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. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    This is a two-parter. 1 -- I recently thought about this sort of experiment and made the same mistake (of not realizing we were in a sense talking about two different liquids), so I see this as a timely article. One way to help see the effect more clearly is to assume the liquid bath is some super dense liquid. Approximately, that liquid is like a solid when you put the ice on top because almost no liquid is displaced, as only a tiny volume of it is needed to match the weight of the ice. The ice cube would basically just sit there almost entirely above the surface line. Once the ice melts, of course, almost all of that water will go to raise the level of liquid on the beaker, with the increase almost matching the entire volume of the ice. 2 -- OK, with the on-topic material out of the way, I want to ask, has the Forster/Gregory 2006 paper discussed in this article http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/#comment-115656 or the article itself been analyzed on this site? The article is a critique of the IPCC and the peer review process. In that critique, the author (apparently someone practiced with statistical analysis) makes a fair (if subjective) point from a mathematical analysis point of view but appears to ignore the context of the data. To mention one side point that hints at the author's mentality, he attacks other climate studies that use models and data instead of just data. However, I think it makes lots of sense in many cases to prefer conclusions that take into account the result of models that have been proven to some degree over simply flying blindly with a limited data set. This is particularly important when the data set is of a rather short time period on the climate scale, deviates from historical averages, and so could not really make honest conclusions too far out into the future. The specific link I gave is to one of a few comments I made that gives my (amateur) interpretation. In short, it seems to me that the IPCC may have done the right thing if they were going to use the FG06 results. A normal distribution assumed around average slope values calculated from temp/flux global data points going back only a few decades (ie, the FG06 results for Y) can easily point in many directions and even potentially towards strong climate cooling, just as would be the case (to use an analogy) if we focus on a short-term Dow Jones Industrial hill (local maxima) near the top of that hill. The right thing to do to make future predictions using slopes based off a curve biased by short-term behavior is to place those average slope values in context. For example, we could rely on models based on physics and shown to have fair predictability over longer time spans. To continue with the stock market analogy, we'd want to use models and analysis that recognize that the DJI has always been headed upwards over the longer trend decades due to factors such as inflation of the currency upon which it is measured. Predicting long term off a local effect is bad. To conclude, that critique appears to be rather new and appears intended to make the IPCC look bad (dishonest or at least somewhat flawed). The author (Nic Lewis) assumes the results of FG06, the Y value, should be centered inside a normal PDF. I think that is wrong because the data is biased; thus, whatever the IPCC did to "skew" the S value PDF shown in the IPCC report, it was in effect adding context missing from the FG06 Y results.
  2. Understanding climate denial
    Has anyone read Clive Hamilton's book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change"? If so, what did you think of his assessment?
  3. Understanding climate denial
    The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change." In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural identity in the 'angry' parts of the United States." “Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism." Source: “The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?,” AP, Sep 26, 2011 To access this in-depth and timely article, click here
  4. Understanding climate denial
    An interesting quote from a Univ of Delaware physics prof's blog: The stakes here are that a person who writes regularly for a respected conservative journal is embracing in a very public way utterly crackpot ideas about science. That tends to bring discredit on conservatism. If [name] weren’t writing for the American Spectator, I wouldn’t care, and neither would anyone else. Is it vicious to call a crackpot idea a crackpot idea? 'Crackpot' is a synonym for 'crank'. But in keeping with the principle of describing the idea rather than the person: A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.
  5. Understanding climate denial
    "The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton. He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign. Source: “The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?,” AP, Sep 26, 2011 To access this in-depth and timely article, click here.
  6. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    pbjamm@11, I gave up on the BBC forum a long time ago. they have a huge troll and AGW denier infestation and seem to have no interest in dealing with it. One of the house rules is not off-topic, so that immediately should mean most of the posts should be deleted..... So to avoid being OT,I really hope that people pay attention to the text in the green box: If Galileo were alive today, watching climate scientists being dragged into court on baseless charges, is there any doubt whose side he would take?" Anyone wish to hazard a guess who the advisors are for the "Galileo Movement" in Australia (whose sole purpose is not science but to oppose the carbon tax)?
  7. Understanding climate denial
    Dale @83, "If nothing else, you have to give credit to the sceptics by going over the AGW theory with a fine tooth comb looking for any and all gaps. " Correct, but I expect history would agree with you but for very different reasons. Real skeptical scientists have been looking at the theory for a very long time now. In fact, their peers were very skeptical when Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar first spoke about the role of CO2 in the 1800s and 1900s. Many of the questions and doubts that scientists had back then were of course addressed, and ultimately a theory was born. Sadly, however, today's generation of self-professed skeptics keep rehashing/recycling issues long addressed by truly skeptical scientists many decades ago. That is not "skepticisim", that is denial.
  8. Understanding climate denial
    What motivates most climate deniers is ideology. I suspect there is a extensive body of scientific literature about why people become ideologues.
  9. Understanding climate denial
    The Climate Denial Spin Machine wins the propaganda war by creating the illusion of vigorous and ongoing "debate" about the science of climate change. Smoke and mirrors are part and parcel of their overall strategy. Websites like WUWT provide a seeming endless stream of "straws" for climate deniers to grasp at. Many climate denier drones are more interested in playing the game of "Gotcha" on comment threads than they are in engaging in adult discussions of the issues at hand.
  10. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    On a somewhat related note, the BBC is running an article on the 150th Anniversary of John Tyndall's publication of "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction" The comments section reads a bit like the Most Used Arguments section of SkS. Sad.
  11. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    One of the take-aways from Galileo's encounters with the Catholic Church: Never mock the Pope during an Inquisition.
  12. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    #5 @Harald Why couldn't the sun create two high tides a day even if there were no moon?
  13. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob, You talked about doing a post on La Nina. Could you also do a post (if the information is there) discussing all of the mechanisms, known or proposed, that are responsible for getting the heat deeper into the ocean? Has anyone made any effort to quantify this into an expected rate-of-warming?
  14. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob Painting @50 I will look forward to your post and the latest information on OHC and how well it is measured.
  15. Understanding climate denial
    #69 skywatcher, you say "even the most respectable 'skeptics', such as Spencer, Pielke or Lindzen must deliberately ignore or disregard part of the body of evidence in order to maintain their positions" You would need to show examples of "deliberate". Here is a concrete example. Happer's testimony http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/02/25/climate-change-statement-of-dr-william-happer-before-the-senate-environment-and-public-works-committee/ in which he uncritically and unskeptically parrots numerous fallacies about climate, physics, history, etc. Happer has sufficient education and intelligence to research those areas. He has had plenty of time to do so. But he has not, so he is not a skeptic. It is a deliberate refusal and denial.
  16. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    [ Note to Mods: Footnote links are broken. First, the anchor names don't match, e.g. "#_edn5" in the link versus "#_ednref" in the anchor. Second, the <a> tag for the anchor needs to use the "name" attribute, not the "href" attribute, and without the # symbol. <a href="#gohere" >link</a> <a name="gohere" >anchor</a> ]
  17. Antarctica is gaining ice
    A recent paper suggest that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that ice loss from Antarctica is accelerating. The paper is open acces and can be found here: Zwally and Giovinetto, 2011 It seems to be in conflict with the statements in this post as well as he recent paper by Rignot et al, 2011 Does the Zwally paper hold any merits and should it be incorporated in the post?
  18. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Anyone following the link to RealClimate on Dr. Pielke's 265 (in #41) should read through the comments. There is a fascinating back and forth between Gavin Schmidt and Dr. Pielke. What's also fascinating is that the tone between Dr's Pielke and Schmidt is to my ear entirely different than the tone that transpired here. It seems to me that Dr. Pielke treats (as he should) Dr. Schmidt as a peer and an equal. My ear heard Dr. Pielke treat the SkS group as anything but...and that to me is part of why the whole conversation blew up.
  19. Understanding climate denial
    Dale @83, a small point, but it was neutrino's rather than molecules. And it is likely to be proven false, but we can hope it won't be. The problem with the deniers is that they do not go over the theory of AGW with a fine tooth comb. Most denier arguments are based on a simple failure to comprehend the theory they criticize, and of a refusal to understand or accept very basic principles of physics (like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or conservation of mass). Consequently these arguments have essentially zero probability of either falsifying AGW; and zero probability in resulting in a improvement in the theory of AGW in responding to their "challenge". There are a very few genuinely scientific arguments against AGW that have not yet been definitively refuted. My favourite example is Svenmark's theory; but those theories are themselves very much on the verge of falsification. Still we like them because they do produce a genuine challenge to AGW which does enable the theory to be improved.
  20. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    'Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce climate skeptic, launched a criminal fraud investigation of a prominent climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann.' You could also mention the highly irregular 2006 congressional hearing into the 'Hockey Stick' and the oddity of the recent Charles Monnett investigation.
  21. Understanding climate denial
    @81 John, Einstein denialism..... I believe the Italian police clocked a molecule doing 6km over the speed of light not that long ago. Woops. ;) Einstein famously said, 'it only takes one man to disprove a theory'. Maybe that's what the sceptic scientists are hoping to be? If nothing else, you have to give credit to the sceptics by going over the AGW theory with a fine tooth comb looking for any and all gaps.
  22. Understanding climate denial
    One "skeptic" won't engage in the science when I debated them on this blogger website instead resorting to personal insults, accused me of plagiarising my own words and threatens physical violence. Here's what he recently wrote ... I would be crapping in my pants, too, if I were you! You do not like my style? Too bad. I do not like your anti nova site. You have jumped to the top of my to do list. Although I am a few pounds heavier then when I was a regional light heavyweight champion I am in good health and I do not have a colostomy bag. Great news, if all is well I will be taking a vacation in Australia. Maybe we can meet up and have a few drinks and take it from there? Just forward your address to Jo and we can”discuss” the matter further in person when I get there. That's in reply to my reposting of this analysis at the nova blogger site. Whilst I don't feel like this guy is posting much more than an empty threat, it does demonstrate the anger some of these people feel about AGW. I have no doubt this denier really believes his position despite being unable to critique my analysis or post alternative theories on what is causing the warming. I'm no psychologist but I am guessing his threatening gestures are his way of coping with the inability to debate the science. Feeling frustrated, he lashes out.
  23. Understanding climate denial
    The psychology of "skeptics" interests me a lot. I think that some people find the idea of AGW distasteful, and therefore they oppose it, becoming "skeptics". Could it be that they thoroughly understand the science and that has informed their opinions? It seems unlikely, because most "skeptics" do little more than parrot stuff they read on blogs. Denialism is not new. In the first half of the last century, there was a lot of "Einstein denialism". Just like todays denialists, the Einstein denialists did not understand the science, but were sure that it was wrong. What annoys me is the undue influence of the "skeptics". When you can't hope to become the Republican candidate for US president if you accept the science of AGW, you know its gone too far. I just wish that I didn't have to hold an opinion on AGW. The scientists would outline the problem, and suggest the solution. Economists and others would help, and we'd get on with it. Trying to develop the level of understanding needed to sensibly discuss AGW is just too hard! I do think that there are similarities between climate "skeptics" and extreme greens. Both are only too ready to accept stuff they want to hear, and too ready to impugn their opponents with base motives. In both cases, I think their extreme views are a projection of some personal discomfort. For the extreme greens, their world is not perfect, but it would be, if only greed and capitalism and competition were gone, and we worshiped nature. The "skeptics" have been held back by governments, taxation and political correctness gone mad. Without those things, their world would be perfect. So I can't see how you can change the mind of someone who has decided that they are a "skeptic". Unless perhaps they start to feel better about themselves, and lose the need to project stuff.
  24. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I really can't recomend strongly enough "The Sky's Dark Labyrinth" by Stuart Clark for a very readable trace through the worlds of Kepler, Galileo and all the gang... to flesh out the historical context and facts around this story; also enlightening for today's debates (AGW, evolution etc.)
  25. Harald Korneliussen at 21:43 PM on 29 September 2011
    Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Yeah, Galileo was hardly the model scientist this article incidentally makes him out to be. He believed tides were proof of heliocentrism despite that even by his own inertial explanation of tides, there should be one high tide per day, not two. The idea that tides were caused by the moon, as argued by Kepler he ridiculed as superstitious nonsense (although as we know, that theory was consistent with observations, because it was the right one!) The main reason for his suppression by the church, too, was not his heliocentrism per se, but the fact that in his polemic for it, he had a thinly-veiled portrayal of pope Urban VIII as a dunce.
  26. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Could the moderator(s) suggest a better article to discuss the development of a quantitative methodology for comparing PDSI disparity than this book review?
    Response:

    [DB] The only other thread to deal extensively with PDSI is this one:  The Dai After Tomorrow

    Your call on which is more appropriate; I am not impartial on this one ;)

  27. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    In Siderius Nuncius, Galileo suggested that the dark areas of the moon were water. In this we now know that Galileo was wrong. Galileo was a scientist, making observations and from them making testable propositions. Some of these propositions were famously correct. Others were wrong and proved to be so by later science. I have yet to see any testable propositions from the self-proclaimed Galileos of climate scepticism that have stood-up to scientific scruitiny.
  28. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    And here is the response from Real Climate. (But I'm just parroting sources now.) (Link fixed. Sorry editors, I'm getting sloppy with my posts. Will try and improve.)
  29. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    In any case the established norm is to burn fossil fuels and keep burning them, if anyone is 'Galileo' it's those that want to change that norm.
  30. Understanding climate denial
    Thanks John for a great article. One other tactic I have encountered from science denialists (whether it be in reference to AGW, creationism/young earth, evolution or vaccination) is to not actually address the argument or the points made in conducting any debate. When they make an outrageous claim, typically not supported by the evidence, and you comprehensively refute it with clear statements and facts they simply shift their ground to something else as a side track. Fundamentally I guess because at root they have a belief system that simply doesn't want to be challenged. Many on this site are probably aware of Stephan Lewandowsky who has written extensively on the topic here Also, I'm afraid I don't recall the source but another great approach to how denialists work is below "Denialism refers to those who use spurious reasoning plus more or less aggressive forms of discussion to strengthen opposition to a theory despite not having any reasonable scientific basis for doing so. It follows that reason will never be effective because their rejection is driven by emotion, religion, or ideology. Denialists practice several methods to bully, intimidate and silence their targets: 1. Doubt the science. 2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists. 3. Magnify disagreements among scientists. 4. Exaggerate potential harm. 5. Appeal to personal freedom. 6. Involve irrelevant issues." It's the last point that I see time and time again. I'd also add that there is a common reference to ad-hominem style attacks - such as here insulting Prof Ian Chubb rather than address the arguments. Sad really :(
  31. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Oh yes, well done Dave for actually checking the sources! That is a much more reasoned position. And apologies to RPSr for suggesting that he might hold such a nonsensical view as the one I suggested at #38. The questions which immediately occur to me are: 1. Have there been subsequent results on any of these observations? 2. Do these represent a comprehensive survey of all the additional forcings which have been identified, or are there additional forcings (positive or negative) which need to be included as well? 3. Are they all independent of the forcings included in the IPCC 2001 assessment? Assessing this has gone beyond my ability. The argument is also presented on RPSr's blog here.
  32. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Just a small "nit". "Heliocentrism" is the theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, advanced in classical times by Aristarchus of Samos. Aristotle and Ptolemy rejected heliocentrism in favour of an earth-centred model. The post suggests the reverse in Point 3.
  33. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    The wittiest Galileo comment came from Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown". I also heard Professor Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institute say recently; "99% of people who think they are the new Galileo, just arn't."
  34. Understanding climate denial
    Moderation, thank you for repairing my #57 and deleting the double :) #72, Ken E - exactly my message. I would like to remark that so-called professionals in the field who deny, do so with arguments that can often easily be shown to be like those of laymen. This should come as no surprise. To quote from Jules' blog: "The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR." (David Archer, from http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/ ).
  35. Understanding climate denial
    Here is another 'conversionthat John Hartz (posting as BadgerSouth) produced a couple of months back. This guy, caracoid makes some VERY interesting comments at the end of the exchange - looking into the right wing mind. In fact, it was so good I feel I need to reproduce it here - its a bit long: "Very good information. Now this, presented as such makes sense. Thanks for your time in explaining it. I don't know if this is the last word as far as my opinion goes, but for now it certainly puts me in the AGW camp. Somebody is going to have to convince me that somehow those polar ice measurements are in error and that the composition of the upper atmosphere is different from what you explained. Here's the problem with coming to terms with AGW. Of course it has been politicized between left and right. What I can tell you, coming from the right, is that going against the science is very much unusual. In fact, I can never remember a time when this has happened. Regardless of what you may have heard, the right is not prone to conspiracy theories. And this is highly unusual. Many things caused this: 1. For the first time the right has had a forum for discussion. Prior to this, the media have had a lock on the dissemination of information. Anybody that I hear who has tried to portray the media as disinterested invariably falls into awkward sophistry soon after the discussion begins. All my adult life I have heard the media twist stories, tell partial truths, and promote baseless memes that have dropped their credibility in my eyes--as well as in those of the right--to zero. If you have any question as to the accuracy of this point of view I would be happy to set you straight as you have with me concerning AGW. Websites are available that daily document the media's biases and chosen omissions that can only be attributed at best to gross negligence and far more likely to an "ends justifies the means" mentality that would make Machiavelli blush. There was no public debate on the subject. The media always promoted the AGW story line and rarely if ever mentioned the other points. In other words, the media had--once again--chosen which side to take before the discussion had even begun. If they turned out to be right in the end, it had nothing to do with their understanding of the situation, but by mere chance alone. Add to that the media's desperation to stay alive and natural propensity to attempt to frighten people in order to sell papers, makes any information coming from them essentially worse than useless. So the media will NOT be your friend in spreading the word to the right. 2. The institutions built to deal with the issue have been penetrated by hardcore ecologists. Why do I believe this? Parts of the official UN documents contained conclusions drawn from unverified, non-peer reviewed studies performed by special interest environmental groups. Claims were tacked on to the basic argument for AGW that it would first melt the world, deforest the world, then freeze the world then swing to either extreme. At that point, any change in weather on any given day is pretty much covered by the claims. So many claims were made--all under the pretense of being deduced through scientific scrutiny--that it tainted the basic premise of the argument. Even the central body that accumulates all the raw data was revealed to be not only biased in their beliefs, but ready to block any attempts by dissenters by threatening science publications with article submission embargoes. I'm sure you've looked at the transcripts of the emails sent within the organization. It is truely scary. The fact that they no longer have access to the raw data is a huge error on their part and in itself goes a long way to explaining the lack of acceptance of AGW. 3. Al Gore, the de-facto spokesman for AGW turned out to be perhaps the biggest hypocrite of our time: buying mansions, taking limos, flying in jets around the world and consuming like their is no end. AND getting richer and richer in doing so. I could go on, but to wonder why the AGW movement is looked at with such a jaundiced eye, one only need look at its history. In order to accept the word of such a group one really has to reject all the warning signs of chicanery in the book. Not too many people are able to go back to the information at hand and deal with it in an objective way while holding their noses to the God-awful stink that surrounds it. So, what is to be done to correct this and get on with convincing the right that you have a point? Well, the good news is that the right has a deep conviction in the idea that every man can discern the truth if given the information. It was a basic tenant of or forefathers and continues to be deeply revered amongst the right. While the Europeans are far more apt to trust the "intelligencia," with its aristocratic overtones, we Americans need to be shown the facts to decide for ourselves. If the argument has merit and is made available to the right, they will come to accept it. DO NOT use scare tactics. That works with the left, but not the right. Let me explain: (As a note: as I'm writing this out, it sounds like it was taken from some pop self-help book. But keep an open mind and know that these ideas are originals. Just because they haven't been presented before does not mean they are inaccurate. And I believe they do truely reflect the psychology of what is getting in the way of your message.) As much as there is a duality in much of nature, there is in man. In fact in every person, there seems to be a nihilistic tendency that can be manifested in one of two way that is dependent on the personality type. 1. The masculine, the conservative, the fighter, the problem solver, the rationalist, the optimist: the nihilism of this group is expressed in an obsession with fighting and warfare. Despite the fact that it leads to the demise of the very group that it vexes, it oddly creates a sense of hyper-stimulation and euphoria that can become addictive. See Dr. Strangelove. On the other side, this group is especially squeamish when it comes to the aftermath of the battle. Don't show the suffering and injured, the crying families, and fatherless children--that's a buzz-kill. (Being a member of this group, I think I can speak with authority. And I think if you are part of group 2, you would have some negatives to add to the Type 1s and positives to add to the list of Type 2 traits below. However, living in the city and being surrounded by liberal friends, who think quite differently from me, I have learned the following about this personality type). 2. The feminine, the liberal, the cautionary, the emotional: the nihilism of this group begins right where the previous left off. Give this group the suffering, the injustice, the gory details and they're lit up like a Christmas tree. Each Type 2 feeds off the other, getting into darker and darker spaces, bemoaning the inhumanity while trying to one up the other in a gloom fest. See: polar bear pups marooned on icebergs in the Arctic. This very high that is generated by the Type 2, completely puts off the Type 1. The Type 1 goes on the defensive, making light of the--while perhaps true--ultimate conclusions of the Type 2, by fracturing the excesses that have been generated by their feeding frenzy. The Type 1 is deeply disturbed by the imagery and naturally wants to minimize it by picking at the details and making jokes about it. Lesson: want to persuade the right? Leave all emotion behind. Anything that can be interpreted as hysteria and exageration, will be met with anger. Remember, the Type 1 wants to conquer the problem, not be left feeling helpless. That's weakness and something the Type 1 finds extremely distasteful. Focus on the problem and the PRACTICAL solutions. Provide a clear path of your solution of how to get from A to Z. This should be seen as doable, a war that can be won. Don't go off on windmills and solar energy and love circles. The realist will see that despite the claims of the eco-crowd, there is no way that these can be implemented without sending us back to the Stone Age. Despite the case of AGW, the right deeply respects science and the advance of technology. It doesn't want to go back to the Garden of Eden, though that may work up the left. The right has responded so negatively to the AGWs because they believe that they are stealing the sanctity of the scientific method, not because they doubt it. Be ready to supply REAL numbers. Saying that as the alternative energy technology advances, it will become cheaper, doesn't cut it. I, myself, ran the numbers on converting all power derived from imported oil in the US to wind power (if it could hypothetically be done). I used as a baseline a real case where Britain is placing off-shore windmills off the coast of Wales. Here we have a real testable case. This is a huge project using the latest wind generation technology and located at an optimal location (of which there is a limited amount). We know what Britain is expecting to pay in subsidies for the project. So I converted oil and wind to BTUs, set all numbers at an apples-to-apples zero point, proceeded with some lengthy math and determined that it would cost the US almost a trillion dollars a year in subsidies to replace oil imports with wind mills. While I don't know about solar, I've never heard that it is exponentially cheaper than wind. Never pretend to the right that an undercooked solution is workable when its not. The right is not at all prone to flights of fancy. As of right now, the only solution I see that will bring the right on board is to go nuclear. And please feel free to inform me if you have anything else. But remember that the solution has to be seen as practical to get the other side on board. If the left doesn't make a compromise here, this will forever be left in deadlock. And I think it was suggested before that this be looked at in military terms. NOBODY wants to be defending oil fields abroad. To accuse the right of wanting this is more than counter-productive. The right sees an enemy on the horizon. Talk about cutting the enemy off from its supply lines. Driving forward with cutting edge technology that will leave the competition wondering what hit it. Leaving the backward thinking Arabs who have proven to be nothing but our enemies in the dust of their own making. Well, you get the idea. Talk about America-derived energy and can-do attitude and the true cost-benefit of solution. Do not talk about one-worldism, the connotations will get you a knee-jerk reaction of disgust. The right sees too many bad connotations there and a very justified reason to believe that any global solutions will never be implemented by our competitors, but will be cheated out of existence for anyone other than the US, which has strict laws that insure compliance. Don't go down the road of global accords. It will distract you from an argument that you can win if you have the courage to take your FACTS to the right and fight it out. These FACTS do not include extrapolations and guesswork. You can save that for the instinctually converted. When the argument bogs down, stick with the win-able, indisputable points, those being--as far as I can see--the polar ice and its continued degradation. Also, show the satellite-derived temperature data. That will be accepted by the right as unadulterated. Explain the molecular percentages of GW gasses at altitude and why a seemingly small amount is in actuality quite a lot. Go directly to the blogs of the right: Townhall and Pajama's Media (particularly this last one where you will get a good hearing). Proudly take on all comers. Right now the claim is that the warmists are unable to defend their own position, which is why they don't accept debates. I'm still not sure why they don't, other than maybe the indignity of being challenged. Direct them to your website and have them look it over for themselves. As I mentioned in my earlier post, cracks have started in the right's attitudes about global warming. Now would be a good time to go on the offensive. What you don't know, admit; but what you do know--unassailably--stress. Oh! And clean up that damn list of AGW scientists that includes everyone from Carl Sagen to the Mad Hatter. (I can't believe I wrote this much.) "
  36. Understanding climate denial
    Pete @75, "I don't think all deniers are fueled by anger but quite a few online deniers seem angry." That is my observation too. Not here at SkS so much, but certainly at WUWT, ClimateAudit and news forums...it seems that the anger is oftentimes inversely proportional to the person's knowledge on climate science, and science in general. For example, consider James Delingpole's (the self-professed interpreter of interpretations on the science) latest efforts that is featured at prominently at WUWT. On another note, the denial (and perhaps even the aggression) also seems to arise from people faced with cognitive dissonance, and denial is one way of dismissing inconvenient or conflicting concepts/ideas/thoughts. The psychology of all this is quite fascinating and something that I am having to learn as best as I can in order to try and understand where those in denial about AGW are coming from. But some here are likely much better qualified to speak to this aspect of denial than I am.
  37. Understanding climate denial
    John, and all contributors, Many thanks for the valuable work you do in maintaining this site. I encounter climate deniers quite frequently in a number of "LinkedIn" groups I participate in, and the site as a whole has been extremely useful in helping to confront and expose these folks. Analytical observations and tactical advice offered in this article and comments are inspiring, and I look forward to continuing to use them in ongoing efforts to defend the science and build the case for action in response. Up until now I've said the best advice I've ever had about dealing with deniers was given to me by a prominent atmospheric scientist who advised me to "never argue with an idiot, lest those looking on have trouble telling the difference", but I now feel this is a defeatist approach. Challenging denialism is important work, and I really appreciate the thought that all have put into it, and look forward to keeping my shoulder to the wheel...
  38. Understanding climate denial
    I don't think all deniers are fueled by anger but quite a few online deniers seem angry. I have wondered at times if years of listening to the sneers of talk radio and other sources gets them that way and keep stoking the fire. This is clearly related to the political divide mentioned above. Here is another person's thought on politically related anger.
  39. Understanding climate denial
    Ken @72, Pete @73, To further your points, I was visiting another site today where comments were being passed on Australia's upcomming carbon tax and a depressing number of commenters were claiming to have followed the science for long periods of time and were variously claiming that either: the warming isn't happenning, or temperature drives CO2 levels and not the other way around, or CO@ is a trace gas and therefore cannot influence the climate. (And a few other positions as well.) From what I have seen of denialism, while anti-AGW scientists might roughly occupy the same position, that of the general public is all over the place - and often they often profess that their particular opinion is the most commonly held view.
  40. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Can't say much more than KR here. Norman, you're clearly quite unwilling to accept evidence to the contrary of your specific claims, and I'm sorry to see that. You've made quite a few, and been rebutted many times now, yet you slide to another argument. Your explanation (without sources) in #105 is desparation in the way that adelady alluded to in my link above, and it's a shame to see. As for earthquake-proofing - ask the poor people of Christchurch. Geological hazards don't always strike where they always used to, and so your argument does not hold.
  41. Understanding climate denial
    I see to many comments getting overly literal about what deniers deny. They deny the reality of something, and there are various strategies to do that. First, learn some denier methods here: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php Next, for environmental denial in general, learn the A-BC's of it: A. It isn't happening B. It's not our fault C. It will be good for us anyway. With climate denial much of the ABC's are about CO2. For Pete's sake don't start arguing about whether deniers literally deny that CO2 is this or that, especially if you are going to agree in your next post that deniers are not consistent. The do they don't, they don't they do. They want to put up a front of reasonableness, so when they must address the question directly they admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. "But...." they do not follow through scientifically. It is sort of but not really like those warmists say it is. So it's really the sun or cosmic rays or clouds, rotate the answer next week. Now I want to give you a real live example: Happer http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf Happer is not just some internet Galileo. He is an actual physicist with no excuse for saying or believing any of what he published in a small circulation religious magazine, skipping peer review. *Note that he constructs an entire alternate reality*. Does Happer believe half of what he says? I don't think so. That is, I think he would just about have to believe all or none. It must take some strong psychological force to maintain the wall that blocks reality, and keeps him from noticing that he is repeating well known balony. It may be driven by anger. Even so, I don't think he could notice that half of his points are directly wrong and keep believing the other half. Does this extreme case provide insight into lesser deniers?
  42. Understanding climate denial
    I think there's considerable misunderstanding about what cRR Kampen appears to be arguing here, and I think he's actually making very good points. Obviously most people here are used to debating with skeptics or denialists who at least have a modicum of scientific background, or are even tenured professors. Most such deniers/skeptics have no choice but to acknowledge the heat-absorbing properties of CO2 because doing otherwise rapidly results in then being laughed out of the scientific community. But I'm pretty sure cRR is talking about lay-person deniers, almost all of whom have no scientific background whatsoever. It's easy for those of us with considerable science background to forget that most of these people have no idea that the color of objects we see is actually anything that can be scientifically explained. And among these people, it may well be true that most such denialists really do refuse to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all. I've had way too many debates devolve into exactly that after all the completely damning data is conclusively revealed. It's practically a consequential inevitability for people who have chosen the denialist position. And I emphasize the word chosen here, because I really believe that's what's going on with most of these people. Again it's just too easy to forget how foreign the concept of the scientific method actually is to many lay-people. To them the subject is all politics and therefore subject to the plasticity of the opinions they want to have.
  43. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman - "I am not making any specific claim." Bzzzt!!! You have made a number of specific claims, mostly negative: * Extreme weather has not increased. * 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. * Earthquake numbers are underestimated due to better building codes. * Reporting codes (for weather only, not earthquake, a peculiar distinction) have changed to increase disaster reports. I certainly may have missed a few. Stating that you are "not making any specific claim" is quite disingenuous. I will note that you have really not supported any of these claims with any data.
  44. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, You are right that if it was just one location during one year, it would be "just weather". It isn't though. The 2011 Texas drought isn't an isolated event. 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.
  45. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, "I am not making any specific claim" You've made quite a few claims. You picked a few years, a few storms, a few months and said 'see? just like now.' You are 'arguing against the author's position' and yet I wonder: Have you read the book in this post? You've said that this past year was nothing other than the ordinary weather beast and that one year is not enough data. Here's what Jeff Masters, with 30 years in the business, says: "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." You're citing drought information from 1914; yet you question hurricane records before the satellite age. Isn't that one-way skepticism?
    Response:

    [DB] "one year is not enough data"

    Indeed.  Let's have Norman consider the period 2008-2011:

    JJA H & C

    June-July-August surface temperature anomalies in units of standard deviations relative to the climate of 1951-1980. [Source]

    From the above linked source:

    So the occurrence of unusual Texas heat and drought is consistent with expectations for increasing CO2.

    The frequency of an anomaly greater than +2σ is only 2-3 percent in the period of climatology for a normal distribution. The frequency of a +3σ event is normally less than one-half of one percent of the time. The numbers on the upper right corner of each map are the percentages of the global area covered by each of the seven categories of the color bar.

    [the above figure] reveals that the area with temperature anomaly greater than +2σ covers 20-40 percent of the planet in these recent years, and the area greater than +3σ is almost 10-20 percent. The United States has been relatively 'lucky', with the only +2-3σ areas being the Texas region in 2011 and a smaller area in the Southeast in 2010. However, these events are sufficiently fresh in people's memories that they provide a useful measure of the practical impact of a 3σ anomaly.

    [Emphasis added]

  46. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @82 "When geological disasters increase more slowly than weather disasters, what is your explanation?" I have one possible explanation. Not necessarily a good one, maybe you won't accept it. Here goes. The population has increased as well as personal wealth and property over time. Disasters would increase as well if everything else stayed the same (more people could be killed or wounded as well as more dollar amount damage). Disasters are events that involve people and property. An F5 tornado is not a disaster until it causes some damage. Hit an empty field, no disaster. Hit a city and you have a major disaster. Only a few people are now tornado proofing their homes. I do not know any who make homes flood resistant except to build on stilts like in Galveston, Texas. However people moving into earthquake areas do build property to be somewhat resistant to quakes. The damage of a moderate quake with these building procedures in place is a lot less severe than in areas without rigid building codes. This preventative building code can explain why earthquake disasters are not following the weather related trends. How many more people are building in flood plains than in the past?
  47. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @98 skywatcher quote: "Norman, is there a point at which you'll accept that extreme events are on the rise, seeing as you've been contesting everything in muoncounter's post? How many more extreme events will it take?" I do like science based evidence. I do not believe disater charts are a valid form of reporting extreme events for reasons I have already stated. Shifting dependent variable has an effect (population increase, movement, and property values are not a constant). Valid reporting would be of such a nature. Scientifically (precision is key) recorded extreme weather events based upon a set standard like hurricanes or tornadoes (some scale of severity). For rain it could be rainfall amounts and how much this rainfall event covers. More rain over a larger area is a higher category rain event. Compile the data and observe a trend. One extreme year is not a valid trend or some point outside the normal. Like this year Texas had a super drought and high temps. So far it was a one year event. If this would continue for a few years it would be good evidence for the book's thesis. muoncounter: "To that question, I would add: What makes you so sure, when a number of experts are saying you're wrong?" Who is saying I am wrong. I am not making any specific claim. I am only compiling data that is available on the Internet (preferablly from a reliable source like NOAA). How can I be wrong about anything by posting past PDSI graphs to show that patterns have repeated? I am not sure about anything at this time. I am just doing what a scientist should do. Research. The claim is made that there are more extreme weather events than previous times. Maybe there are but as little reporting of events was compiled in the past I am not sure what these claims are based upon. To get extreme weather events of the past you would have to go dig up archives of old papers and magazines to search for some weather extremes of the past. NOAA only goes back so far that is why I chose 1993 with a super storm. Even with hurricanes and tornadoes. Only those empacting people were reported. In the early part of the century (before planes and satellite views) people may not have recorded hurricanes that stayed out at sea. My claim is the information available about past weather extremes is fuzzy and not real clear (like a fog, one can make out the bigger items but many other items are lost that now are being counted and logged). Long post...sorry!
  48. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman #99: [BTW the link to Norman's article is still broken?] I read the Pielke paper, and I see what he tried to do. I don't think he succeeded, because his approach was rather like looking at tide gauges from the east coast of the USA and concluding that global sea level rise was nothing to worry about. But you didn't answer my key point - if the numbers of weather disasters increases faster than the number of geological disasters, then you're accounting for population, wealth etc. Why the disparity? Do Pielke's 'corrections' result in a large decrease in geological disasters over the same timescale I wonder? I also am not so concerned about specifically hurricane trends in isolation, as they are open for discussion (e.g. possibly reduced numbers of hurricanes but more severe ones, increased temperature/moisture supply but reduced wind shear etc). I'm much more concerned about overall trends in precipitation amount and intensity, and drought amount and intensity, and overall patterns of a range of different kinds of extreme weather. A 0.8C rise in global mean annual temperature is not 'small', unless you think the range of temperature change from glacial to interglacial is only 'moderate'.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed link.

  49. The Climate Show #19: A Tale of Two Poles
    What occurred to me with John's comments about Greenland is that the loss of cover would be from areas where the ice is thin at the edges, so 15% of ice cover loss would not necessarily equate to 15% of Greenland ice loss. This in turn means 15% of cover loss would not equate to 1m of sea level rise. Or is the thickness at the edges similar to the middle? (John Cook does not have an accent but Glenn Williams does. I live in Brisbane)
  50. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @100 The point of that post was not about the total number of huuricanes. It was that a disaster is very complex beast and not a very good indicator of what is really taking place. The paper shows disasters skyrocket (nonormalized data) but the actual number of hurricanes hitting had no trend. If you take in the population movement and the increase in property value you can see disasters do not always equate to the reality.

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