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. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman#91: "the combination of extremes but it is not that "weird"." So the list of things disputed grows: the findings of the author of the book in this post, Jeff Masters' blog post on extreme weather events, disaster counts by professionals who deal in disasters, hurricane/tropical storm trends, flooding trends, 2011's drought vs. 1980, 2011's drought vs. 1934, 1981 - 2011 vs. any other arbitrary 30 year period's PDSI 'pattern.' Do we have a trend here? I find it revealing that the list of things requiring a 'yes, but --- was just as bad' keeps growing. I did some graduate work in earthquake seismology a number of years ago. Nobody at that time would 'predict' a large earthquake, but everybody sure knew the signs that something was building up. With a consistent cluster of foreshocks, geothermal activity, anomalous uplift or tilt and strange animal behaviors, it would be time to avoid tall buildings for a while. But with climate data, it's ok to look at these patterns and say 'it's not that bad.' If you were a structural engineer and you saw a pattern of incipient cracks in the supports of a bridge, would you say 'its not bad'?
  2. Understanding climate denial
    milka, I believe you're largely right about money interests and motives. But not entirely. We all want to believe that we're good people - or rational, sensible, responsible, caring - whatever counts as 'good' in a context. We also want to believe that what we do is right for ourselves, our families, whoever and whatever is important to us. All of which means that it's all too easy for us to kid ourselves that what we want to do is also the right thing to do and will bring the best outcomes. And along comes our very best friend, rationalisation, to help us out. The classic case of denialism is the very personal one of medical diagnosis - of something we really, really don't want to be true. Terminal illness. Many people will literally refuse to believe this, some of them for a very long time. Many more people will persuade themselves that 'it can't be that bad'. And instead of taking the recommended course of action which requires acknowledging the seriousness of their situation, they'll do nothing at all. Or spend lots of time and money on dietary supplements or fall victim to charlatans touting miracle cures (which aren't really necessary but I'd like to feel better). If new problems arise, it can't be the progress of the illness, they rationalise that it's something else entirely. And when it all comes to the predictable crisis point, undeniable, incurable, debilitating symptoms that can't be rationalised away it's all the doctors' fault for not fixing it when all hope is gone. My view of many people in denial about climate change is that they're at the shopping around for a miracle stage, even though miracles are only offered by charlatans. The fact that they make money or keep money by doing so is not irrelevant. But the denial makes it possible to keep on believing that you're a good, responsible citizen while you're doing so.
  3. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Thank you Daniel Bailey for the instruction on posting direct graphics. Muoncounter, I am posting the graphics of the years I listed in post 91.
  4. There is no consensus
    Dana69: "even among climate experts they are not all expert in each others specialty ... it appears that the consensus is saying it is not based on the scientific method but rather on popularity." This argument is very strange. Would it be better if most climate scientists - whatever their specialty - disagreed with the important elements of a theory? Seems to me that if that were the case, you'd be arguing 'there's no agreement among scientists!' It is also most often the 'pseudo-skeptics' who bring up this consensus issue. Those who have looked at evidence objectively seem content that many independent lines of evidence point in the same direction. That's the consensus worth talking about.
  5. Understanding climate denial
    John There's a 6th common characteristic of the denialist movement: the profit motive. Just as Big Tobacco knew the dangers of smoking, Big Carbon know their polluting days are numbered. Denial helps ensure profits continue for as long as their propaganda holds up. Does anyone really believe reputable Fin Review journalists like Trevor Sykes (Pierpont) are genuine climate skeptics? Sykes is Patron of the Sydney Mining Club and a Board member of Austex Oil. No pressure there! Doesn't mean he doesn't write witty or brilliant articles, just that he has a vested interest in spreading the skeptic propaganda. He's no different in this respect from people like Peter Mitchell, the man behind the Landscape Guardians who successfully sent investment in wind farms into freefall recently in Victoria or any other right winger with mining interests. Ian Plimer is on no less than 4 mining boards. No-one really believes they're stupid enough not to "get" global warming. They just want to put off regulation for as long as possible by pretending there is a "debate" about the science. The BBC has now decided there is no phony "debate" and skeptics get little media attention in the UK now.
  6. Understanding climate denial
    Dave123's link is relevant to the discussion. Spencer isn't the only supposedly "sophisticated" skeptic who has signed this. "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." The last sentence is pretty hardcore denialism. Interesting, though, that this declaration also has a section entitled "WHAT WE DENY". Wouldn't that make them "deniers" by definition? Included in this section: "1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." Note the implication that the effect, at most, is "miniscule" or negligible. Values, which include religious values, are important in determining what humanity should do about global warming. We need to be good stewards of the Earth, for example. In sharp contrast, the declarations above dismiss scientific findings in favor of a religious view. It concludes that human activities can't be causing warming, because God would never create an Earth that would ever be vulnerable to human impacts.
  7. Understanding climate denial
    I hope this isn't regarded as ad homenim on this particular thread- but as far as I'm concerned Spencer declared himself a non-scientist when he signed the Cornwall Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. Cornwall Signers One cannot expect anything from him other than efforts to reinforce his religious beliefs. This kind of denial is also found on the basis of politics- once you've concluded that the post-Vietnam environmental movement is a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) you will see everything in terms of a collectivist conspiracy. Data doesn't matter, evidence doesn't matter.
  8. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @ 89 I will agree with you that 2011 does have the largest of the type of pattern with the the combination of extremes but it is not that "weird". Looking at the 100+ years of August for the Palmer drought index, the pattern has come up in other years. In 1914 the combination was there only east/west rather than north/south. In 1917 the pattern shows up, just a smaller version. In 1919 you have a reverse of 2011. Wet south but dry north. 1951 has the pattern of 2011. It is greater than 1917 but not as much as 2011. I am not sure such a pattern of extremes (very dry and very wet) is unusual or "downright weird".
  9. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter, A climate challenge for you to give to your students (if you are a teacher). I am performing the test as I post on different windows. Using the NOAA Palmer drought index you linked graphs to in post 58. This page allows animations of any year you wish to select from 1900 to 2011. Here is the challenge (like the blindfold taste tests). Take the 30 year period (1981-2011) as one animation. Now pick a few other 30 year animations from the list and have your students watch them side by side and see if they can pick the last 30 years from a clear signal of increasing rainfall patterns and droughts. If they can they are better than me. I can't see any relevant pattern in my current selection. I can recognize 2011 by that unique pattern of lots of moisture north and very dry south but the overall 30 year period certainly does not show any obvious pattern that things are getting more extreme. If you do the challenge let me know how the results come up.
  10. Understanding climate denial
    There's some really good comments here. I don't have much to add, beyond commenting on the high quality of posts like those from Albatross, Chris, grypo and others, and of course John Cook's original post. I continue to learn a lot here! Rob's #58 is very relevant. We can understand denial quite well, but the challenge is what to do about it and how to combat it, either directly or indirectly. In some cases, we can stop denial taking root in the hidden readers, perhaps?
  11. Same Ordinary Fool at 07:25 AM on 29 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    "Denier" could be defined as a "heretic to the beliefs of the publishing skeptic climate scientists": Lindzen, Spencer and Christy. With low sensitivity and clouds being considered as issues that are still in play in mainstream climate science. This is a clearcut definition based on skeptic terms, so it can't be disparaged as being from a consensus conspiracy.. And it emphasizes the reality gap between DIY theories and publishing 'respectability'.
  12. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69- There is clearly a disconnect, as I didn't ask you to validate Dr. Pielke's data. I asked you to show where he offered any. Your responsive quote is an opinion expressed by Dr. Pielke, a conclusion, not what the underlying data is. If you see the confusion in the posts between then and now I think you might find that a good faith effort is being made to figure this out. Please also note in the comments a willingness to explore changes (albedo vs methane) rather than a knee-jerk adherence to the IPPC. This is a good crew. Dana1981 is going to provide reason why the SkS side believes that Dr. Pielke is off by a factor of 2 on the role of CO2 in the global energy imbalance. But without Dr. Pielke's data and reasoning for his 26% we lack a complete story. The problem is that instead of putting this data into the posts, Dr. Pielke provided it in references. The 26% is an admitted back-of-the-envelope calculation provided in this Slide presentation: Source Presentation . However, this isn’t a peer reviewed publication. In slide 11 and 12 however, he cites research showing 1) An increase of 0.5 in total radiative forcing 2) Increased contributions from a number of other components Now, I can’t duplicate 26% for CO2, I get 31% and CO2 remains the largest single factor regardless. The IPPC reference on slide 9 is not a currently functioning link, and I can’t get the IPPC number to come out to 58% either. But this is to be expected eyeballing graphs. I want to add a cautionary note regarding Dr. Pielke’s higher value for methane. One of the catastrophe theories related to AGW is the release of methane from permafrost and subsea methane clathrates. There is concern about the margins of the Siberian Artic Shelf Real Climate Discussion The RealClimate folks take a non-alarmist position on this. But there is a short notice expedition to the area because of concern about accelerated rates. Expedition Given that the rate of decline of ice in the artic has been underestimated by the IPPC, and our lack of knowledge in general of this formerly ice-bound area I think book makers might start shading the odds of a significant methane release. In other words, while Dana1981 has said he will argue for Dr. Pielke overestimating methane’s role, I’m worried that Dr. Pielke is right.
  13. Understanding climate denial
    It seems a lot of skeptics in denial apply double standards. They loathe the word denier, but use words like "warmist", "alarmist" & "CAGW" with high frequency.
  14. Understanding climate denial
    For me the bottom line is John C's reply above: "The point of my article is that this is not about labels, it's about understanding the process of denial," As they say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," and when it comes to denial, we're all sinners sometimes, about something. And let's avoid labels, and keep in mind the key audience is not the vocal critic across the table, it's the onlookers gathered 'round, some of whom have still not made up their minds.
  15. There is no consensus
    Dana69 wrote : Each of the following examples were initially rejected by the consensus, but the consensus changed based on evidence. the theory of continental drift... Well, it's hardly surprising that it was rejected, when Wegener believed that the physical processes involved were to do with the rotation of the earth or gravitational attraction involving the sun and moon. Would you have believed that ? I doubt it, because the calculations didn't add up. It was only when the theory of Plate Tectonics was refined and provable, and the forces involved were undestood to be thermal convection currents within the mantle, that the original theory (albeit adapted) could be accepted and proved. How does that compare with the theory of AGW ? Is there another theory out there that you think might be better ?
  16. There is no consensus
    Dana69 @445, "So why bother using consensus as an argument at all?" I've explained why to you above @443. I'm sorry Dana69, but you really are saying an awful lot without really saying anything. That is why I was asking you to answer some specific questions to try and determine where you are coming from. You say "it appears that the consensus is saying it is not based on the scientific method but rather on popularity." Let me remind you about the purpose of this post, the main post was made to address this claim made in a petition: "The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere" The goal of that petition is to advance the claim that there is "no convincing evidence" for AGW and that that opinion is held by many people with credentials. Well there is compelling evidence, from multiple, independent lines of evidence in fact. You talk above about "popularity", well such petitions are just that, and worse yet, signed by people not qualified to speak to the subject. Do you endorse such petitions as a refutation of the theory of AGW? I hope you agree that such an approach is not the scientific method, unlike how the theory of AGW was arrived at. "Since most of the scientists signing on to the AGW "consensus" are not climate experts" Not true. Please read Anderegg et al. (2010) a link is provided in the body text. Please note the tiny fraction of people who sign petitions wishing away the theory of AGW are qualified to speak to climate science. Is that OK by you? "Since most of the scientists signing on to the AGW "consensus" are not climate experts -- in fact even among climate experts they are not all expert in each others specialty -- Dr. Trenberth for example is not a hurricane expert" I'm sorry, this is an absurd point. But it does underscore why consilience is so important. Trenberth has shown that the water vapour content of the atmosphere is increasing as temperatures increase, that is a positive feedback that is key to the theory of AGW and perfectly consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Whether or not he has experience to speak to how hurricanes will respond to a warming planet is not relevant, and besides, how hurricanes respond to a warmer planet has nothing to do with the validity of theory of AGW. So I'm sensing some strong one-sided skepticism here by you Dana69. Lindzen is a meteorologist by training, so by your logic he is simply subscribing to popular opinion when he agrees that doubling CO2, in theory, will warm the planet by 1.1 C or so.
  17. Understanding climate denial
    I think those that say they are not in denial because 'climate has always changed' are probably being pedantic about the interpretation. If you believe climate has always changed (who can disagree with that?), you can still be denying that humans are causing it and ignore the large amount of science showing we are responsible. The 'denial' is the denial of responsibility. eg. the denial exists, it's just moved over the years. Some 10 years ago denial was that it wasn't warming, now it is warming, denial has become more sophisticated. But it is still there. The deniers are just moving the goal posts each time new evidence comes in, so that they can keep denying!
  18. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    When sea ice forms it is a mixture of ice crystals and salt water. As the ice crystals link together and expand they squeeze the brine into pockets. The brine pockets end up being squeezed out along the bottom of the ice. Newly formed ice contains about 33% brine in pockets. The lateral pressures in the ice structure tend to squeeze these brine pockets into vertical structures. The ice continues to reject brine until the ice melts or until it contains insignificant quantities of brine. The initial brine rejection is the major driver of haline circulation, but further brine rejection is significant as the ice ages, e.g. in the Beaufort Gyre. These free resources may help readers to understand the processes of brine pocket formation and brine rejection: JPL poster Brine rejection... Vrbka and Jungwirth Arctic Sea Ice Microstructure
  19. Dikran Marsupial at 04:50 AM on 29 September 2011
    There is no consensus
    Dana69 I think you are missing the point of the significance of the concensus. The science doesn't stand and fall on the existence of a concensus. Similary those who can reliably understand the science can happily ignore the existence of the concensus. What about the rest of us who are not capable of reliably understanding the science at the level of detail required to form an opinion of our own (I most certainly fall into that category). We have to decide where the truth is likely to lie via other means, and the existence of a concensus is a useful indicator of reliability of expert opinion. If you are ill, do you trust your doctor or do you go and do the research you need to do to diagnose yourself? Most of us do a mixture of the two, but heavily biased in favour of the doctors opinion because he has earned hid credibility, we haven't. Now logically this is "argument from authority" and thus a fallacy; however it is also perfectly reasonable and rational. No it isn't science, but like the AGW debate we are fooling ourselves if we think we are doing science. We aren't, merely trying to understand and interpret the science of others so that we can hold an informed opinion. It would be a logical falacy to say that the science is right because there is a concensus. That would indeed be "argumentum ad populum". However, it would be perfectly correct, to say that it was more rational to have confidence in the concensus position than in the skeptics; on the balance of probabilities (not certainties) you are very likely to be right. The concensus says nothing about the actual correctness of the science; it says plenty on how we (as non-experts) should rationally apportion our belief to the competing hypotheses.
  20. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Critical Mass - if you can't be specific I cannot help - don't have the time at the moment. I will, however, cover a lot of the misconceptions in upcoming posts on ocean heat and circulation.
  21. There is no consensus
    Dikran Marsupial, First off, let me tell you I have been very impressed with your posts here,and in forums off this site. I am not sure what your background is, but it appears to be solid in statistics. Please understand my post. I have indicated agreement that the climate is warming. This notion of consensus to validate a point is useless. If the consensus hasn't done the work then it is simply appealing to Argumentum_ad_populum. If the argument can be made scientifically, then appealing to the fallacy of consensus is unnecessary and irrelevant. Scientists do not need to point to a consensus, they simply point to the facts and the evidence. So why bother using consensus as an argument at all? Since most of the scientists signing on to the AGW "consensus" are not climate experts -- in fact even among climate experts they are not all expert in each others specialty -- Dr. Trenberth for example is not a hurricane expert -- it appears that the consensus is saying it is not based on the scientific method but rather on popularity. Consensus seems to mean, "I have looked at your results and even though I have not personally verified those results or even looked at all your data, it is my personal opinion they are probably valid." I'm sorry, but that is not the scientific method. Basing one’s beliefs on the scientific consensus is rational. I do it often. It is not the only rational response, however. It is not irrational to be skeptical of an argument based only on consensus. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no scientific consensus on what the political response to AGW should be. Respectfully,
  22. Understanding climate denial
    yocta and John Russell @ 4&6... I think it would be a big mistake to give up on YouTube posting. You'll never convince those die hard climate change deniers, that's for sure. What you do get at YT is, often, very high viewer rates. You have to remember, most of the people who view a video on YT are very likely to at least start reading some of the comments. I contend that there are a large number of people who are new to the whole issue of climate change on YT. That means we have huge opportunities to communicate the actual science to non-scientist, to people who are likely to be in the process of deciding if this is real or not. I always say, use that diehard denier as a foil by which to communicate to the broader audience. If you can give up on changing that one person's mind and just explain the science, I think there are major opportunities there to help people understand what the world actually faces with this issue.
  23. Understanding climate denial
    Dikran #52, thank you but I am quite aware of what forcing and sensitivity mean. I agree they are fundamentally different concepts. I am looking for the denialist's use and interpretations of these words re AGW-theory. Now you say: "The observations fall within the range of what AGW theory considers plausible - but that range is pretty broad. This means that the observations being consistent with the predictions of the theory doesn't imply that the prediction has any great skill or that the theory is significantly corroborated by the observations." Neither do I imply anything of the kind. Or do I? If you work consequently along these lines you will never accept any theory at all. Lepechuans work just as well for you as a theory that states that increasing GHG will cause increase in the atmosphere's latent warmth content which will most likely result in a temperature increase. So can you explain why you DO prefer one theory on GW over another, and why denialists don't - the latter habitually reaching for quite implausible or long disproven theories, 'forgetting' about them any time for another ruse? Dare say a question like this nears the topic again (Albatross, you're right) :) I am, by the way, tempted to ask Spencer whether he believes in climate change at all... "Others have provided documentation of noted contrarians & denialists acknowledging the physical basis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, while still denying the policy implications of its massive & rapid build-up in the atmosphere and the resulting follow-on effects." said Composer99. Actually I am using Solomon's axe on thick denialist heads :) I want them to start some hairsplitting. I will not go into politics or other consequences of GW here. They are an entire different subject. To do with motivation of 'skeptics', yes. I am challenging denialists to be clear and precise. Challenges like: D: "Climate has always changed." cRR: "Right, how come? Magic?" (curtains) D: "Instrumental records are flawed, GW is much smaller than they say." cRR shows some desintegrating ice around the world and informs: "Do you think fairies have lowered the freezing point of water?". Or comes up with some agrarian stats and askes: "Do you think the worms have asked the crops to flower earlier?" (curtains) - This one alludes to the art of cherry picking. D could've done away with all my desintegrating ice by pointing at the one glacier in California that is growing, see. A bit brutal all this, I know. Like holding up a mirror. I've started doing this when I learned some hard ways that for denialists facts are taboo while logic is poisonous. It's how they seem to respond to a dose of either. But we all do once in a while. 'She can't be cheating on me' in the face of certain facts would be a cliché example. Anyone strengthening us in an erroneous belief could exert quite an influence on us, too. My big question nowadays is this. How come the powers that be behind denial of AGW, I'm talking Heartland Institute or CATO or Koch Bros or Exxon or General Electric..., don't advertise for the reality of AGW? After all, only a minority would be for a colder climate. The story is even better because the colder climates of the world experience most of AGW. Isn't this great news: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/global/exxon-and-rosneft-partner-in-russian-oil-deal.html?pagewanted=all ? What does this mean exactly: "Once seen as a useless, ice-clogged backwater, the Kara Sea now has the attention of oil companies. That is partly because the sea ice is apparently receding — possibly a result of global warming — which would ease exploration and drilling." ? Why don't simply say: Thanks to mankind's beneficial contribution to the world's climates...? (No, I wouldn't agree - my favourite climate is tree-line or tundra. And there are more general drawbacks to strong warming).
  24. Understanding climate denial
    John Hartz#49: "separate realities" You're exactly right; this is the key to understanding why someone is in denial. All that's really necessary for a person to be in denial is an unshakable belief in one central misconception. If one starts with something as simple as 'it can't possibly by anthropogenic - its not us,' then anything pointing a finger at 'us' must be denied. This leads inexorably to 'it's not co2', 'its not fossil fuels', 'its not happening,' and so on. The end result is the construction of an alternate reality because one cannot live in a world where the facts conflict with one's preconceptions. Look objectively at Curry's blog, lucia's blog or worse WUWT. The things they take for granted (GW stopped in 1998, Arctic ice is recovering, sea level isn't rising) are what we have shown time and time again to be false. The task is to isolate that core misconception and whittle away at its foundation - then the supporting denials can collapse of their own weight.
  25. Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 29 September 2011
    Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    My point was indeed that Monckton has implied to be something he's not. As for nobility titles, or any other kind for that matter, they do not impress me. Anybody who feels a need to be referred to with something special before their name, other than Mr or Ms, has an ego problem in my view, just like those who put their alphabet soup after their name. And, yes, that applies to PhDs too. Not that I deny the value of expertise, I know very well what it means. In my line of work I get to meet people with all sorts of degrees, some of them could be called Dr twice. At my previous job site, I met someone who was descibed to me as "one of the best cardiac surgeons in the World." One would never have guessed that much from his unassuming attitude. Yet every day he was saving people's lives or restoring their quality of life, part of that pro-bono as well.
  26. Dikran Marsupial at 03:38 AM on 29 September 2011
    There is no consensus
    Dana69 Pointing out that mainstream science has been wrong on occasions before where there has been concensus does not mean that the existence of a concensus on AGW tells us nothing about the likelihood of AGW being correct. To make such an inference you would also need to consider the number of occasions where there has been a scientific concensus on some issue where the concensus has been correct. The solidity of the science is what causes the concensus, not the other way round, you are correct to point that out. However a corrolary of that is that the existence of a concensus is usually a pretty good indication that the science is solid. Thus while the existence of a concensus has no bearing on whether the science is actually correct or not, it is completely rational to take the existence of a concensus amongst the experts as strong evidence that the science is solid, and that it would be wise to be primarily guided by mainstream science rather than scientific "outliers" when deciding on a course of action.
  27. Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen - I would point out that it's the rationality (or lack thereof) of denial makes it quite possible to hold contradictory views. I do not see why you are getting so vehement, particularly with people who agree with you about the evidence for anthropogenically caused global warming, - over the (ir)rationality of those who do not. Quite frankly, the folks here are the wrong people to have this conversation with - rather, you should speak directly to those in denial about how contradictory their views are.
  28. Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen: If I may, you appear to be splitting hairs. Others have provided documentation of noted contrarians & denialists acknowledging the physical basis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, while still denying the policy implications of its massive & rapid build-up in the atmosphere and the resulting follow-on effects.
  29. Understanding climate denial
    cRR_Kampen @51, While a appreciate your enthusiasm on this particular subject, it seems that the thread is getting somewhat off topic by discussing the details of climate sensitivity. If you read my post above I think that you'll see that we are largely in agreement. Dana wrote a post recently on the observed warming and how that compares with what has been observed, so perhaps that is a more appropriate venue to discuss this further, as this thread is primarily concerned with understanding denial. Thanks.
  30. Dikran Marsupial at 03:22 AM on 29 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen wrote: "It remains a contradiction in terms. GHG implies climate sensitity. You can't call a gas a GHG then state that climate sensitivity for that gas is low or nil. " Climate sensitivity is a measure of the response of the climate to a change in forcings, and it is pretty much the same regardless of what type of forcing is considered. Thus there is no contradiction to accept that CO2 is a GHG with forcing that is logarithmically increasing with concentration, with constants as set out by the IPCC, but still not accept that it is a significant problem because climate sensitivity to ANY forcing is low (which is Spencers argument). Now the distinction between forcing and climate sensitivity is a pretty basic and fundamental one; perhaps you ought to question your certainty on issues such as how perfectly the observations fit AGW theory, at least until you fully grasp the distinction between forcing and sensitivity. The observations fall within the range of what AGW theory considers plauible - but that range is pretty broad. This means that the observations being consistent with the predictions of the theory doesn't imply that the prediction has any great skill or that the theory is significantly corroborated by the observations. While denial is a bad thing, over-confidence in the absolute correctness of AGW theory is equally bad, a few parts of the science genuinely are setted, some are not, climate sensitivity is one of the bits that is relatively unsettled. The skeptics who argue that climate sensitivity is low are in a fairly weak position, but to suggest it is completely untennable is to be in denial, just in the other direction. IMHO of course.
  31. There is no consensus
    Dan69, Let us cut to the chase here. 1) Do you agree that most of the observed warming the past 100 years is from humans burning fossil fuels? 2) Do you deny the theory (it is no longer a hypothesis) of AGW? That is, do you deny the physics behind it? 3) Do you deny the body of evidence consistent with the theory across many scientific disciplines? Please make your position very clear, and perhaps the best way to do this is for you to state what you believe the equilibrium climate sensitivity is for doubling CO2. A number please with 95% confidence limits. Dana69 "And I have simply pointed out that the consensus argument is not a valid scientific argument. And that it depends on which scientists you choose to believe." Nature does not choose to believe any opinion, it is physics, chemistry, biology etc. And the observations, across many disciplines are perfectly consistent with the theory of AGW. So on that note, instead of railing against "consensus", you should really be railing against "consilience". As for consensus, you know what is intriguing Dana69? The reason that consensus on AGW came to the fore was because "skeptics" and those who deny AGW were claiming that scientists do not agree on the subject. How does one address that? You show them that scientists are in agreement, that the body of evidence and observations across many scientific disciplines are consistent with the theory of AGW. What does the "skeptics" then say, "Well, consensus is based on scientific evidence, but consensus itself is not scientific evidence. Consensus is merely a statistical survey of scientific opinion. It is not a guarantee that the scientific opinion is correct." And so the faux debate continues. "Skeptics" have had since the days of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius to overturn the building blocks of AGW, and have not...so in lieu of making substantive scientific arguments they have to resort to playing games.
  32. Understanding climate denial
    Robert Murphy #48, we have a warming of close to 1 K coupled with 35% increase in CO2. That is nicely according to theory. That means IF there is a negative feedback THEN either CO2 is an even stronger GHG than theory suggests OR it means there is another warming effect out there. Which is it to be? Show the feedback and explain how CO2 is even a stronger GHG than we know, OR show the independent warming effect! Or else let the denialists do away with Ockham's Razor and introduce the lepechuans. By the way, isn't a feedback-effect incorporated in 'climate sensitivity'?
  33. Understanding climate denial
    As far as the word "denier" goes, I found an approach that works on my site - I ask the person who complains about the word if they'd prefer the synonym "rejectionist" instead. I've never had someone come back and say "sure," or respond at all for that matter. To me this suggests that the complaint about "denier" was an attempt to claim the mantle of victim and/or was issued by a troll who was trying to divert the course of discussion.
  34. There is no consensus
    For the record -- in anticipation of possible misinterpretations of my position on global warming -- I have not attacked the scientific consensus. I have not denied there is a consensus where there truly is a consensus. I have however, attacked claims of consensus where there is no actual consensus. And I have simply pointed out that the consensus argument is not a valid scientific argument. And that it depends on which scientists you choose to believe. But I am not attacking the consensus that the Earth is warming. I believe the earth is warming.....
  35. Understanding climate denial
    Here’s yet another confirmation about the the direct reltionahip between one’s poliitical ideology and one’s views on cliamate change. When it comes to views on global warming, Oregonians are living in "separate realities" based on political ideology, a new online survey indicates. Source: “On global warming, Oregonians see 'separate realities,' survey finds,” OregonLive.com, Sep 26, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
  36. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    Yes Martin, ice-free ice does not form often. Dikran I do not know if anyone has any quantative data on the salinity of the ice. As opposed to the experiment where the ice constitutes abot half the volume, over 99.9% of the water in the Arctic Ocean is present in the liquid state. The melting ice probably does not change the density by any measureable amount.
  37. There is no consensus
    Consensus is based on science, but science is not based on consensus. Consensus is a political argument, not a scientific argument. The scientific process is based on evidence, not consensus. Scientific evidence does not care about any consensus. Consensus does not imply that the science is correct. To argue otherwise is to commit these two fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority That, in a nutshell, is why scientific "truth" is not determined by consensus, but rather by evidence. Here are some recent examples of the scientific consensus being wrong. Each of the following examples were initially rejected by the consensus, but the consensus changed based on evidence. the theory of continental drift the theory of symbiogenesis the theory of punctuated equilibria the theory of prions the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. Consensus is based on scientific evidence, but consensus itself is not scientific evidence. Consensus is merely a statistical survey of scientific opinion. It is not a guarantee that the scientific opinion is correct. Settled science claims are inductive arguments which assumes the number of scientists who agree strengthen then argument. While induction does not strengthen the argument scientifically,it does strengthen the argument in a rhetorical sense. Consensus is a rhetorical (political) argument, not a scientific argument. Politics relies heavily on consensus. Science does not. Policy decisions ought to be made on the best available information,and in that sense only is consensus valuable.
  38. Understanding climate denial
    "You can't call a gas a GHG then state that climate sensitivity for that gas is low or nil." Sure you can. All you have to do is show that there is a strong negative feedback associated with a rise in temperature which will act to minimize any forcing from a rise in GHG's. Most of the more sophisticated "skeptics" accept the base 1.1*C or so of warming from a doubling of CO2. Where they differ from most climate scientists is in claiming that the net feedbacks from this 1.1*C rise is negative or close to it. Now, the evidence is strongly against such a low sensitivity, but the that doesn't mean that there is a logical contradiction involved in accepting the greenhouse effect and a low climate sensitivity.
  39. Understanding climate denial
    Alex C @21: If "skeptics" want to be known as real skeptics then they ought to do exactly what a real skeptics does, which is look at the entire body of evidence. Otherwise they are (as Tamino has been putting to good use) "fake skeptics," or "deniers" as so often the shoe fits. You are dead on. What I always ask a denier is if they've read the actual IPCC report (I'm not a scientist, BTW). Typically I get an answer like "the IPCC is a biased political organization with an agenda ... ." That's denial, not skepticism. A few better versed deniers will jump on trivial errors like the Himalayan Glaciers. I ask them if they're so sure it's wrong how come no one has documented all the flaws, page by page, line by line, including citations of the errors in the peer reviewed literature, even though they've had 4 years to do that. At that point the best I get is non-scientific nonsense writings on the Internet. So here's my take: if you're so sure that the 5,000+ peer-reviewed papers and hundreds of skilled research scientists who read and analyzed them to put together the IPCC report are wrong, but no one can be bothered to dissect that document to show where it's wrong, then you're a part of the denial community, not the skeptic community.
  40. Understanding climate denial
    "Where they disagree is on how sensitive the climate is to those CO2 emissions and that energy imbalance. They think it won't result in a large temperature change. But they don't deny that CO2 is a GHG." says Dana1981 in #42. It remains a contradiction in terms. GHG implies climate sensitity. You can't call a gas a GHG then state that climate sensitivity for that gas is low or nil. That's like stating sun and moon exert gravity whereas tides are caused by anything but gravity. In other words I would like to change 'sophistication' into 'sophistry'. For Dikran Marsupial #39, first remember Ockham's razor, second remember that AGW-theory estimates a warming of something between 2 and 4 K on doubling of CO2 (including H2O-feedback) and puts the effect of a 35% increase therefore at around +1 K. Now you say: "Many leading skeptical scientists do not say that the warming is caused by something other than AGW, just that negative feedback means that it [the warming due to AGW] is not a significant problem. " Question: what 'negative feedback'? (as to the 'significance' of the problem I will say nothing in this context). "Secondly the observations do not conform perfectly to AGW theory." - Actually they do. The observations fall quite in the middle of all bona fide theory and model estimations, from Arrhenius 1904 (but not 1986) to the models I encountered during my university years (meteorology/oceangraphy, indeed)as from the middle eighties until today. They do so even in details re distribution of temperature increase re latitude and height.
  41. Understanding climate denial
    @John Cook: How do the concepts that you have presented in the above article mesh with your May 30 article, “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?” ?
  42. Understanding climate denial
    The real issue isn't one of names or tags; it is one of what a person is willing to accept. In the case of climate change, there is an unreal amount of outcomes that can occur, so vast that individuals have no real way to comprehend how our big experiment will change the Earth, society, and people's lives, from rich to the poor, north to the south, etc. There is the magnitude of warming that has a range, there is a range of effects on the hydro-logical cycle, range of effects on jet streams, uncertainty in extreme weather, drought, etc, etc. It is the inability of certain groups of people to accept that range, and that reject that these changes will have strong negative effects on people, society, the environment, etc that is the real problem. A reasonable skeptic will always see the full range of the possibilities, using science a guide. I am perfectly willing to accept that climate change may not be a big deal, that it may not result in catastrophe that calls for large changes to the way in which we produce our energy and use land and transport goods, but what I'm not willing to do is ignore the risk that it will. So until people begin to get on the same page on what the range of risks are, discussing what to do about it seems premature. That is the real risk of denial. So when conversations get heated, and someone calls you a name like 'denier', understand what you are denying and why the other person has become frustrated. And if it's me, I apologize in advance.
  43. Understanding climate denial
    Good discussion, Chris @38, you make some excellent points. I would argue that "skeptics" like Lindzen and Spencer and Christy are in fact denial about the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It is not enough to accept that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases (GHGs) and that doubling CO2 will increase the global temperature by about 1.1 K. The theory also states that positive feedbacks (water vapour, albedo etc.) will amplify the warming from GHGs alone. There is abundant evidence from paleoclimate data that support that, not to mention solid physics such as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. What is obvious is that these skeptics do not openly deny the theory of AGW (they have to maintain some credibility to manufacture debate), instead they create the perception that they do, and instead on focus on trying to obfuscate, undermine and downplay the situation. Now maybe this is not conscious on their part, perhaps like Lomborg, they are in denial about being in denial. Note that Spencer and Lindzen are very cagey and wary of paleoclimate data. There is a reason for this, because those data undermine their entire case/argument for strong negative feedbacks, and for very low climate sensitivity for a radiative forcing of 3.7 W m-2 (in this case from doubling CO2). Note that by ignoring those paleo data they are also denying the full body of evidence. Now this is just a simple case, there are many variants on this by which people rationalize that there is not a problem-- they argue that the surface temperature record is unreliable (sadly even when their own data refute that claim, it does not change their minds), they cherry-pick particular datasets and/or short time windows that support their belief that the planet is not warming or accumulating energy, they argue that the warming is mostly due to internal natural variability (ENSO, PDO), or they argue that it is due to external natural variability (the sun), they may even argue that what we are going to experience is of no concern because climate has always changed in the past, sometimes dramatically and one and one and on it goes ad infinitum.
  44. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    Jonathan, Did you mean to say, "...leaving a largely salt-free sheet of ice", instead of "ice-free"?
  45. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Could this be where RPSr is getting his 26% figure? If you include water vapour as a forcing rather than a feedback, then the contribution of CO2 is much smaller by proportion. However you would then have to argue that the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere was independent of the increase in temperature due to GHG forcing. If you believe sensitivity is low, then the temperature change due to anthropogenic GHGs is low, then the increase in water vapour must come from somewhere else, and so can be considered a forcing. See for example this table in the Wikipedia article on Greenhouse gas.
    Response:

    [DB] Added link.

  46. Understanding climate denial
    cRR - you're missing a key point. The more sophisticated "skeptics" don't deny the greenhouse effect - as Kevin C noted @15, they generally agree on the radiative forcing from increased CO2. That's agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes an energy imbalance. Where they disagree is on how sensitive the climate is to those CO2 emissions and that energy imbalance. They think it won't result in a large temperature change. But they don't deny that CO2 is a GHG. But back to the post, the key point is that those in denial are denying the full body of scientific evidence. They'll consider some evidence, but reject other evidence that doesn't conform to what they want to believe. The "attitude bolstering" point in John's post is an interesting concept I hadn't heard of before.
  47. Understanding climate denial
    The following is the type of story that will get the average person's attention and neutralize the pseudo-science poppycok being generated the Climate Spin Machine. “The majestic Rockies are delivering a message these days. “Climate change is not a theory, not a debate, in these mountains. It is there for your eyes to witness. The glaciers are shrinking rapidly and changing appearance, even from when I first hiked there as a 10-year-old.” Source: “Icing the case for global warming: The Canadian Rockies' disappearing glaciers,” SeattlePI.com, Sep 27, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
  48. Understanding climate denial
    John @33, An interesting article. They quote Lomberg: "He was, he says, never a climate-change denier." Later they quote Lomberg opining that: "Climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls. Actually, for the world in general, the direct impact of climate change in 2050 will mean fewer dead, and not by a small amount." It sounds like Lomberg is in denial about being in denial about the consequences of increasing CO2 to its highest level in 35 million years in 2100 (Kiehl 2011) if we continue with business-as usual. Another quote: "The reason he received funding in the first place was ideological," said Ms Auken, environment spokesman for SF, the junior partner in the incoming coalition. "We believe that it is wrong to give funding to specific ideological researchers." Ouch.
  49. Dikran Marsupial at 01:15 AM on 29 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen wrote "the CO2 induced warming is not limited. Its magnitude conforms perfectly to AGW-theory.". It is an overstatement to categorically state that CO2 induced warming is not limited by negative feedback, only that the balance of the available evidence is strongly against it. Secondly the observations do not conform perfectly to AGW theory, again that is an overstatement. The observations are consistent with AGW-theory, however the uncertainties in the measurements and in the spread of th model runs, mean that AGW theory doesn't make tighly constraining predictions that exclude other possibilities. "And again, if they think GW is caused by something other than CO2-increase" as I said, you are not paying sufficient attention to the argument. Many leading skeptical scientists do not say that the warming is caused by something other than AGW, just that negative feedback means that it [the warming due to AGW] is not a significant problem.
  50. Understanding climate denial
    I think cRR Kampen has a point. Perhaps a better way of stating the position of denial with respect to greenhouse gases would be to say that these people reject the evidence that: "the dominant contribution to the raised temperature of the Earth above its blackbody temperature arises from greenhouse gasses". If one considers Dr. Lindzen's position on this, we've just seen that he agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is in agreement with the value of its primary radiative forcing. His rejection of the evidence that positive feedbacks amplify the primary effect of CO2 to the degree accepted by the broader scientific community is based on ad hoc objections that don't stand up to scrutiny. Thus: 1. His initial assertion for low sensitivity was that the tropospheric warming resulting from enhanced [CO2] would cause the upper troposphere to dry, thus producing a negative water vapour feedback. We know absolutely that this assertion is incorrect. Dr. Lindzen doesn't adjust his views on feedbacks/sensitivity in the fce of this evidence but moves on to a second ad hoc assertion, viz: 2. The Earth has an "adaptive iris" that opposes temperature excursions from some mean, and which acts via a cloud response that provided a negative feedback. Empirical analysis provides no support for this notion, and in fact recent empricial data (Dessler/Clement) indicates that the cloud feedback is likely to be a marginally positive one (rather than strongly negative). Dr. Lindzen doesn't adjust his views of sensitivity/feedbacks in the face of this evidence, but moves onto a third ad hoc assertion, viz 3. An analysis of short term TOA radiative response to changes in surface temperature over the tropics as measured by ERBE data indicates a rapidly-acting negative feedback. Independent analysis indicates that this interpretation is entirely an artefact resulting from neglecting heat exchange with higher latitudes and an astonishing "cherry pick" of selected analysis time periods. The essential element here is the pursuit of a preconceived view completely in the face of rather well-established contrary evidence. Now we may say that this doesn't mean that Dr. Lindzen "denies" that [CO2] is a greenhouse gas. However he certainly seems to be pursuing a denial that [CO2] acts as a greenhous gas in the manner that is supported by a large amount of independent evidence and analyses.

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