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  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  Next

Comments 73701 to 73750:

  1. 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."
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.

  20. 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...
  21. 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)?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee @107, Quite compelling graph that Willie Soon produced for the Arctic there ;) Have you been truly skeptical about the data and methods he used? I have, and I suggest that you might want to be a true skeptic before uncritically posting stuff that supports your beliefs. Nowhere in his paper does Soon make reference to cosmic rays or GCRs, so odd that you are citing a paper to support your assertions about GCRs that does not even mention GCRs. Why would one expect regional temperatures to mimick CO2? A more appropriate measure of the influence of solar would have been the incident solar energy over the Arctic. Regardless, why use TSI reconstructions from Hoyt and Schatten (1993) when those data are at odds with those form Lean et al. (1995), Solanki and Fligge (1998) and Lockwood and Stamper (1999)? Why choose an outlier? And for the record, Willie Soon has, shall we say, a rather dubious track record when it comes to publishing papers. So citing him does not do one's credibility much good.
  26. Philippe Chantreau at 07:24 AM on 30 September 2011
    CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Usually dust free? Funny, another skeptic argument is that soot particles are the main culprit in the meltdown of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap. That would ahardly qualify as "dust free." But then again, skeptics using that argument always fail to show if there is any kind of trend in BC particles deposition in said regions. Oh well. Looking at these graphs Tblakeslee, I wonder how they look like with another 10 years of data? Don't we have a number of interesting data pieces on the "it's the Sun" threads?
  27. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Muon 104 The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation has a threshold and interacts with other conditions such as temperature, humidity and dust particles. That's why the Forbush effect is robust when you work backward, starting with abrupt cloud changes. There are parts of the world that don't need cosmic rays for cloud formation because of dust or pollution. The arctic and the mid pacific probably account for most of the effect. If you look at contrails in the sky and ship trails on satellite photos of the ocean you will see how cloud formation often needs some seeding to make clouds. To really see the strong effect of cosmic rays you need to focus on areas that are usually dust free. Here are temperature anomoly graphs from a paper that focuses only on the Arctic. First, plotted with solar irradiance: Then plotted against CO2: "> http://www.epi-us.com/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf Which horse would you bet on?
    Response:

    [DB] Your 2nd linked graphic has no URL.  It is considered good form to give a source (and a link where it exists) to outside sources used.  Example:

    Your first graphic is from:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image023.gif

     

    And the last is from: 

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image024.gif

     

    BTW, appinsys.com is well-known to be a disinformationist site.  Original sources are best.

  28. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Ok, it's practically impossible to completely drain "1" and "0" of semiotic content (it would involve brainwashing anyone who's ever used the signs), but in theory it is possible.
  29. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Actually, muon, if "1" is not applied to anything, it is effectively the same as "0."
  30. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    PHAN-TUM "this cannot be ignored in a "model" indeed it's not. As for the cosmic rays, take a look and comment here.
  31. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    PHAN TUM: "we need temperature date from 1000 times more points to make a valid conclusion toward surface warming." I agree with the first part of the statement. Will you support this endeavor with your tax dollars? You should really move the modeling comments and questions to the appropriate threads, though. Water vapor, by the way, is not ignored in the models. It has a short atmospheric residence time, though, and the quick cycling stabilizes it as an element of the long-range atmospheric dynamic (climate). Take a good read here and here, and reply on those threads.
  32. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    PHAN-TUM @75, Both of these topics are covered on this site, along with a legion of others. There is a search function, and a helpful list link "Arguments" on the top left of the page. 1) Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works 2) Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
  33. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Phan-tum. Why do you believe we need 1000 times more points?
  34. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    muoncounter maybe 2+2=5 The Lukewarm? Ok, wildly offtopic, sorry :)
  35. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    okay, 1) water vapor has a much broader absorption in more regions than any of the GHGs addressed here; it cannot be ignored!!!! H2O covers 70% of the Earth's surface (plus a lot of it in the vapor phase as well), it therefore is hit by most of the incoming solar radiation (uv or high-energy) - the H2O absorbs uv and emits it as IR, this is undeniable. therefore, the radiative energies coming from the H2O are well outside of the 298K band. so the water on the surface and in the ATM has a massive effect on the temperature. this cannot be ignored in a "model" - the biggest part of the system must be included in the model. 2) what about the interaction of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields (solar wind)? this effects the temperature as well. maybe we should be more worried about the things we cannot change than the ones we can. we cannot accurately study a system so dynamic and not completely understood, and ignore the major contributors to an effect while having a limited amount of sample data. we need temperature date from 1000 times more points to make a valid conclusion toward surface warming. the Earth is larger and more dynamic than the model(s) account for.
  36. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Riccardo#18 I'm glad you figured that out. What next, a proof that 1 = 0?
  37. Understanding climate denial
    rcglinks#106 illustrates a frequently used climate denier tactic of shfting the discussion from climate science to policy options to address climate change. Personally, I prefer to keep those discussions separate.
  38. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Critical Mass @51 - Thanks. Sphaerica - I'm not so sure about all the mechanisms of ocean heat transport because some are only very minor players, and many have yet to be quantified in any meaningful way. As for OHC uptake and transient climate sensitivity. I'm reading through some papers at the moment. I'll get around to discussing that too.
  39. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    There may be gravitational effects due to the mass of the sea ice. When the ice is formed then the local sea level will be higher in the arctic when the ice melts then this may cause a relative lowering of SL there and a corresponding further increase further away at distance.
  40. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Excellent. Should have been done much earlier. Love the time line. I think that that is a standalone item for SkS... bigger expanded and hyperlinked... everything. so.... missing last evidence... 5. The Vatican recognizes GW and disruptive CC.... and that we should act. Vatican on climate: Pray for science http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/11/208071/vatican-on-climate-pray-for-science/
  41. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    muoncounter wait a minute, I'm confused. We have some (AGW) deniers claiming that they're like Galileo and some other (heliocentrism) deniers claiming that Galileo was wrong. If the latter are right, the former are right that they're are like Galileo but wrong on AGW. Conversely, if AGW deniers are right, the heliocentrism deniers are wrong and this means that going against the estabished science is not enough to be like Galileo. Hence, either you're wrong like Galileo or you're not like Galileo just because you're a denier of something. Right? :) Anyway, although I'm quite familiar with scientific denialism, the link you provided is new to me. Thank you.
  42. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Professor Pielke explains his reasoning of the 26% here What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2? Dana #30 did suggest to me that we keep this subject for the 'Disagreements post'.
  43. Understanding climate denial
    I think the root cause of denial is the political aspect. Most folks have only ever heard of climate change in the context of energy policy. The policy prescriptions are learned of first, then after the listener says "wait, you want to do what?" the justification is offered. People think "I can find a problem with that," and then set about nitpicking everything. The fact is in a vacuum no one (except the financiers who will make billions) would ever want to establish a carbon permit market. No electricity company would ever build a wind tower without massive government subsidies and in a vacuum the public would not support the subsidies. Global warming policy prescriptions as they stand right now - major new taxes that effect a huge transfer of wealth to financiers combined with reliance on intermittent and incredibly expensive electricy sources - really are a bad idea. The solution here is not to call people names or analyze their psychology. The solution is to come up with a good energy policy. Imagine how a layperson would respond to the following: "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." VS. "We need to invest in biofuel technology. With the right breakthroughs we could engineer algae that eat wastewater and produce ethanol. It will keep the price of filling your tank lower in the long run and let us reduce reliance on foreign oil." or "We need to put a high price on carbon emissions, that way we raise the price of electricity and transport to the point that massively inefficient alternatives become economically competitive." VS. "We need to develop 4th generation nuclear technology. If things go as promised we can produce energy at half the price of coal. Your family's electricity bill will go down, your children will be healthier, and America's natural beauty will be preserved." There is a debate over climate in this country and it is not a debate about science, it is a debate about energy policy. In the first half of my two examples the energy policy is basically indefensible and the speaker must fall back on defending the science of climate change. In the second half of each the policy is a good idea and the speaker can defend it on its own merits.
    Moderator Response: See "Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science" for direct quotes about climate science made by American politicians. In the US, there is an ongoing public debate about both climate science and energy policy.
  44. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    One of the factors that prompted the Church to take action against Galileo was because he published some works in Italian rather than the customary Latin. Had Galileo restricted his science to the cognoscenti he likely would have been left alone. Unfortunately, this history is again being played out. Those climate scientists who restrict their publications to scholarly journals are mostly left alone, but those who indulge in public outreach risk being harassed, or worse. I think it's a stretch to identify anyone in climate science with Galileo, either in terms of their stature as scientists or the amount of persecution they are suffering. However, if I had to nominate somebody, I would submit James Hansen.
  45. Understanding climate denial
    Jacoby has long been the Globe's token RWinger.
  46. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Jim @ 15... Oh, believe me, it already is. The phrase I've seen a dozen times already is, "See! Relativity was accepted science until just a week ago."
  47. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    The Galileo argument is so ridiculous it's hard to take seriously. I'm going to make a prediction. The recent discovery that neutrinos appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light will somehow be used by AGW skeptics.
  48. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Dear “Google” Galileo: five reasons we know why you are not a scientific genius
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid link-only posts. Provide some context so readers may decide if they want to follow your link.
  49. Understanding climate denial
    #99 sout, agree absolutely on "discussions help inform those who accept the science but might not understand it well, thus empowering more people with knowledge and influence." For me it is even a sufficient win. But there's another: one always learns something relevant during every discussion. Well, at least I don't think I get dumber :)
  50. Understanding climate denial
    John, looking at all his columns, not just climate change, I would say "populism". George Will is always a bit too pompous-sounding to be a good populist.

Prev  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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