due to better building codes. I am not making a firm statement on that one. I do know that in earthquake zones they do have building codes designed to reduce death and destruction and can work fairly well for the more numerous magnitude 5 quakes but would probably not help much in a 7 or above. Here is what my post said. "I have one possible explanation. Not necessarily a good one, maybe you won't accept it. Here goes." It was just food for thought, not an elaborate explanation for the difference between the disasters. I had a debate with Tom Curtis on this question on another thread Post 83 on this thread.
  13. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    @25 Saltspring Person- You seem to be unaware of the religious aspect of global warming rejectionism. Both Spencer and McKitrick are signatories to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, Cornwall Alliance Signatories stating among other things that: 1.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. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history. and 1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming. Which leads to your point 1 about scientists suppressing other scientists. McKitrick and co-author MacIntyre have conducted the primary attack on Michael Mann's Hockey stick. Their statistical tools have been shown to be corrupt: Summary of Analysis of M&M with links to peer reviewed publications at the same time- someone was attempting the equivalent of a DoS attack on Hadley by flooding them with FOI requests. SkS discussion of 'ClimateGate' Was this McIntyre's doing? So the question is who started trying to suppress who first? What other suppression do you have in mind? Is there any supression currently going on? The rest of your points have been addressed by others, but I'll add that for there to be a change of opinion in 5 years, the data ought to be on the ground now, bedcause it will take time to replicate it and explore it. So what's your unrecognized smoking gun?
  14. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    KR @108 I think best to break up your bullet and respond to each individually or the post will get too long. * Records of disasters are biased by population shifts/changes, and no actual event changes have occurred. Hence the insurance information and FEMA disaster records are inaccurate. This postion is based upon the research of Pielke. Disaster as a proxy for extreme weather events is questionable. Besides Pielke research into the matter I have a thought experiment for you to consider on this issue. Some big disasters are floods, costing billions and killing people caught in the flood waters. Others fires. Hurricanes and tornadoes. The thought experiment to demonstrate a point. Consider the idea that insurance companies require changes before they will insure property. Here are the changes. In fire prone areas the property owner is required to have at least 200 feet of sand between their property and the nearest forest and a sprinkler system to put out any embers that approach the property. All home owners in floodplains are required to have their homes on stilts high enough so the bottom of the property is above the highest recorded flood stage (Galveston has homes on stilts to save the property from storm surges). People living in tornado alley will be required to tornado proof their property ("One construction method has been shown to stand up to 250 mph winds, which provides you and your family with far more protection than conventional wood framing. That construction method is called ICF (insulating concrete forms")). Roofs made of hail resistant material in areas prone to such events (Wyoming for instance). People are not allowed to build expensive property on coastlines prone to hurricanes and storm surges (low cost cabins would be okay). Along with the property saving methods described, life saving knowledge would be far more widespread (don't go outside when lightning is close, stay off roads with water running over the top, no hurricane parties, etc). Now with all these in place the number of disasters would drop off considerably but the extreme weather would be the same. Trending disasters would not tell you anything about what the weather is actually doing. A system of reporting that does not rely on property values and human fatalities would be the only actual scientific method of determining if weather related events are actually trending upward.
  15. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee, It amazes me that you'll fight and claw to prove that a long-shot theory like GCR is it, while you'll dismiss overwhelming evidence for theories that you don't want to be true. You'll take a graph off of a disinformation site that is riddled with errors. If you were at all skeptical, you'd look at half of those pages on appinsys, see for yourself how wrong they are, and know you couldn't trust anything there. Your two graphs are from the 2005 paper by the infamous Willie Soon. Read about his funding sources here. Read about his polar bear debacle here. Or read about him right here at SkS. I wish I could find someone who bothered to debunk that particular paper, but it seems to have been pretty much just ignored by everyone, probably because (a) the author is not credible and (b) the argument has been debunked in so many ways that a silly attempt to "argue" a strong solar correlation in the way he did is itself pitiable.
  16. The Dai After Tomorrow
    Bibliovermis: Liu et al 2011 has a nice analysis of PDSI and 'Standardized Precipitation Index.' They forecast (using standard model scenarios) a significant increase in severity and probability of drought. The key is figure 12, which displays the PDFs of PDSI for the past and the future. 1950-1999 shows a near normal distribution with mean value slightly above zero, while 2050-2099 displays an abnormal PDF with mean value below zero and left tail reaching towards much lower PDSI. This indicates that future drought is likely to get more severe and frequent, as projected by SPI under A2 scenario. Note: PDF is probability distribution function.
  17. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    KR @108 and skywatcher @109 KR I did like your bullet format but I am not sure my button was zapped. I will repost your bullets and then defend my position, it this is okay. KR's Bullets. *Extreme weather has not increased. Perhaps I give you the perception that I am saying that "extreme weather has not increased" but the reality of my posts does not support this claim. In post #30 I do state my position: "My position on this topic is that there is not enough data to make a declaration of certainty on the topic. I think earlier data on severe weather events was not as fully reported as today. I do not think there is adequate accounting of severe weather events to take a strong position that the number and intenstiy of severe weather events has certainly increased. I am not stating it has not. I am making the case that there is not enough good reliable data to make any claim of certainty on this issue at this time and we may not know for many more years. Your contention is that if we wait to see if it is getting worse, it might just be too late." And in post #60 "This thread is not about global warming (evidence would suggest a degree or 2 of warming depending on your temperature scale). It is about extreme weather events. Are they increasing because of the global warming? That is what I question. I am not saying I am correct in my position. I just of the opinion that at this time there is not enough good, reliable data to make a sound judgement upon this issue. I see some blogs throw out the year's worst weather events and tell me things are getting worse. Maybe they are, I just need more evidence than one or two years worth of data. Need a lot more from a lot more areas and over a lot longer time period. Need a consistent way of logging an extreme event. I think monetary damage is not a good one. Hail size, area of coverage, duration of hail storm. That is much more scientific. Get enough of this data compiled and you can answer the question in a sound scientific way based upon solid data."
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] fixed closing tags. < /B > ends bold and < /I> ends italics.
  18. The Dai After Tomorrow
    A discussion on PDSI disparity, very dry & very wet at the same time in different parts of the same landmass, is being migrated here from the Review of Rough Winds article. I am looking to create a PDSI disparity metric to quantitatively say whether a given drought & flooding episode is unusual in the observational record. The discussion was about the 2011 Texas drought happening alongside flooding in other parts of the US, but the general principle could be applied around the globe using the Dai dataset at Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) from NCAR. The data set for the US analysis is the PDSI Divisional Data linked below the map on NOAA: Historical Palmer Drought Indices. direct link: PDSI data (3.8 MB text file) The NOAA PDSI dataset is composed of 344 climate divisions. U.S. Climate Divisions division area list Now that the data sources are referenced, here is my concept for the disparity metric. 1) Order the list numerically by value. 2) Match the list off into 172 top/bottom pairs; 1-344, 2-333, ... 172, 173. 3) Take the absolute difference between the value pairs and multiply it by the summed area of the two climate divisions. 4) Sum the 172 values from #3. - reference value: 8 (difference between extreme drought, -4, and extremely moist, 4) x U.S. contiguous area 5) Divide #4 by the reference value. The final result is a scalar value between 0 - 100+%. Low values mean similar dry/wet conditions across the nation, while high values indicate large areas of opposites of extremes. The metric can be greater than 100% since PDSI values are not capped. Any suggestions, arguments against or confusion?
  19. Understanding climate denial
    @ Mr. Curtis 115, sorry, wish I could edit.
  20. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    DB @96 My contrail concept: "The 0.01 watts/meter of contrails is its effect on the entire globe (the contrail coverage of the globe is small) but in localized areas that may have a high degree of contrail formation (based upon upper atmpospheric conditions) the effect can influence the local region (still a small part of the globe) to a greater degree." Your response to this postion: "For example, your Black Knight routine after the lack of evidence supporting your position on contrails was pointed out to you," I did find some evidence supporting my postion. Contrail information. Look at the concluding remarks. Regionally contrails can add 4 watts/meter^2 radiative forcing. Yet over the whole globe their effect is very small. This is very close to my postion on contrails.
  21. Understanding climate denial
    @ Tom 115 - I've not seen that quote before, I don't think it's a common argument in the public climate debate. Where is it from? Also, if you might indulge a question, how do you indent and italicize a quote on this forum?
    Response:

    [DB] Posting tips can be found here.  The blockquote tag may be used to indent (replace the b or i as found in the link with the word blockquote).

  22. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Albatross @ 12, One of the Galileo Movement's main mouthpeices here in Australia, Andrew Bolt, has just lost a court case. Two of his articles were found to be unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act. The articles were about perceptions of Aboriginality. Though this does not tie directly to his ACW denial writing, it has his exposed him as a writer now on record for distorting facts, employing spurious evidence and falling to disparaging and inflamatory language.
  23. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee#107: "the Forbush effect is robust when you work backward" Dragic clearly shows the FDs are the very definition of 'not robust,' forwards, backwards or upside down: 7% FD = effect, 5% FD = no effect, not a robust statistic (resistant to errors in the results, produced by deviations from assumptions) Are you seriously suggesting that the CR/cloud connection is determined in this 2%?
  24. Understanding climate denial
    Suggested reading: “Unequivocal: Today’s Right is Overwhelmingly More Anti-Science Than Today's Left” by Chris Mooney, DeSmog Blog, Sep 26, 2011 To access this insightful article, click here. As you my already be aware, Chris Mooney has written extensively about climate denial over the years.
  25. Understanding climate denial
    The link to the address is here: Climate Change, William Happer testimony to Senate Energy Committee on February 25, 2009 | Reprint
  26. Understanding climate denial
    @Eric (skeptic) 112. Don't get me wrong, on the interwebs I encounter people who say things like "Have you ever saw that movie "The Day After Tomorrow", well, guess what? It wasnt a joke movie like 2012, It is happening right now." These comments I let slide to some respect as they are emotionally charged comments with respect to the issue. It is the comments such as: It is cold in everyone's back garden. AGW nutters can manipulate the numbers all they want, that is still a fact. These comments of accusation I flag and feel motivated to address. With regards to your comment on Happer's Senate testimony. I just had a quick scan and it appears he is advokating some pretty extreme views: I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind
  27. Understanding climate denial
    @rcglinsk #114: Yes, I am an American. Right now, I am too tired to respond to your lengthy post. I will do so tomorrow morning when I am bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. In the meantime, I recommend that you read Andy Revkin's recent post, "Reactions to a New Plan for CO2 Progress."
  28. Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen@102 Thank you for your 'hear, hear' to my comment #37. It appears to me that some people who publish just plain wrong materials may not themselves be in denial of the science. Just as one may make money from remedial teaching, so one may make money from anti-remedial teaching. It appears to be part of the human psyche that we are primed to reject any evidence that we are not in control of our environment. An author of anti-remedial literature is thus likely to make more sales than the author of remedial literature. By anti-remedial I mean that which reinforces erroneous beliefs. For lovers of long words: I would call that kind of publishing activity 'fortipensatory therapeutics' - the therapeutic reinforcing of wrong but comforting ideas by inverting published scientific facts. Fortipensation is of Latin derivation and means 'strengthening of belief' but it is also an atrocious pun from a WW1 joke about errors in communication. A message is transmitted and re-transmitted over poor connections until it is completely garbled. "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance." becomes "Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance." Three and fourpence - 3 shillings and 4 pence - is forty pence in Britain's old money system.
  29. Understanding climate denial
    rcglinsk @106, you are inaccurately framing the debate. You wrote:
    "We need to put substantial taxes on gasoline so people don't drive nearly so much and pay more for new cars with better mileage. This is necessary to prevent damage to coastlines which will not happen in your lifetime."
    Based on the science, the correct framing is:
    "Failure to reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 50% within the next twenty years will almost certainly result in the complete loss of major eco-systems such as the Arctic, the Amazon Rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef. Such massive eco-system loss along with direct effects on human productivity is likely to result in a collapse of the international economic system which will make the great depression look like a boom in comparison. If you are under the age of fifty, this is likely to happen in your life time. The human population has never been greater than 200 million when the Earth's mean temperature has been outside a narrow band of about 1 degree C. We are already at the upper end of that band and within the life time of people being born now we will be as much above it as we where below it during the last "ice age" (glacial). There is no reason to think the Earth's carrying capacity for humans will remain at is high multi-billion level during that transition. So perhaps it is time to start doing something about it now.
    Unfortunately the politicians, even the Democrats, refuse to listen to what the science is saying.
  30. Understanding climate denial
    @107 Mr. Hartz - Please allow me to try to convince you of the merits of not separating the debates. (One caveat, I will assume you are American because I don't think you've been posting in the middle of night in England) 1. Upon learning of a need to sacrifice some people will take up the burden as a badge of nobility. Most will not. The noble might tell the rest "your material desires put our collective future at risk, take up your part of the burden as a moral obligation." I would be surprised if that had ever worked in all human history, absent a war. Asking people to invest in advanced technology is much more likely to garner support. I think the brain places a greater weight on achieving a desirable outcome in the present than on avoiding a harmful outcome in the future. It's more effective to tell people invest, get new technology than sacrifice, avoid future harm. 2. The policies currently on the table, the only ones that would foreseeably be implemented (in the US at least) stand a some risk of not significantly curbing US CO2 emissions. Say carbon permits are implemented. Who sets the number of permits? It's very unlikely to be a climate scientist; much more likely to be a banker or a corrupt bureaucrat. And think about what will happen to permit levels when Republicans control the whole government. They'll cynically flood the market, create an economic bubble, and then say the democrats will destroy jobs if they reduce permit numbers. If the point of fighting the good fight in the climate debate is to prevent future harm, I submit that to actually succeed (at the least in the US) one must win the fight on the policy front and must have an alternative to carbon permits. 3. You can't win the public debate on climate science. There are no Earths to experiment with, there is not class of Earth-like planets to conduct epidemiological studies of, there is only what science must (and has) resort(ed) to. That is a massive advantage for naysayers and nitpickers. Think about the sheer number of pages on this website, it even has a top ten list. 90% of the complaints are [redacted for politeness], but even the IPCC has to include low and high climate sensitivities in their forecasts because there are real uncertainties. Yes, everyone is completely straightforward about the uncertainties, and everyone works to reduce them. They still exist. That's enough to keep biased laypeople biased. The nitpickers will always win the public debate. It's not fair. Life's not fair. You can win the 4th generation nuclear vs. coal debate. You can win the debate over whether to import mideast oil or use biofuels and fuels from thermal solar. You can win a debate over hybrid cars and gas mileage. You might even win a debate over whether it would be more fun to drive through rush hour or sit on a train/bus and play on your ipod through rush hour. /endlist As to typical denier tactic, I'd prefer peacemaking pro-nuclear denier who sees room for middle ground. Never waste a crisis, after all. I think the policy Hansen proposed in this essay is a good starting point for compromise. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf I can only disclaim I don't think it did any good for him to be so grandchildish. (attempt at humor)
  31. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Skywathcer @113, here is Tamino's graph of gistemp arctic overlaid on a detail of the Krivova reconstruction. Graphic techniques only are used, so I do not claim an exact match, but it is clear that solar forcing is not the main player at any stage in 20th century, and runs counter to the temperature trend post 1980. Sorry about the lack of clarity of the gistemp data. I had to significantly compress its vertical scale to match it to the solar data.
  32. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Thanks for the pointer. I call the article on Dai more appropriate than this one, since the Dai dataset will be used for a global analysis. Norman, I would appreciate your input on the quantitative PDSI disparity metric.
  33. Understanding climate denial
    Suggested reading: “Evolution and Climate Deniers: Natural Allies?” by Chris Mooney, DeSmog Blog, Sep 28, 2011 To access this insightful article, click here.
  34. Understanding climate denial
    skywatcher (#108), perhaps Spencer and Lindzen do not consider paleoclimate to be convincing evidence of high sensitivity. I don't as I explained on the low sens. thread I would agree with yocta. (#110) in part because not many people know or care who Lindzen is. But yocta should also be careful to read Happer's Senate testimony because Happer actually says "it is warming" and "it is us" and then launches into a long series of minimizations and outright fabrications.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
  35. Understanding climate denial
    addendum to last paragraph: (bad cut and paste job in editing) The views I see involve conspiracy and coincidences and often follow the "it's not warming" or "it's not us" argument. I personally believe these are the ones to be most scared of and focus a good bit of attention to since as one can see in the Public Figures quote page on SS that these views are mirrored by policy makers.
  36. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Saltspringson@25 Re: your point 3 - The belief in a stable, self-regulating climate was overturned when a majority of scientists accepted the geological evidence of multiple former ice ages such as could only have been caused by substantial long-term (geologically speaking) global cooling and warming phases. The first scientific paper showing evidence of ice ages and temperature changes was presented by Ignaz Venetz in 1821 to the Swiss Natural Science Society. Jean Charpentier did not believe Venetz until shown the geological evidence at first hand. Charpentier promoted Venetz' discoveries but in turn was not believed by Louis Agassiz until Charpentier showed him the evidence at first hand in 1836. Louis Agassiz, a fossil expert, published his first paper on glaciers, ice ages and 'global cooling' in 1837 and devoted the rest of his life to studying and promoting the evidence of ice ages. Multiple lines of evidence of former ice ages and of their causes is the foundation of climate change science. In 1895 the list of possible causes (solar changes, orbital changes etc.)was found not to sufficiently account for the global temperature changes which could trigger or end ice ages. And then Arrhenius published his demonstration that CO2 was the primary missing factor. The fact of former ice ages is often used by climate change skeptics who think they are disproving climate change science thereby. Evidence which strongly supports a theory cannot, according to common sense logic, be used to refute it. Acceptance of ice ages as fact implies acceptance of climate change as fact. Is this an acceptable alternative to the phrasing which you criticize? - The discovery of the ice ages overturned an age-old belief that the climate is naturally stable in the long term; the skeptics seek to restore that belief.
  37. Understanding climate denial
    @ 6 John Russell Thanks, for that. I think you are quite right that writing in a style that may convince a 3rd party by their monitoring of the discussion would be the best approach when dealing with a hard-line 'skeptic'. I have lost track around post 60 as this is a long discussion but I would have to agree with cRR Kampen @ 29 with his view on denialism. It seems most people on SS concentrate on the big fishies (Spencer, Lindzen etc) and focus on their arguments on climate sensitivity but certainly the ones I encounter on news sites, You Tube etc often would never get to that higher level of skepticism in their arguments. The views I see involve conspiracy and coincides and often follow the es we should be most focused on tend to lead towards the "it's not warming" or "it's not us" style. I personally believe these are the ones to be most scared of and focus a good bit of attention to since as one can see in the Public Figures quote page on SS that these views are mirrored by policy makers.
  38. Understanding climate denial
    While I have respected the priority of SkepticalScience.com to focus on scientific issues, I'm pleased, nevertheless, to have seen a recent shift toward a more open and realistic approach toward the phenomenon of denialism, which I have long advocated. Scientific evidence alone is often insufficient to persuade individuals who find the (apparently) conflicting scientific evidence confusing, or simply filter out information inconsistent with their beliefs. For this reason, I believe it is equally important to directly address the nature, tactics, and origins of denialism. Denialism must be distinguished from skepticism, which is an essential element of scientific method. Denialism in its many forms is not about science or evidence, although this is superficially its focus. Rather, denialism is a phenomenon rooted in human psychology. We are social beings, and denialism is a manifestation of this, being strongly tied to political and social ideology, group affiliation, and collective beliefs. The fact that most denialists are unaware of the degree to which their beliefs are shaped by ideology is not surprising. The human mind imposes powerful filters on how we perceive and interpret the world around us. Skeptics may rationally question certain details of the scientific theory. AGW Denialists, however, reject AGW in toto, not on the basis of evidence, but because denial is consistent with certain beliefs they already hold. Underlying ideologies effectively dictate where they go for information, and which sources they tend to trust. Denialism serves to reassure its adherents that the things they believe in are right and true, while certain things they find threatening are not real. Ironically, many AGW Denialists simultaneously embrace an irrational fear of things that are not real, particularly that AGW represents an international conspiracy aimed at stealing their wealth and taking away their freedoms. While skepticism remains an admirable and essential element of scientific reasoning, denialism is a rather childish and petulant way of dealing with complex, challenging issues, yet it is a powerful force that has brought low even persons of keen intellect and education. It has long been anticipated that AGW Denialism would crumble before the weight of scientific evidence, yet the Denialist movement has been surprisingly resilient. The internet, as well as certain elements of the “faux news” media are largely to blame. The ongoing collapse of the northern ice cap has made it very difficult to continue to deceive people who have little in-depth understanding of the underlying science, but are willing to be persuaded by direct evidence. The fact that it has taken so long is disappointing, yet it's better late than never. I would hope that there are many who would learn from this experience, and begin to mistrust their beliefs on other issues, as the political ideology that gave rise to a AGW Denialism is “in denial” on many other issues as well. Unfortunately, in my years of fighting against AGW Denialism in the petroleum geology community, I’ve found that the most ardent denialists will never admit to being wrong about anything, ever. The typical response is to change the subject, or just silently slink away. While this can be frustrating from a rhetorical perspective, at least they will do less harm.
  39. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    saltspringson Lack of evidence based science??? You are joking right? -detailed Spectroscopic databases -Satellite observations -Oceanographic observations -Ocean Chemistry studies -Atmospheric chemistry observations -Ice Core Data -Multitudenous different forms of geological and paleoclimate observations. You realise don't you that the primary evidence for AGW is the simple fact that the Earth has been that warm before. Climate models are not the main 'evidence'. The most basic predictions about warming can be done with pencil & paper. What the climate models are for is trying to refine the detail of the projections - how fast/slow, regional characteristics etc. Its a weird skeptic fixation that it is just about the models.
  40. Understanding climate denial
    #85 eric - What I mean is that Spencer, Lindzen et al, were they to consider the full body of evidence, would quickly find that very low climate sensitivities are exceedingly difficult on Earth. That they choose not to consider palaeoclimate (and they can hardly be unaware of it), or to quantitatively criticise it, means they are not taking a truly critical approach. I don't think they avoid palaeoclimate by accident. You can't conveniently ignore strong evidence to the contrary of your opinion in the hope it will just go away. I agree with you on Happer - he's much further down the road of denial. When I read his recent piece, I wondered if I had found something impossible - somebody farther down that road than Monckton! And a physicist too - some of his statements were astonishing from a scientist. Happer is a powerful example of how belief can get in the way of rationality.
  41. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee It's impossible to take anyone seriously if they have not looked at the available information. Please, please view the relevant portion of the Dr. Richard Alley 2009 lecture, the time between 42:02 and 43:17. You have been referred to it more than once now. Alley shows what I would consider extremely solid evidence in this debate. Once you have viewed it, I for one would be curious as to your opinion on that evidence.
  42. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    saltspringson... 1) No one is suppressing quality science. 2) Yes, I would take you up on that bet, providing you're defining this as saying CO2/AGW will be overturned in the next 5 years, and we are betting your salary level and not mine. 3) No, we have been on a gradual cooling trend for the past 6000 years (See: Miller 2010). 4) I think that would make Michael Mann the Galileo of our day.
  43. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    1. “Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists.” So, suppression of some scientists by other scientists is OK? 2. “Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based.” Science is ever evolving. I would bet a years salary (any takers?) that what everyone currently thinks is the end-all-be-all in climate science turns out to be wrong within the next five years. When it comes to "beliefs," reliance on every computer model requires the "belief" they may be right. "Evidence-based" refers more to "observation-based," and yet that is not what we witness, as an example, in the latest study from Trenberth regarding the "missing heat." 3. “The discovery of global warming overturned an age-old belief; the skeptics seek to restore it.” Hmmm….an ice age 12,000 years ago and it’s been getting warmer since (with a couple of minor exceptions). What “age-old” belief are you referring to? The “skeptics” are actually suggesting CO2/AGW theory may turn out to be the next, “age-old” belief overturned. 4. “Climate scientists, not skeptics, are being dragged into court.” And yet, David Suzuki, James Camerson and Google CEO Eric Schmidt have said they would like to see skeptical scientists tried as criminals. The only climate scientist I know of who may potentially be dragged into court is Michael Mann. And really, if Galileo were alive today, do you seriously think he would be standing beside Sukuki, et al? My best guess is he would be saying if you can prove me wrong, bring it on. And isn't that what science is all about?
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] If you are going to attribute words to people, in this case the much respected Dr. Suzuki, you should please make sure that they are accurate. This is what he said in 2008. "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act..". Note, he said "leaders" not scientists as you claim. Also, we have been in the so-called Holocene for about 10 000 years now, the last glacial peaked about 20 000 years ago, not 12 000 as you claim. Finally. Trenberth has written numerous papers since his 2009 "missing heat paper", a paper that has been misrepresented countless times by "skeptics" and those who deny AGW. I suggest you read this post by Dr. Trenberth here at SkepticalScience on the matter, as well as this post.
  44. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Should've thought of this before posting: Tamino has a nice graph of regional Arctic temperature. tblakeslee, see if you can match up that graph to any of Soon's, and of course much more importantly, to Tom's graphs above.
  45. Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
    1. “Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists.” So, suppression of some scientists by other scientists is OK? 2. “Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based.” Science is ever evolving. I would bet a years salary (any takers?) that what everyone currently thinks is the end-all-be-all in climate science turns out to be wrong within the next five years. When it comes to "beliefs," reliance on every computer model requires the "belief" they may be right. "Evidence-based" refers more to "observation-based," and yet that is not what we witness, as an example, in the latest study from Trenberth regarding the "missing heat." 3. “The discovery of global warming overturned an age-old belief; the skeptics seek to restore it.” Hmmm….an ice age 12,000 years ago and it’s been getting warmer since (with a couple of minor exceptions). What “age-old” belief are you referring to? The “skeptics” are actually suggesting CO2/AGW theory may turn out to be the next, “age-old” belief overturned. 4. “Climate scientists, not skeptics, are being dragged into court.” And yet, David Suzuki, James Camerson and Google CEO Eric Schmidt have said they would like to see skeptical scientists tried as criminals. The only climate scientist I know of who may potentially be dragged into court is Michael Mann. And really, if Galileo were alive today, do you seriously think he would be standing beside Sukuki, et al? My best guess is he would be saying if you can prove me wrong, bring it on. And isn't that what science is all about?
    Response:

    [DB] You package a lot of misunderstandings into such a short post.

    To keep this thread on-course see my followup comment to you on this.

    NOTE:  This poster also posted this same comment here at SkS 2 weeks ago on the blog version of this rebuttal post, here.  That at no point in either location has this commentator tried to follow up with a defense of this comment is highly revealing.

  46. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    I see Philippe beat me to it... regardless of the methods used, what happens as you go from 2000-2011 in Soon's graphs? Does the correlation hold? I think not...
  47. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee @107: 1) Why did Willie Soon use an obsolete (1995) reconstruction in 2005 rather than one of the more recent reconstructions that calibrate against satellite observations? As Willie Soon is an astronomer, he would certainly have know that direct observations contradict his chosen reconstruction over the period 1978-2005. 2) Given that six years is a long time in science, why are you not using one of the even more recent reconstructions, such as this 2010 effort by Krivova et al. 3) Do you really think the flat or declining insolation since c.1950 explains the rising Arctic temperatures? Or that the solar minimum lower than any other since 1910 over the last few years explains the record low actic sea ice extent in 2007 (and nearly matched in 2011)?
  48. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    #2 - Shoeymore and #8 -- Spherica Thanks for catching the terminology error (Aristotle's geocentrism, not heliocentrism.) and footnote glitchs. These things creep in sometimes during revisions. We'll investigate and correct asap.
  49. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    When one sees the temperature in the arctic correlating with TSI in winter more than in summer, the alarm bell rings and one would expect a strong justification, instead of a generic call into action of a sharper temperature gradient. Closing the offtopic on TSI and back to GCR, it would be interesting if tblakeslee could tell something about the threshold effect for GCR induced cloud formation, I never heard about it.
  50. IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
    I respect that Willis Eschenbach has provided a lot of evidence to strongly argue that the IPCC report doesn't appear to have relied *entirely* on peer-reviewed sources; however, I believe he(?) is mostly still relying on his interpretation of what peer-review sources are or aren't saying. He makes a reasonable claim off that interpretation, but it's not the only reasonable interpretation. As I think doug_bostrom said, W.E. is going against the public opinion of the main author of those sources. I want to argue against W.E.'s interpretation and also against his ultimate conclusion that the IPCC was not supported by peer-reviewed work. I want to note that I tried to find the paper online but failed, so I am relying on quotations from this thread. Here is a key quote from W.E. **********start Nowhere in your Nepstad quote does he show that the IPCC claim is in the peer reviewed literature. He says that: > Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. That was the only paper cited by Rowell and Moore as their reference for the claim. But that's not what the IPCC claim said. And Nepstad accepts that. He says: > The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. OK, we see he thinks the IPCC statement is correct ##########end That paper refers to "severely drought stressed". One can make a good argument from the above that Nepstat, the paper's principle author, agrees that such a characterization of rain forest ("severely drought stressed") is consistent with what the IPCC stated: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation." Now, that itself appears to cover only 15%. As for the rest, and as W.E. stated: **********start Nepstad would have us believe that to complete their citations, they should have cited the 2004 Nepstad et al. paper. In their 2004 paper, Nepstad said that "half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998." ##########end OK. It appears from this material that we have enough to claim the IPCC paper relied on peer-reviewed sources. W.E. disagreed: **********start But that's not the claim made by the IPCC either. All that the Nepstad 2004 paper shows is that there was a big drought in the Amazon, and that the Amazon did not experience either the "drastic reaction" or the "climate shift" that the IPCC warns of. So that doesn't support the Rowell and Moore/IPCC claim either. In fact, Nepstad 2004 tends to show that the Amazon is more stable than they claimed, rather than show it is very sensitive as they would like us to think. ##########end I'd like to give a variable conclusion (a rebuttal to the rebuttal). While I (and others) already pointed out that we can stop since Nepstad already stated his opinion, essentially that his papers and/or other papers supported the IPCC conclusion, let's get a bit more detailed. Since this comment is a mess of quotations and can be hard to follow. Let me number the following section's main points. 1 -- Let me recap W.E.. (a) He does appear to accept that the 1999 paper is in agreement with the IPCC statement if we change the 40% to 15%. He apparently is accepting Nepstad's position about the meaning of his own 1999 paper. (b) However, it appears W.E. came to the conclusions that the 2004 paper (which mentions 50%) does not support the IPCC statement by the fact that the 2004 paper did not prove "drastic reaction" or "climate shift" occurred during a drier season than average. 2 -- The IPCC paper didn't state that "drastic reaction" or "climate shift" had happened. It merely stated qualitatively of a probability of those things happening. In fact, the 2007 report has to be taken in the context of the "dry" spell that already had occurred by the time the 2004 paper was written. 3 -- The 2004 paper showed that around 50% of the trees were in a tough position ("fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998"). 4 -- That 2004 description sounds completely consistent with the earlier 1999 position of the trees being "severely drought stressed". 5 -- It was already noted that Nepstad (and W.E.) agreed that this 1999 conclusion was consistent with the IPCC wording. 6 -- So it seems very reasonable to conclude from these two papers that something like 50% of the trees in 2004 came close to the 1999 dangerous condition of being "severely drought stressed". 7 -- Thus, it appears we have peer-reviewed support for a condition ("severely drought stressed") which apparently is believed to be consistent with the condition described by the IPCC 2007 report, and that condition applies to a percentage amount of the rain forest (50%) which is a number also consistent with the IPCC 2007 statement. To recap: It appears the IPCC example does rely on peer-reviewed material. It's a matter of interpretation perhaps, but the author of such works appears to agree with the IPCC. Maybe the author is not the best writer of English, but it appears that even W.E., despite variable interpretations of the author's words, should agree that the IPCC report is backed if we are to believe Neptstad's interpretation of his own words. Regardless of what W.E. ultimately believes, a great argument can be made that this example does not show Pachauri to have misspoken. As W.E. quoted: **********start "People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007 "This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 ##########end It does appear that the IPCC doesn't just rely on newspaper articles and such but do try to make sure the peer-reviewed literature supports their conclusions.

Prev  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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