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  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Comments 701 to 750:

  1. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Dean... Seems the buried lede is here: "... Hansen’s assumptions will not happen. We are not going to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fixed for thousands of years. We will definitely stop burning fossil fuels in somewhere between a few decades to a few centuries and the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will decline after that."  

    My point here is, you seem to be going off topic talking about the rate of increasing CO2 concentrations (@7) rather than discussing warming in the pipeline.

  2. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Rob@8, Zeke and Andrew Dessler take issue with how Hansen is defining "warming in the pipeline." Basically, he is assuming constant atmospheric concentrations and then he is holding it there for millenia to allow slow feedback mechanisms to kick in, Ref. theclimatebrink.com 5/22/23 . 

    Evan@7, If you wait to see a significant decrease of the rate of increase of CO2, it will be too late. You won't see that until we have made significant progress in reducing man made emissions, see projected CO2 ppm vs emission scenarios, Climate change:Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide .

  3. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Evan @7... I believe the rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is a different issue than warming in the pipeline, though. Mann (and Hausfather) are taking issue with Hansen's claim there would potentially be decades of warming even after bringing CO2 emissions under control.

  4. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Dean@6, I hope you're correct. Personally, I will only change my view when there is a statistically significant decrease of the rate of increase of CO2, because ultimately the three facts you cite do not determine how the environment will respond. Collectively they are an important component, but only one component that affects the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Noting that our emissions are only about 4% of natural emissions, we only have to affect natural emissions, or sinks, by a small amount to overwhelm our efforts to control the rate of accumulation of CO2.

    I am not really arguing against you, but using this forum to remind the readers of other factors involved. I respect that the facts you're quoting are accurate and come from reliable sources. So I am merely noting that they only represent one piece of the puzzle, and noting that we may still be a bit optimistic about how the natural world will respond to what we have already done and continue to do. I think Hansen differs from other because he has a different view of how sensitive the natural world is to our actions.

  5. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Evan@5, I understand. I prefer to look to the moderate voices in almost any circumstance. To quote Zeke, I am cautiously optimistic about our future and getting to net zero. We have bent the curve on global emissions and according to the IEA and others, e.g. Rystad energy, we may well hit peak emissons this year or at least by 2025.

    I follow the progress of the U.S. electrical sector emissions. Here are three positive facts about our progress.

     

    1. Renewable generation surpassed coal and nuclear in the U.S. electric power sector in 2022, link.

    2. Add nuclear to the renewables and emission-free carbon sources account for almost 40% of the generation in the U.S.

    3. The specific carbon intensity of the US electrical sector has decreased by 40% between 2000 and 2022, falling from 650 kg/MWh to 390 MWh.

  6. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Dean@4, When the IPCC was just being formed, it was Hansen in 1988 who was sounding the alarm. Hansen has always been at the forefront of climate predictions, preceding the IPCC in his assessment of how severe the climate crisis is and will likely become. The IPCC has always represented a baseline assessment of where we're heading, and not necessrily an accurate assessment of just how bad things could get.

    But let's find common agreement, because I've read the paper by Hausfather (read here) where he shows that temperatures will be frozen if we reach Net 0 emissions. I understand the arguments you're making.; But with CO2 concentrations rising at 2.5 ppm/year, and the state of world affairs leaning ever more to the right, it will be a long long time before I hold any hope for reaching Net 0 emissions. I will continue to encourage others to view our warming commitment as corresponding to the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anything beyond that is contingent on global actions that are still struggling in their infancy. Yes, we have lots of talk and agreements, yes wind power has been increasing, but with CO2 rising at 2.5 ppm/year, apparently we have yet to sufficiently impress the natural world that we're doing enough.

  7. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Evan, It is not just Mann that disagrees with Hansen. I believe that Hansen holds the minority position here. Both Zeke and Mann reference the IPCC special report on 1.5C that warming will cease when we get to net zero emissions.  To me, the IPCC represents the consensus thinking. There is a recent paper by Dvorak and Armour that reaches bascially the same conclusion, Ref. , and adresses the aerosol effect.

    If you follow Zeke at theclimatebrink.com and/or X, he has addressed directly Hansen's pipeline paper and his high estimate of climate sensitivity. Also, Zeke's latest analysis of record breaking temperatures relative to the multimodel averages can be found at theclimatebrink.com.

  8. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Rob, that does not make Michael Mann correct. "No warming in the pipeline is a theoretical concept that requires us to completely restructure society. Hansen cannot be easily dismissed by simply citing a different researcher. I live my life assuming that we are committed to the level of warming reflected by the current CO2 concentration. I think this is a reasonable approach. I hope I'm wrong and that Michael Mann is correct. But I tend to side with Hansen.

  9. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Evan... Michael Mann is in pretty firm disagreement with Hansen on this issue. 

  10. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Hausfather's recent paper (read here) suggests there is no "warming in the pipeline" should we reach net-zero emissions. Hansen's new paper cited in the above article (read here) uses the very provocative title, "Global warming in the pipeline". Given that one of the leading voices in the climate community (i.e., Hansen) releases a paper now with this provocative title, should give pause to the idea that the warming is in our hands and under our control.

    It is likely that the environmental system is far more sensitive than we are willing to admit.

  11. Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable

    Not to mention, that if you want to postulate that geothermal heat is cause of recent WA melt, then you need to show a mechanism that can suddenly increase the heat flux over a wide area is a very short space of time. Not actually possible with conductive geothermal heat. In short, those fluxes have been present for a very long time.

  12. Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable

    David-acct @ 1:

    Oh, my. A paper that shows that there is a geothermal heat flux of 285 milliwatts/m2 at a site in the West Antarctic ice sheet. And 105 milliwatts/m2 flowing up through the ice sheet!

    Your "complete analysis" is no such thing. This sort of argument has been discussed previously here in comments on more than one thread. Try reading some of the comments adjacent to these ones:

    Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

    Why do glaciers lose ice?

  13. Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable

    Surprising that there was no mention of the geothermal activity in West Antarctica .  The article only mentions warming seas as if global warming was the primary cause of the West antarctica sea ice melting.

    Far better to provide a more complete analysis

    www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500093

     

    www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=135624&org=NSF

  14. Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

    Thanks, Res01 @41  (and forgive my perhaps over-courteous usage of a capital letter for your moniker ~ that is simply my customary literary style).

    Time is precious in this modern age . . . and so, no  ,  have not read the OP's Robertson  paper [the link showed as Page Not Found]  nor the Stumm  paper [unlinked].    Yes, it is quick to read a paper's Extract; and where that is insufficiently informative, still it is usually possible to skim through the body/conclusion of a paper to identify the salient points.   But it's even better if one can "Cut To The Chase".

    All the same, there is so much information "out there" on the internet ~ that the SkS  website staff have created a Comments Policy which requests all commenters to respect readers' time . . . by giving a sufficiently detailed relevant description/summary of (linked) citations.  Whether the citation/link is an actual scientific paper or simply a journalistic article.

    # That request applies in Spades, to video links (even if the video is only 5 minutes long).   As you know, videos can be a great time-waster.   That's why a summary of the video's message and significance can be a great help to the flow of the discussion happening in the thread here.

    Res01 ~  I particularly ask for your deeper discussion of the essential science of this topic of "CO2 impact" on human (and animal) bodies.  That is because I fear that a major mistake is being raised (and I would be pleased to be corrected if I am wrong about that).

    Evolution has designed the body to operate at a specific set point (or very narrow range)  of acidity/pH.   You can temporarily disturb that pH by hyperventilating (to raise the pH)  or by re-breathing into the classic paper bag (to lower the pH).   But in the long run, it is the kidney (as mentioned earlier)  which maintains the body's day-by-day acidity level.   Renal function is vital !

    And it is (as yet) unclear to me if Robertson / Stumm / and other sources, have made allowance for those basic facts of physiology.   Are they making a giant blunder ~ or am I making a blundering assessment of their warnings?   Please discuss.

  15. Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

    Eclectic @40,

    Thank you noting my post.

    I am not sure if you read the RE Stumm article*, or watched the movie,  but the calculations made by Stumm in his article shifts the curve by Robertson over a bit, but generally confirms what is being said here by M. Popkiewicz; the CO2 physiological danger is not being overblown. If we are not already done in by climate change, the direct effects of CO2 on us and other life forms will start haunting us around the end of the century.  I suppose it depends on one's age if this is alarmist or not. If you're a senior with no kids like I am who is going to check out in a few years anyways then the whole subject is simply academic. However, if I were a twenty something or younger who may likely otherwise live to see the end of the century, I'd be freaking out right now.

    *The R.E. Stumm article unfortunately is behind a paywall. However a preprint that is not too significantly off from the peer reviewed published article can be found at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4500439.  Recommend reading as it should answer your questions on CO2 impact on human body physiology.

  16. Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

    Res01 @39 :

    Agreed ~ as stated in a number of comments [2014 onwards] earlier in this thread, this whole question of CO2 physiological danger is overblown.

    The original research article was of poor quality and poor experimental methodology, and hence poor conclusions.  Or so I gather from others' comments [for me, the linked Robertson article showed as Page Not Found].   I would also argue from basic principles of bodily homeostasis, that whatever transient mental incapacitation (minor, I gather) would occur for a few hours at higher ambient CO2  ~ the body would respond (by increased renal excretion of acid) in the longer run, with the effect of raising the blood pH back to the normal range.

    No need for any alarm, for man nor beast (nor fish).

    Res01 ~ pehaps you might be kind enough to comment specifically on that R.E.Stumm  article, and also the "Die Back" video you mentioned.   I am unclear whether you mean they are alarmist or not.

  17. Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

    Not to detract from the general argument, but as noted by other posts, Figure 1from D. Robertson is a little off. What D. Robertson overlooks in his calculations is that arterial CO2 partial pressure in the human bloodstream, as it is in most mammals, is a significantly higher than what it is in ambient atmosphere. That means a percentage rise in CO2 in the atmosphere makes for a much smaller percentage rise of CO2 concentration in the bloodstream. In short at low CO2 levels the effect is a whole lot less. Not until CO2 levels reach about 1000ppm in the does the change become notable in the bloodstream. That means the effects of CO2 will not be notable in the human body until around 1000ppm (ok, maybe around 600ppm for a few canaries among us.) Nevertheless, direct impact of CO2 on the human body should still be a big concern because 1000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will be what we see by the end of this century if the world keeps on the course that it is presently on. Now consider fish whose arterial CO2 pressures are generally an order of magnitude less than that of mammals. They will see the effects much earlier, and most likely by the end of the century will die off significantly. Also, while plants do thrive on a little extra CO2, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations over 1000ppm they tend to die off. So, what we may see is that fish and plants will die back first leaving humans without sufficient means for sustainment. For a more concise treatment of the subject please refer to, “ Carbon Dioxide’s Direct Impact on Down-Regulating the Human Species”, by R.E. Stumm, published in Science of the Total Environment, 19 September 2023.* *https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37734619/

     

    Also check out the video short “The Die Back” on Rumble** **https://rumble.com/v23ofba-the-die-back-2.1.html

  18. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    WasAScientist @12 ,

    Might be an idea to look at the opportunity costs.

    Back of envelope ~ what would the budget be for 10,000 climate scientists, in grants/salaries and support costs?   (And possibly they're not all working exclusively on climate-related matters?)

    How many birds are killed by wind turbines versus killed by pet cats or by impact with buildings?  The answer may horrify bird-lovers.

    What proportion of AGW is caused by NF3 ?      >0.1% ?

    Has the USA budget for pet food & care exceeded $100Billion p.a. ?

    Opportunity costs, and resource allocation . . . 

    A few years back, I heard a panel discussion by a group of various experts ~ their conclusion was that the world could largely eliminate most of the major world problems by the intelligent spending of . . .

    . . . wait for it . . .

    . . . about 10% of the world's annual military budget.

    Hmm.

    .

  19. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    Eclectic @11

    Well, look at it this way.  If we did away with those climate science positions, it may actually clear the way to support development of clean energy much better than those wind turbines that are dangerous, expensive, damaging to the land on which they are installed, and a real menace to the aviary population.  Also, manufacturing those solar cells involves NF3 gas which has a greenhouse effect about 17000 times as strong as CO2.  Furthermore, none of these sources are adequate for heavy industry.

    You might also be interested to know that while I was in graduate school, I chose a major field of study in plasma physics and hoped for a career in controlled thermo-nuclear fusion research.  That, of course, never happened.  But maybe more progress can now be made in this field if we redirect some of these climate change funds.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Look at it this way: your repeated violations of our Comments Policy grew tired a long, long time ago.

  20. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    WasAScientist @10 :

          "That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with a high certainty & confirmed by observations."

    Dang right !

          "it seems that the climate scientists have completed their work and there is no longer any need for their research positions."

    Well mebbe so . . . mebbe taint so.   Us common folks would sure kinda like a whole lot more idea of zactly how fast this here global warming is gurn on.   Could be mighty useful in our plans.   Could make a helluva big difference, I reckon.

    And cos some of them fancy elites is still a-saying there's no problem in sight and we all should kinda relax and do nuthing . . . well, we'd like a good bit more confirmation about all that, for or agin.   If'n that's okay with y'all.

  21. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    In the opening statement of this Climate Myth, it is claimed that climate scientists could make far more money in other careers, and I believe it is time they did just that.  According to Climate Myth 69 which states

    That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.

    it seems that the climate scientists have completed their work and there is no longer any need for their research positions.  At this point, people are either convinced of AGW or they are not.  If they are not convinced, as is the case with most common folks, it's highly unlikely that more science is going to change them.

    In my case, I was a US defense scientist with a Ph.D. in physics when the "End of the Cold War" (or "Outbreak of Peace") terminated my career after just eight years.  I was simply told that there was no longer a need for the service I was providing since the former East Block countries promised to behave themselves from now on. 

    Well, I sure hope the climate scientists have much better luck than I did in finding a new career if their current one vanishes.  Whenever I tried to break into anything new, I was always beat out by those with more experience.

    At any rate, there is little more the climate scientists can do to get people converted over to carbon-free energy.  Instead, what would be needed is a global Gestapo to enforce the no-carbon provisions on folks regardless of the harm they cause, and I know of no nation that would go for that.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The return of another sock puppet.

     

  22. At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    Should have guessed that level of cluelessness would be our persistent spammer. 

  23. At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    Philippe @3 , @4  :

    Your very rational arguments are a real party-pooper.

    Moonwatcher builds a house of cards, and you go and pull away the supporting cards at the base.

    Another factor, beyond the mental horizon of perhaps half the population, is that a great many scientists are in the job of science because that  is what they are interested in doing.  Few of them would object to receiving the money attached to a Nobel Prize ~ but the Prize itself is the . . . er, prize . . . rather than the dollars (or krona).   And they would do the same job, even if the Nobel did not exist.

    Strangely enough, it is evident that most Actors, Artists, Authors . . . through the alphabet to Zoo-keepers, are primarily interested in the work they do  in their lives (rather than for a living ).     # As a frequent visitor to the WattsUpWithThat  blogsite, I find it notable that the overwhelming majority of commenters there seem to have their lives ruled by Dollars and Conspiracies (and worse).  They look at AGW, and all they can see is $$$ (or worse).

  24. At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    And one other note - if you narrow the climate funding to what is spent on climate research (ie where scientists work as opposed to money spent on adaptation, alternative energy etc), then the bulk of money goes on satellites and supercomputers. I'm pretty curious about the oversupply of scientists. Why is it so hard to get staff then?

    Financiers might be involved in adaptation, but governments fund research on the whole. Oil companies have plenty of smart scientists and resources (worked in petroleum research for years). If AGW is fraud, then surely they could spend $$ on research to demonstrate. They instead opted to spend money on disinformation - must better bang for buck. The problem being that their own scientists give them bad news.

  25. Philippe Chantreau at 10:07 AM on 31 October 2023
    At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    More questions:

    What sources report a gross over-supply of engineers and scientists, a term used twice in post #2 above?

    I have a little familiarity with the aerospace industry, where many scientists with physics and applied mathematics backgrounds can use their competence, even if they are not specifically trained as aerospace engineers. There is a serious shortage of talent in that field.

    I am also familiar with medicine and biomedical applications, where shortage of scientists and engineers are also a problem, easily confirmed by any basic search.

    Other sources report a serious shortage of hydrologists, a profession of very high interest for the future. 

    I'll add this article from the Bureau of labor Statistics. Of special interest is this quote: "A comprehensive literature review, in conjunction with employment statistics, newspaper articles, and our own interviews with company recruiters, reveals a significant heterogeneity in the STEM labor market: the academic sector is generally oversupplied, while the government sector and private industry have shortages in specific areas."

    So, once again, how does this constitute a "gross over-supply"?

     

    If anything, with the supply and demand law being what it is and the immense financial means available to private industries, it seems that this imbalance abundantly confirms that there is more money to be made for science majors in the private sector than in research, does it not?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The bulk of the comment you are responding to has been deleted, being from a serial sock puppet.

  26. Philippe Chantreau at 09:31 AM on 31 October 2023
    At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    Interesting theory.

    From the chronological point of view, would it not be possible to observe the emergence of a consensus of research results before the accumulation of investments that resulted from that consensus? If that is the case (it assuredly is), does that not make it impossible for these investments to be the cause of the results, since effects can not precede cause?

    What is the source for that 5 trillion figure? This would correspond to a vast array of very diverse and numerous separate "industries" and interests, how do they coordinate their influence on those scientists anxious for their jobs? How can said scientists know where the money is coming from and ensure they say what is expected of them? Once a large number of studies from.many different sources all converge in one direction, is it still reasonable to assume that it is just the result of efforts to satisfy funding sources? How about studies coming from sources that have an interest against belief in AGW that also confirm these results?

    What are the criteria to declare that a business existence and success are dependent on "belief" in AGW?

    Is there a figure for the level of investment dependent on delaying energy transition policies?

    Not that I would engage in deflection but, to pursue the same logic, what level of public opinion manipulation can be expected from a single industry that generates hundreds of billions of profits (not talking about investments here, simply profits)?  Would it not be easier to coordinate an effort to manipulate when only a few very large interest groups are involved? 

    Just asking questions.

  27. At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    The statement that

    There are many much easier ways for an intelligent and literate person to make money. If money was the motive, they'd be in another career.

    is highly misleading. Those who were educated as scientists simply would not qualify for other careers, except possibly in one-in-a-million exceptions where a rich uncle, for example, was willing to take him/her in and get them up-to-speed. Normally, they are simply told that they don't have the right background for the job.

    It is true that while employed, scientists can make a respectable but certainly not extravavent living. With the gross over-supply of scientists and enginners, however, their careers are always tenuous at best. I know because I have been there and have been in contact with others in the same boat.

    Now consider the fact that there is already well over $5 trillion (USD) invested in the climate change industry (ie. businesses whose success depends on the general belief in AGW). Put yourself in the shoes of one of the financiers investing that money. Would you tend to grant funds to scientists who speak unfavorably about the AGW theory, thereby jepardizing their clients investments? And, with the gross over-supply of qualified scientists, there will always be some willing to sing to the same sheet of music as the financiers. These are the scientists that we call successful, but are certainly not rich.  They do, however, keep their jobs (hopefully!), and are the ones that are polled in establishing consensus figures.

    From this relatively small pool of successful scientists, a few climb the ladder to prestigious positions such as scientific advisors to various political, entrepreneurial, and military celebrities.  These are the only scientists that come close to being "rich" by most peoples standards.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL} User banned as yet another sock puppet.

     

  28. CO2 effect is saturated

    Please accept my apologies regarding my previous post. It looked initially as if there had been no comments here since 2019. Once I had posted, I saw that there were some more recent pages of comments and I have just seen that this paper has been discussed.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Yes, the comments section on this thread is long and convoluted. Navigation is not as easy as we'd like.

    Note that Skeptical Science also has an internal search function, available just under the masthead on the upper left of each page. You can use that to find material, and it will search the contents of comments if you follow the button on the results page (which at first only presents hits in our blog posts and rebuttals).



  29. CO2 effect is saturated

    In recent interactions regarding the topic of saturation, I have on a few occasions now been directed to a relatively recent paper by Wijngaarden and Happer (Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098). Now, I know Happer at least has enough history to warrant extreme skepticism and that, if he really had any new insights, this work would probably have had more of an impact. On the other hand, I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert and am unable to pinpoint what is wrong with what he is saying. Much of what is in the paper seems to be "standard" physics but at some point his conclusions diverge from what I understand from elsewhere. I wondered if anyone here could offer any insight.

  30. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43

    Ever heard of a "metaphor," Davz?

    But, I'm going to assume this is yet another in your long series of drive-by posting, and really, Davz not here, man.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Yet another, but the last. Davz won't be here any more.

     

  31. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43

    According to the UN "the world is boiling ". Anyone like to tell me where?  And shouldn't we all be dead?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Past warnings to engage in full discussion are being ignored. As a result, this will be Davz last post.

     

  32. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Rob Honeycutt @58  [re your final sentence and "gish-gallopped"] ~

    Indeed, poor Dr Clauser seemingly has left the building.

    To confess, I did briefly ponder that TWFA's expansive postings were perhaps the product of one of the newer generations of Chat-GPT.    However ~ the topics raised were too discursive, inapt, and self-oriented to be other than of human origin.  The depth of knowledge was also not up to Chat-GPT's level.

    And the picture formed, of a modern Laocoon (minus sons) struggling with the many large serpents of Global Warming.

    TWFA , please struggle with only one serpent at a time (per one thread).   Other serpents await you on other threads, in accordance with the house rules of SkepticalScience  website.   I admire your confidence in tackling your new career of amateur snake-catcher.

  33. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA... re: Hurricanes

    This is another example of the limits of your understanding and your proclivity for motivated reasoning. If you were to actually spend time reading the research on hurricanes you'd find a lot of interesting aspects to this issue. 

    1) Cyclonic activity has two effects that work somewhat in opposition to each other. Warming oceans provide more energy to spin up large cyclones, but upper winds tend to tamp them down. That physical element of the processes introduce a lot of uncertainty into the natural vs man-made issue.

    2) Cyclone data is a real bear to wrestle. Older data is sparse due to the fact that the only information comes from early seafaring vessels and areas with low populations. Even 20th century data lacks a great deal of information about size and intensity of storms. Only in the past 10-15 years have scientists been able to track the total energy contained within individual storms.

    The result:

    Yes, cyclonic activity is increasing as human activities warm the planet.

    Yes, storms are spinning up faster and covering larger expanses when they do.

    No, a statistically significant increase in the number of landfall storms isn't yet being obsevered. 

    Once again, there are a number of well written articles on Skeptical Science on precisely this topic by people better informed on this subject than me. I would highly suggest you take the time to read a few of them before continuing on this topic.

    Also, if you have questions or obsevations on that topic, please post in the thread for that article in order to keep your discussion on-topic.

    Thusfar, we have gish-gallopped around quite a few topics here in this thread that is supposed to be relevant to Clauser. 

  34. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA... "The climate would and will continue warming at this phase even if man never existed..."

    Here, yet again, you literally have no clue what you're talking about but present something as if it were fact.

    If you look at the paleo record it is very clear that the Earth was entering a cooling phase due to slow changes in orbital forcings. It's only when humans started burning fossil fuels and substantially altering surface albedo (deforestation, farming, etc) that the planet abruptly changed and entered a steep warming trend.

    Real Climate, Marcott 2013

  35. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Re - TWFA #55: "The climate would and will continue warming at this phase even if man never existed"

    For that to happen a cause is required. Care to set that out with references?

  36. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Michael, the claim was that the hurricane was the most powerful ever in the East Pacific, not the most powerful recorded or obseved, and frankly I don't know who was recording hurricanes in that region 200 or 500 years ago that never made landfall or how they were measured.

    The climate would and will continue warming at this phase even if man never existed, and with warming comes more weather and stronger weather. I assume all here consider NASA to be a creditable source, in this article last year, while making the usual predictions about what will happen when things get warmer, they cite a single study from 2019 that suggests that the current activity may be outside the natural variability:

    Since the 1980s, the hurricane record has shown a more active period in the North Atlantic Ocean. On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify. Thus far, most of these increases are from natural climate variations. However, one recent study suggests that the latest increase in the proportion of North Atlantic hurricanes undergoing rapid intensification is a bit too large to be explained by natural variability alone. This could be the beginning of detecting the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the paper states. In contrast, the frequency of hurricanes making U.S. landfall (a subset of North Atlantic hurricanes) has not increased since 1900, despite significant global warming and the heating of the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

  37. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA:

    Do you realizr how rediculous your claim that if you wait long enough a bigger hurricane will strike the Pacific coast?   We have 500 years of records for that part of the world.  Those records clearly show that hurricanes have become stronger the past 20 years.  If we look at the entire world the record is longer and there are a lot more hurricanes to compare.  The worldwide record conclusively demonstrates to anyone who loois at it that hurricanes are increasing dramatically in strength, spin up much more rapidly than they used to and cause much more damage because they are more powerful.  The fact that you have not learned about hurricanes does not mean that they have not become more powerful.  

    Your entire argument is based on the fact that you are  completely uninformed about the dramatic changes that were predicted in advance by scientists and have now been measured worldwide.

    It is impossible to counter an argument based on ignorance.  You will neve rconvince anyone here about anything.  We have followed the changes you deny.

  38. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA , it is clear from your discursive writing style that you are an intelligent guy.   At the same time it is transparent that you are engaging yourself in Motivated Reasoning ~ you have set your goal, your conclusion, and you have assiduously worked backwards to justify it to yourself.

    I am sure that part of you is aware of that . . . while part of you rejects that insight.   Part of you wishes to test yourself against those damn mainstreamers at SkepticalScience  website ~ maybe "they" will give you added information to resolve your conflict, either by allowing you to be persuaded to the mainstream . . . or by allowing part of you to achieve a (self-assessed) performative triumph of intellectual conquest.

    And maybe part of it is to enjoy the hubris of "not running with the crowd".   But whatever way, it comes back to the exercise of Motivated Reasoning.

    Good luck in your journey to self-understanding.

    (And yes, we all need improvement ! )

    ********

    Rob Honeycutt : quite right, the biological sciences field is many orders of magnitude more complex than climate physics.  No comparison !

    .

  39. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Honestly, TWFA, I cannot decipher what any of this post @51 has to do with anything I just explained to you.

    The broad consensus on anthropogenic climate change isn't like a medical study. Think of it this way, it's probably more like the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It's impossible to isolate the precise mechanism that links cigarette smoke to lung cancer, but study after study shows there is a very clear link. But, the tobacco industry wanted everyone to believe the connection was "too complex" or "too imprecise" or "the product of groupthink" or any of many similar arguments.

    Ironically, it is literally the exact same people who devised the tobacco industry's response campaigns to the overwhelming science on smoking that created the fossil fuels industry's campaign of doubt about climate science.

  40. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    I get the variability, it's no different from clinical studies, the challenges of getting good data, running controls and placebos, they, too are all over the map and it takes time for a trend to be identified. At least in those we have millions of patients to experiment with, collect data from and alter course of treatment in a short time frame, but we only have one planetary patient, and the treatments proposed are extremely costly and disruptive, and also unfair to many different minorities, an extreme example being Inuits with ATVs and snow machines expected to either erect a solar farm and electrify them or go back to dog teams. Shouldn't they do their part too?

    I was in the field of medical imaging and informatics, PACS and EHR systems and such, awarded eight patents and founded several startups. I hired brilliant ADHD software developers who were often wrong but never in doubt, when they would have a major system upgrade they wished to perform they would ask if they could do it during their work day. Why? Not because their favorite show was on that night, that show was in front of them 18 hours a day. No, it's because that's when our customers were also busiest, and that way if there was a problem they would discover it much more quickly as every button on my phone lit up with screaming radiologists.

    I would explain to them that our clients are customers, not lab rats, you exist to serve them, they do not exist for you to write perfect code, you will do it at midnight and be prepared roll-back at 5. In the climate debate the client is the people, not the planet, as George Carlin put so well decades ago, the planet will be fine long after we are gone, so as in medicine the first rule is to do no harm.

    What I see going on here is similar, folks who want to move ahead full blast, others like me who wish to see more data and test the models, others who could care less either way, either because they feel they have no say in it anyway or have the wealth to both buy a pair of Teslas AND a second home up north.

    Taking the current models and applying them to some other data set than the one they were developed upon is the right way to test them. Perhaps it is classified, but thermocline levels and or temperatures obtained by submarine or sonobouy, some type of terrestrial sub-surface measurements, well water temperatures, whatever, anything that gets us as far away from the noise of weather and cloud reflectivity, there has to be something else out there we have been measuring for the past and will be for the next fifty years that can show the same trend, no matter how small, no matter the lag. There must be some other canary out there.

    Temperatures above and below the weather would put to rest silly arguments about hurricanes in the East Pacific, which if never making landfall two centuries ago may never have been recorded, let alone measured, and other sensationalism thanks to mass media and competing information leading to mass hysteria.

    Kind of reminds me of the windshield pit fiasco in the Pacific NW back in the fifties when some thought fallout from bomb tests in the Marshall Islands was doing something to their cars, the consensus among the social psychiatrists being that for the first time folks were looking AT their windshields instead of THROUGH them.

  41. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA... "It's not that I don't care about surface temperature, I care about whether the models for surface temperature have been applied to predicting temperatures above and below, a perfectly logical query."

    Yes, this is a perfectly reasonable and logical query. So, pause right there before you move forward with any assumptions.

    The answer to the best of my understanding: 

    Yes, climate models are applied to the surface and up through the various layers of the atmosphere. Once you get above the surface you run into challenges with measuring those various layers. The surface has the advantage of extensive direct data, above that you have to rely on either balloon data (which is sparse) or satellite data (which is an indirect measure of temperature and actually poorly measures some layers, like the mid-troposphere). 

    For deep ocean models, I'm unsure. But I would imagine those would have little affect on shorter time scales and is more important measure as a longer term reservoir for accumulating heat energy.

    For sea surface or near surface modeling, there is a lot of coupling between the ocean and atmosphere, thus those are going to be inherent to climate models.

    The other important point to understand about climate modeling is that they are, as mentioned earlier, "boundary conditions" modeling.

    You can think of "initial conditions" modeling like the hurricane storm tracks you see on the news. We know where the model is and the models project the likelihood of where it will track over the following days.

    Climate models are different. What they're doing is running model ensembles. Essentially, they're doing longer term weather/climate runs, over and over, in order to see what the mean state is. As they say, "All models are wrong, but they are skillful." We're not asking models to tell us whether this year will be warmer or cooler than the last. We know that's inherently noisy. We're asking climate models to tell us, over time, how much warming we can expect to see. 

    Understand that? They're wrong because one model run will say next year is warmer and another will say it's cooler. But they are "skillful" because they can tell us, with a high degree of confidence, the longer term trend for the climate system.

  42. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    It's not that I don't care about surface temperature, I care about whether the models for surface temperature have been applied to predicting temperatures above and below, a perfectly logical query.

    If we have a model that can replicate historical data there is a good chance it can predict as well, but if the models have only been devloped using surface data, adjusted to match history, then you should be able to take the exact same model and run it to replicate historical and predicted data for temperatures aloft or level of thermocline below.

    Sure the values and rate of response will be different, but the trends should not, and that is what I am looking to see. As you know, any temperature observtions at flight levels would be at pressure altitude and need to be corrected to true altitude. There are decades of oceanic route position reports, I seem to recall it was typically four or five on the North Atlantic tracks, probably there are double that on the Pacific, don't know if that data is in a silo somewhere or integrated into other, but it is historical and of interest to me.

    At one site on "the other side" they showed data that indicated temperatures aloft at 200 hPA have NOT been increasing above 1.7 per century but the models predicted 4-4.5, so of course ALL the models are crap.

    When I explained to them I would not expect them to if the readings were at pressure altitudes because I know from experience that unless there is a significant diversion from the standard lapse rate, weather, they will not... even if all the forests on earth were afire, at a 200 hPA pressure altitude of about 40,000' I would expect virtually no variation, and at 5,000' without including the world inferno lots of noise in the signal and would want to look deeper at such a data set to make sure it was as closer to standard atmosphere conditions as possible and corrected to AGL.

    As you can imagine, I got the same kind of crap there, what does it matter, I don't have a clue, all the studies studying all the models of the other studies show them all to be wrong, etc., etc. Nobody is right all the time, but nobody is wrong all the time either, even if they turn out to be right for the wrong reasons.

    So, my search will go on, if there is anybody else here who understands what I am looking for and has something to offer other than, "Get a PhD in climate studies, otherwise believe what we say" I would love to hear from you.

  43. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    On the PIREP's topic, the PIREP's themselves would be a terrible data source, just because they're sparse and inconsistent. But, I've always thought it would be a worthy research project to work with Garmin in order to pull ongoing data from airborne aircraft using their avionics. That might provide somewhat better coverage and consistency. Maybe.

  44. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA... What I'm trying to convey to you is, climate science is a complex topic and you need to spend far more time than you currently have to get a good grasp of what is happening. Instead, you're starting from assumptions and are merely grasping for arguments to support that position, without endeavoring to skeptically research the topics.

    "I am looking for information, not confirmation..."

    This is clearly not the case, though, being that everything you've stated or "asked" has been fundamentally based in rejection of the established science.

    Look, TWFA, there is a lot to understand about this topic. I am not an expert. But what I have done is taken the time to read a large body of the available research. There are many here on this site who are willing and capable of offering answers, but you're going to have to approach the subject with a little bit more humility and awareness of your current state of understanding.

    If you have real questions, ask them. But don't be offended if people here give you answers you don't want to hear. 

    For instance, when you say, "I am just looking for a few that have run the models against some mid tropospheric level data set, or deep ocean temperatures, or anything other than surface temperatures." This is exactly what I'm talking about. 

    Why would you dismiss surface temperature? What about mid-troposphere temps do you think is more interesting? There are plenty of articles on this site discussing those topics already. All of those articles reference the available peer reviewed science. 

    Every time I hear someone call themselves an "independent thinker" it raises a huge red flag for me. Why would you believe every climate scientist out there is not an independent thinker? Why would you assume the broad consensus on climate change isn't a product of independent thinking across a broad spectrum of experts in their relative fields? 

    In order to truly be an independent thinker you first need to inform yourself about the subject you're thinking about. Without doing that, you're merely a rejectionist. If you're offended at being told this, perhaps you're just looking for an easy exit.

  45. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Rob, with the PIREPs it was not bizarre at all, I was meaning for historical oceanic data that predates the modern technology, in my day position reports on HF always included wind and temperature. Attack, attack, attack... it's amazing.

    Anyway, you keep repeating the same thing, "You obviously are a numb-nuts who hasn't read anything, there are tons of studies and everybody is in agreement, get lost".

    I know how to read, have been reading clinical and technical papers all my life, I don't want to screen abstracts or read tons of studies, I am just looking for a few that have run the models against some mid tropospheric level data set, or deep ocean temperatures, or anything other than surface temperatures. You claim to be the expert, presumably you have read all the studies so you should be able to know right where to look, perhaps cite from memory. I am not the expert, but that does not make me a potted plant.

    I am not here to argue, nor am I here to cheer or circle-jerk, I came here hoping to learn, there are plenty of advocacy sites on both sides, lots of noise, I was hoping this was not one of them.

    There are two areas where I need more information, one is the whole cloud reflectivity and convective energy transfer process, and the other is whether the models we are relying upon work with data sets other than surface temperature, you can't have surface temperatures going up but everything else remaining the same and claim "the planet" is getting warmer.

    I have children and grandchildren who look to me for advice because they know I am an independent thinker who has done pretty damn well so far thinking independently, I am looking for information, not confirmation, if this site is just another cheering section I will be happy to move on, nothing new to learn here.

  46. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA #41:

    "Yes, Michael, and I can confidently predict that an even more powerful hurricane will someday top that one even if we are carbon neutral or dead, on the other hand I can state with equal confidence that at some time in the past a more powerful one hit Acapulco as well, there is no way one can prove that the one yesterday was "of greater force than any previously occuring in the East Pacific Ocean"."

    One of the last dinosaurs standing: "I'm sure there have been worse asteroid strikes in the past".

  47. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA: "... if the atmosphere and planet is heating up, so should the temperatures at 20,000' or 40,000', or even deep ocean temperatures, there should be plenty of data available at least for the former, weather balloons and PIREPs, it should track the models just as well and if not we would need to know why."

    Each of these comments from you is a fascinating demonstration of how little you've actually looked at the science of climate change. There is published research on all these topics and there is a very broad, deep agreement across research fields that human emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of warming of the past 50 years.

    And the PIREP bit is espectially bizarre. Being a pilot myself I know what you're talking about, but you should also know that PIREP's tend to be few and far between. They're helpful but not reliable. In addition, those PROG charts you pull in to ForeFlight or download via ADS-B in, those are produced through the same models used for climate models. They're merely initial conditions modeling (weather) as opposed to boundary conditions modeling (climate).

    All this and still you have yet to say one word about Clauser's claims.

  48. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA:  "...one of the problems I have with all the models I have seen is that they appear to have been adjusted or tweaked to global surface temperature observations..."

    This is a nice demonstration showing that you haven't spent any time at all seriously looking at climate models. You've merely made an assumption and make statements that support what you prefer to believe without ever taking a serious look at the data or reading the underlying science.

    Do you understand that Syukuro Manabe recently won a Nobel Prize precisely because his models from the late 1960's have been so accurate.

  49. CO2 effect is saturated

    chuck22 @709,

    I would suggest it is more that Venus shows what a thick atmosphere does to climate while Mars shows it for a thin atmosphere. Both have an atmosphere comprising about 95% CO2. Yet the surface of Mars has zero GH-warming while on Venus it is an impressive +407ºC.

    Venus has about 80% of the solar warning relative to Earth, this due to its higher albedo (left hand graphic below) which more than compensates for being closer to the Sun. Thus the "naked planet" temperature for Venus (230K) is lower that Earth's (254K). Venus has a 92 bar atmosphere and the clouds in such a thick atmosphere are a major insulation mechanism preventing IR across the entire spectrum from escaping to space from anywhere near the surface.

    OLR spectra for Earth & Venus

    Zhong & Haig (2013) show (their Fig6b) that the climate forcing on Earth from CO2 (which at 389ppm provides with feedbacks GH-warming of +34ºC) would be perhaps trebled by CO2 levels up near the 90% mark, (Fig6b shows the direct forcing up to ~30% CO2) an unrealistically high level, but it does show that additional CO2 does not "saturate".

  50. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    TWFA @41 :

    you are still skirting the issue (on-topic for this thread) of whether John Clauser's ideas fall into the common fruitcake category or into the solitary genius category.

    Overall evidence strongly favors the former  ~ but I am sure that your readers here would be interested to see if you have some actual support for the latter  category.

    Are you holding back, because you fear to expose the good Dr Clauser to ridicule?   Or even worse - expose him to redicule  [which I gather may be some form of red-shifted ridicule] ??

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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