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  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  Next

Comments 75001 to 75050:

  1. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat - your link doesn't work, but considering that CR flux on Earth hasn't increased in the past 60 years, somehow I doubt the accuracy of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's purported correlation.
  2. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Fixed link to the paper referenced above. Sorry for the slip.
  3. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Oh dear, after reading Pielke Sr's "response" SkS may have a whole bunch more 'skeptic' myths to dispel. For example, his claim that: "There has not been warming significantly, if at all, since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree." Not relevant and it depends which metric you are using and if it is OHC how much of the data one uses (does one use all the argo data or does one use the top X metres that gives the desired lack of warming?) But Dr. Pielke, you also say on your blog, in response to Santer et al. (2011) that: "There has been NO long-term trend since the large El Nino in 1998. That’s 13 years." We'll ignore the blatant cherry picking of 1998 for now, but it does raise an interesting question. Dr. Pielke did the warming cease in 1998 or 2003? You cherry-picking 2003, also seems to fly in the face of this statement made by you on your blog: "I agree with Santer et al that “[m]inimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal.”" Why then select a statistically meaningless short window of time?
  4. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    @ CBDunkerson - At times it certainly could be 95%. - Water vapor varies by 3 orders of magnitude... http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/AtmosphereCompIV.pdf ... and a major defect in the CO2 models is that they assume it is constant. - It is also different in concentration [and behavior with light] at different altitudes in addition to varying between humid and desert areas near the surface. - Plus it's been going up right along with CO2. The CO2 models I've dug into all assume cloud configurations that are 10 to 40 years old. - With a ~10 day Residence Time it not only varies greatly it varies quickly -and- it also moves a great deal of heat around with it when it moves. - Assuming a huge and rapidly changing factor [one that varies by 3 orders of magnitude] as a constant is a lapse of reasonable thought. - There isn't gong to be a good climate model until water vapor is properly accounted for. .
  5. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    A balance discussion of this topic should include the work of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, the challenge of Lockwood and Fröhlich and especially their reply. Fig 2 shows a convincing correlation between global mean tropospheric temperatures and CR data when the data is properly adjusted for known forcings. Any comments/refutations of these published results?
  6. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    It will be very interesting to see what Joe Romm and crew have to say about this brouhaha.
  7. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, Let me remind you what you wrote: "As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data....The ad hominem presentations on this subject [i.e.., the UAH data] include those from the weblog Skeptical Science who have sections titled Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups" That statement by you was wrong-- you were clearly trying to implicate SkS in some strongly worded recent critique of the UAH product and its developers (which reminds me, you seem to have a very selective memory as to how that all unfolded), and you would have known that it was wrong of you to state we were implicated had you read the series. It is unfortunate that you cannot concede error on your part. Equally unfortunateis that you elect to turn a blind eye to the repeated misinformation and half-truths propagated by Watts, Spencer and Christy and others. Yes, Spencer and Christy undertook some novel work with the MSU data, but that does not mean they now get free pass to continually berate their colleagues, misinform, float conspiracy theories, politicize science, confuse and mislead the US Congress. Or do you disagree? Again, you were wrongly trying to implicate SkS in some strongly worded critique of the UAH product, and your "arguments" to the contrary on your blog do not hold up. We have of course discussed the UAH product here at SkS, why wouldn't we for goodness' sakes? In fact, it is stated at SkS that: "The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely. Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space." In both Spencer's and Christy's bios shown at the beginning of the series, we mention that they received an award from NASA for their work with the MSU data. But by all means please do continue to choose to think what you wish to.
  8. Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
    The most disgraceful aspect is the cherrypicked starting date in 1998, which Pielke knows was a huge El Nino year. But yes, Santer et al. used both RSS and UAH data.
  9. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    pirate, I think you should be putting a lot more energy into advancing our discussion before you teach too much one way or the other about climate science to your students. Based on where we are so far in the discussion, I know that you have huge gaps and misunderstandings about the science. It would be best if we filled those gaps and corrected the misunderstandings as soon as possible. One of the hardest things to do with a student is to un-teach something once they've learned it. Their misconceptions then go on to poison everything they attempt to learn afterwards.
  10. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Of SkS he says it "is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science". Should we learn from him, with a rapidly spiralling credibility? But don't worry, maybe he'll recover, just like arctic sea ice after 2007.
  11. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Pielke Sr.'s response sure does beg a lot of questions.
  12. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    True Albatross, Pielke's "response" has just confirmed the basis of this post. I've updated the update to note this.
  13. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dana, I thought that, in a way, Pielke Sr's "response" rather enforces your points. Re "comprehension", I think that he may be seeing/reading what he wishes to see/read. I encourage, no urge, Dr. Pielke to defend his accusations and statements here at SkS.
  14. Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
    Dana, It is a double-cherry pick by Pielke. The RSS trend for the cherry-picked window is slightly negative. He claims that he used RSS b/c that is what Santer et al. used, when in fact they clearly used both RSS and UAH as shown in Fig. 6. What he did is quite disgraceful really.
  15. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Yes the post has been updated to reference Pielke's "response", if you can even call it that. It's more of a goalpost shifting Gish Gallop which doesn't address a single thing we said here.
  16. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    And just as I predicted, instead of trying to engage SkS is a constructive and open discussion here, Pielke has just posted another 'attack' on SkS on his blog, in which he argues so many strawmen that I lost count! It is essentially a Gish Gallop, with some misinformation thrown in for good measure. It does not constitute a "response" at all, and he did not answer the questions put to him about Christy And I note again, his site does not allow comments. I expect that his post will soon appear on a "skeptic" blog like WUWT. Perhaps he did answer one question posed to him, it is clear from his response that Pielke Sr. is more interested in covering up the misinformation propagated by "skeptics" than he is interested in standing up for scientific integrity and honesty.
  17. Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
    Albatross #7 - even if we go along with Pielke's absurd cherrypick of 1998 as a starting point (ENSO is amplified more in the satellite data than surface temps, and 1998 was the strongest El Nino in a century, not to mention that, as you note, 13 years is shorter than the 17 required as noted by Santer et al.), UAH still shows a trend of 0.06°C/decade over that period. It's small, and certainly not statistically significant, but it's not zero either, despite the utterly absurd cherrypick.
  18. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Rob @409, Sorry, probably poor wording on my part. I was taking a dig at claims made by "skeptics" claim that the models are too sensitive, and that the IPCC exaggerates things. But that is wrong and you raise an important tissue. From the abstract of the paper that you linked us to: "State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events."
  19. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Riccardo @8, Yes, those were egregious examples of cherry-picking by Pielke Sr. and was promptly dealt with by RealClimate. Sadly, he seems to be at it again, see my post at SkS here.
  20. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Pielke Sr., being 'constructive' "In conclusion, the EPA Endangerment findings is the culmination of a several year effort for a small group of climate scientists and others to use their positions as lead authors on the IPCC, CCSP and NRC reports to promote a political agenda." Here: "[T]he paper was received 11 August 2011 and accepted 29 August 2011. This is some type of record in my experiences as editor, and indicates that the paper was fast tracked. This is certainly unusual" Constructive is nice and the goal, but let's get it 'right' first. Here: "Of course, it is always pleasant to have documentation that these individuals are inappropriately using their senior positions to prejudice the scientific assessment and publication process, as I have reported on my weblog for several years. What is more important, however, is that the significance of this breach of the scientific method be recognized by the policymakers and other scientific colleagues who have requested climate assessments."
  21. Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
    Now I am going to turn my attention to Roger Pielke Sr.'s intriguing critique of Santer et al. (2011). He makes some odd claims. Unfortunately, he (despite demands for the climate community to be more open and transparent) does not permit comments on his blog, so I'll do it here. His first comment is rather bizarre. He says "This is an unusual number of co-authors for a technical paper, but I assume Ben Santer wants to show a broad agreement with his findings." It is not at all that unusual, he clearly missed the authorship of the recent Kirkby et al. (2011) paper in nature. Anyways, such an irrelevant observation is rather petty. He is then perturbed that Santer et al. ignored his important paper that he co-authored with Christy et al. in 2010. He then stretches, I mean really stretches, to try and make a link between Santer et al. (2011) having the temerity to ignore their "important" paper (published in an obscure journal (Remote Sensing) around which a controversy is raging for giving a free pass to a dodgy paper by fellow 'skeptic' Spencer. But I digress, this framing by Pielke Sr. smacks of desperation, because the papers deal with two very different issues. From the abstract of Santer et al. (2011): "We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes . While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years..." From Christy et al. (2010): "Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009 are presented and assessed for accuracy based upon recent publications and several analyses conducted here." They were clearly looking at very different areas of the planet, global versus tropical only, additionally Christy et al. (2010) also looked at the ratio of warming aloft and that at the surface in the tropics, with Santer et al. looking at the warming over the lower troposphere. Pielke then takes issue with this statement in Santer et al. (2011): "….temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” Not sure that he makes a compelling case, he just interprets the text differently. But why I pint this out now is that later, says this: "I agree with Santer et al that “[m]inimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal.” OK, so far so good, but then Pielke make this ludicrous assertion: "There has been NO long-term trend since the large El Nino in 1998. That’s 13 years. [His underlining] So after just saying that he agrees with Santer and knowing that one of the major findings of the paper was that one cannot use trends calculate dover periods of less than 17 years to infer anything about the rate of warming, Pielke goes and says "there has been no warming for 13 years", and he conveniently chooses 1998 as his start point! Unbelievable. And Santer et al. find that the signal-to-noise ratio for 10 year trends is near one, and Pielke proudly states no warming for 13 years. Now how about we actually calculate the trend in the RSS satellite data for a minimum period of 17 years as found by Santer et al. (2011), so for 1994-2010: That trend is slope = 0.11 C per decade. For 20 years the trend increases to 0.18 C per decade. So if one look sat the appropriate data interval then the warming continues. Now here is another interesting fact, and an ironic one at that given that Pielke is accusing others of ignoring his "important" research. In 2010 two papers came out, Thorne et al. (2010) and Johnson and Xie (2010). Sks discusses the papers here. Both those papers' findings refute the claim made in Christy et al. (2010) that: "This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations." Specifically, Thorne et al. (2010) find: "It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively." Johnson and Xie (2010) find: "We conclude that, in contrast with some observational indications, the tropical troposphere has warmed in a way that is consistent with moist-adiabatic adjustment, in agreement with global climate model simulations." Can I find a discussion of Thorn et al. (2010) or Johnson and Xie et al. (2010) on Pielke's site? No. I did find this though :) Pielke's critique of Santer et al. is far, far from objective, his biases are clear. In fact, is nothing more than an effort to dismiss their results and try place the focus on their perceived "important" work which has since been refuted by Thorne et al. It also shows that Pielke Snr. is still determined to cherry-pick data to arrive at preconceived (and biased) conclusions. And let it also be noted that at no time did Pielke Sr. acknowledge that Christy had grossly exaggerated his numbers and misled congress.
  22. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Micawber, very interesting. Thanks for the first hand perspectives. I've often wondered about the amount of heat 'imported' into the Arctic ocean from the Atlantic and Pacific and whether this will change as the ice breaks up and new current patterns emerge.
  23. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    We should not forget that Roger Pielke Sr. is the one who claimed that oceans have not been warming in the last few years, artic sea ice was recovering after 2007, sea level rise has flattened after 2006, etc. That was blatant cherry picking or confusing variability with trend. This time he managed to do worse, attributing to SkS a claim which is nowhere to be found in this site. A retraction would be appropiate.
  24. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Rob @6, "This is an absurd statement given the tone of most all of Roy Spencer's posts on his own website." Agreed Rob. And ironic too how Pielke turns a blind eye to the real culprits who are sabotaging constructive, polite and civil discourse, for example WUWT. Pielke Sr. doth protest too much. Given his response to the SkS post and his disparaging remarks made about his colleagues, it is becoming increasingly difficult seriously entertain Dr. Pielke Sr.'s indignant pronouncements of others allegedly behaving badly.
  25. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Judging from a regression analysis of Cryosat Today’s ice area data, there was no significant trend toward earlier or later minimum dates over 1979-2010. By a thin margin, CT area also reached a new low point in 2011: 2.90m km^2 on Sep 10. http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/the-modern-area-of-ice.html
  26. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    pirate#19: "the survy is not for the students. It is a survey designed by the students. " Physics uses 'concept inventories': before and after assessments. Observed change from pre-conceived opinion to some level of understanding is easy to quantify with these results in hand. I'm not seeing the educational benefit to a survey-writing exercise in a science class. Are you taking steps to preclude your students form basing their own conclusions on the opinions expressed by a potentially misinformed population? Or are you just looking for another 'datapoint' in the never ending quest to show there's no consensus?
  27. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    A big factor in sea ice is whether it is single or multi-year ice. When sea ice first freezes if forms a mush that thickens and solidifies. Brine drains through this to find its way downwards. This single year ice is not a particularly good conductor. The major heat loss is through the surface during winter darkness and temps ~minus 40degC. In the 1970s and 80s not all the ice melted especially off Northern Canada towards the pole. In this region second and third year growth continued as landfast ice. Multiyear ice has denser crystalline structure and is more difficult to melt. (and a lot more difficult to drill through) From looking at CRREL data and from personal experience, I note spring melt tends to be about 2/3 from the bottom warmer water intrusions. The sun and warmer air temps tend to account for the other third. There was controversy a year to two ago when the sea ice extent was reported as getting larger. A Canadian team who actually went onto the ice reported it was mostly rotten single year ice with very little multi-year ice in existence. (See EOS Transactions of AGU 16 Feb 201 for two reviews:- Ice is rotten in the Beaufort Sea Geophys. Res Letters, doi:10.1029/2009GL041424,2009 Heat flow from the Pacific contributes to Arctic sea ice melt Geophys Res Letters doi:101029/2009GL04121.2010) It is the large volumes of 'rotten' multi-year ice that accounts for the accelerating melting rates and trend towards a totally ice-free Arctic. I have myself measured under ice conditions during breakup of arctic rivers. In the 20min measuring interval water went from -1.8degC at salinity ~40ppt (brine) to 0deg salinity 0 (ice cold freshwater) from the land drainage flowing out over and under the sea ice. Species diversity is low but those that live there survive these conditions without exploding or obvious stress. Bering Sea inflow is almost a an order of magnitude less than the North Atlantic drift up around Norway. But in certain years, related to ENSO, the heat flux through the Bering Strait into Chukchi and Beaufort seas can account for a third of ice lost as it did in 2007. I'm retired now and well remember the ice island T3 that circled in the Beaufort gyre for several years providing a stable ice platform and science base. It eventually left via Denmark Strait east of Greenland. The whole Arctic has changed drastically and the multi-year ice platforms and glacial fragments are not so common. I hope my comments are helpful.
  28. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Pielke states at the end of his article, "Similarly, weblogs such as Skeptical Science, if they want to move the debate on the climate issues forward, need to move towards a more constructive approach." This is an absurd statement given the tone of most all of Roy Spencer's posts on his own website. Pielke's comment is a little like being asked to apologize to the burglar for allowing him to break into your house. The tone set at SkS is accurate and direct. The material presented by the authors here is also accurate and direct, but sometimes the truth packs quite a punch. If anything it is the climate deniers who need to learn to work toward a more constructive rhetorical approach.
  29. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    "The purpose of the survey is to gauge the general knowledge, understanding, and beliefs of individuals asa pertaining to climate change, both historical, current and future. You are welcome to tweak that statement as well." The author of the survey flunked, then.
  30. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Jonathan: "Any significance to the minimum being earlier this year? The last several years showed the annual minimum occurring in mid to late September, while this year's minimum has apparently occurred in early September." Basically it's just the weather up there not being amenable to further compaction of the thin ice cover coupled with the freeze season getting underway in parts of the arctic. Nothing significant.
  31. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Albatross - I like your suggestion and have added it to the conclusion. Regarding ad hominem accusations, it's also ironic that Pielke's criticism was directed at SkS while defending Roy Spencer, who engages in ad hominem arguments constantly on his blog (i.e. "IPCC gatekeepers"). But Spencer and Christy's constant myth propagation is far worse than their ad hominems.
  32. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    Chortle--come now, Pirate, you know the attitudes represented in the "ridiculous" answers to no. 4 are shared by powerful politicians and pundits in the U.S.. Surely we can expect these leaders to have some sway with the public. I was just trying to be "fair and balanced." It's clear from your answer to number 2 that your answer to number 1 is wrong. Greenhouse gases do not trap heat like a greenhouse roof. The "bounce" answer was better, even though "bounce" (in quotes) is shorthand for "is repeatedly absorbed and emitted," and the mechanism whereby increased GHGs causes increased available energy is implied. I'll admit the survey wasn't produced by my normal writing process. (i.e. it was 'whipped out'). No. 5: provide an adequate answer. No. 6: "The seas will rise up and drown coastal cities." Where is this supported in the literature? Remember, this is a survey, not a test. It is designed to survey initial attitudes and basic understandings. It is not designed to test knowledge learned in a structured learning environment. A test would need to take into account course objectives. And, of course, as I've said elsewhere: "survey schmurvey." If I'm assigning the survey creation, I could care less about the actual answers to the questions. I'm far more interested in how the students justify the question text and choices (form and content). Indeed, I would probably have them, as small groups, provide a thorough statement of justification for each question. I'd then have them submit their surveys for professional and peer feedback. They'd then revise (and reflect on the revisions).
  33. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Rob @1, "Ironically, I find that everyone at SkS tends to use the UAH data as a confirmation that all the major data sets are in agreement about current warming." Indeed, but that was not always the case. And it seems from Dr. Pielke's blog post that he is applying a rather selective memory on exactly how events unfolded regarding the problems with the UAH data. So now that he has done so, someone might have to do a more thorough job of setting the record straight than Pielke Sr. did on his blog. But that is a matter for another day....
  34. Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
    Stig... I think he did adjust the chart but only to reflect the very lowest possible value presented by Dr Box's data. I'm going to take the long term approach to this and contact him when Dr Box publishes newer data. And I'll continue to contact Dr Humlum on an ongoing basis as newer data becomes available. The good news here is that because SkS has become a popular destination for people researching climate change issues, our articles on Humlum are more likely to come up in a google search than Humlum's site. So, people are more likely to learn about Humlum's site from us than anywhere else. In essence, we get to frame his work prior to people reading his work.
  35. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    As always, nicely done Dana. I might have worded the conclusion a little more strongly, something like: "By defending them but ignoring their errors, Pielke is providing cover for the misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy. That's not being skeptical, that's excusing the blatant misinformation of the American public and policymakers. Pielke Sr. needs to decide what is more important, covering up for misinformation or standing up for science and truth." Now this will be interesting. Will Pielke Sr. respond by posting on an anti-science and advocacy blog like WUWT which has been used before to make threats against climate scientists (e.g., Monckton), or will he respond on his own blog (which does not allow comments, so people cannot challenge his assertions), of will he come here to constructively discuss the issues? With that all said, I think Pielke Sr. ought to apologize to John Cook. PS: And I do hope he answers the question put to him in the main post re Christy misleading Congress.
  36. Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
    I just took a look at Humlums website and he is still using the same diagram. He also defended the use of it in Teknisk Ukeblad (may) now in august. Rob @2 "I've told Dr. Humlum about this post but he says he's off on another trip into the field with students and will be out of touch. He might pop in to comment once he's back from that trip". I think he's back from that trip since he is constantly updating his website (but not the diagram and his a priori denialist beliefs). Perhaps Rob should write him again?
  37. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I found it fascinating that Dr. Pielke accused SkS of ad hominem attacks - in a post of his that was later re-posted on WUWT, a prime home of ad hominem postings accusing practicing scientists of everything short of cannibalism. There is a serious lack of balance and fairness in Dr. Pielke's comments, and his claims of SkS ad hominem attacks on Spencer's and Christy's satellite data are, as noted, completely bogus. It is quite clear that Dr. Pielke has not read the articles he's complaining about.
  38. Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
    I'm surprised how little attention this important paper has received here at SkS. It is an important paper, IMHO, because it provides some concrete guidelines on the times scales that need to be considered for the purpose of evaluating models and for determining trends. It is also important, of course, because it shines a light on how "skeptics", even prominent ones who should know better (like Lindzen, Michaels and Pielke Sr.) love to cherry pick to arrive at a pre-determined answer and how they love to exaggerate, in this case Dr. John Christy. For example, recall how Lindzen was implicated in a set-up for Phil Jones? The "trap" was to try and demonstrate that there had been no statistically significant warming (which "skeptics and deniers of AGW took to incorrectly mean no warming) between 1995 and 2009 (15 years) in the HadCRUT global temperature dataset? Well, as it happens if one includes just one more year (16 years) the warming between 1995 and 2010 was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The 16 years worth of data required to achieve that level of confidence in the HadCRUT data is consistent with the 17 years identified by Santer et al. (2011). So the challenge for "skeptics" now will be to cherry pick a dataset and a time window that shows not statistically significant warming for at least a 17 year period-- and then they can try and rehash the "planet is cooling" myth again ;)
  39. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Having read all the articles on both Spencer and Christy here at SkS it is abundantly clear that Pielke did not bother to read any of the posts before making his own comments. I would expect a scientist of his caliber to be a touch more careful and thorough before posting. Ironically, I find that everyone at SkS tends to use the UAH data as a confirmation that all the major data sets are in agreement about current warming. It gets pointed out that Spencer's early work with the UAH was in error but was corrected and now is in agreement with GISS, HadCRU, RSS, etc. Dr. Pielke, if you do bother to come and read this article, you might consider spending a little more time reading through what is actually published on this site. I think what you will find is that the articles posted here are accurate representations of the current published literature and are fully cited as such.
  40. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    hyperactive - yes there's a lot of SST info. If you go to DMI and check that the map is showing the Arctic, you then choose from the left hand panel. Choose anomaly and the date you're interested in. Then play around with all the other nifty data on the site. (Terrible time eater if you let yourself get carried away.)
  41. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Sky, Sorry, meant to say in another week or two, not year. While 2008 did experience a similar minimum date (9/9 for both years according to AMSR), it was almost flat for the rest of September. Dansmark data showed a minimum later in September for 2008. May not mean much anyway.
  42. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 00:20 AM on 16 September 2011
    Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Is there any data on the sea surface temperature in the Arctic? Would be interesting to see if there is a significant anomaly from the mean. Is there potential for the open ocean in the Arctic increasing the likelihood of another cold winter in Europe? Negative NAO causing Atlantic blocking.
  43. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    Pirate, Since this survey is going out to a general audience, I would refrain from too many specifics, instead focusing on the general understanding of the target audience. I presume the nature of this exercise is for your students to be able to summarize the survey. Hence, I would suggest questions of the following nature: 1. How well informed would you say you are about climate change? a) very well, b) well c) somewhat d)not very e) not at all 2. In the past century, temperatures have? a) decreased significantly, b) decreased slightly, c) remained the same, d) increased slightly, e) increased significantly 3. In the past century, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have? a) decreased by 25%, b) remained the same, c) increased by 30% d) almost doubled, e) risen by more than 3 times 4. To what extend does atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide affect global temperatures? a) primary driver, b) one of many important factors c) minor contributor, d) not at all 5. In the past century, what has been the greatest factor affecting Earth's temperature? a) the sun, b) the oceans, c) volcanic eruptions, d) urban development, e) CO2 and other greenhouise gases 6. If global emissions of CO2 go unchecked, what will happen to temperatures in the future? a) rise to unsafe levels, b) increase slightly, c) remain the same, d) decrease slightly, e) unknown 7. Same as last year 8. Where does the pursuit of alternate sources of energy fall on your priority list? a) the top, b) top half c) middle d) lower half e) bottom 9. What is your personal opinion about changing to alternate sources of energy? a) I cannot be bothered with it, b) I will change when it becomes cheaper, c) I am willing to pay a little more, d) I will change regardless of cost 10. In all fields of science, knowledge grows with new developments. Compared to other scientific fields, how much do you feel scientists know about our climate? a) much more, b) slightly more , c) about the same, d) slightly less, e) much less
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 23:50 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    apirate@23 With some work on the wording, it ought to be within reach of the general public. "What is the direct effect of a doubling of CO2 on global average surface temperatures, assuming all things remain otherwise the same". Doesn't have some of the important scientific qualifiers, but it is a reasonable question nevertheless.
  45. apiratelooksat50 at 23:44 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    Dikran at 21 That IS a great question, but is beyond the capacity of the general public to answer. The goal of the survey is more general in nature.
  46. apiratelooksat50 at 23:41 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    1. Do you understand how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works to keep the planet warmer than it would be without carbon dioxide? b. yes, pretty much 2. If you answered "yes" to question 1, choose the answer below that best describes the process of CO2 warmth. c. Greenhouse gases trap heat like a greenhouse roof. 3. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly and has been for a century. How do we know that this increase is caused by humans? b. We don't really know, but we have been releasing massive amounts of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels and use of concrete. c. Studies show that features of the natural world, like the oceans, have stopped acting mainly as sources for CO2 and instead have been acting as sinks; at the same time, we are releasing massive amounts of CO2. We also have isotope studies. (These answers are awkwardly worded. Need to be revised.) 4. How much credence do you give to the idea that working climate scientists would intentionally misrepresent climate science in order to make more money for themselves? (This is a ridiculous question and the answers more so. It has no place in a survey of this type and shows definite bias.) 5. Natural climate cycles occur. The sun's radiated energy waxes and wanes. Earth's orbit wobbles and ovals. The continents move. La Nina and El Nino happen. How do we know that these natural cycles aren't responsible for 20th/21st century warming? (The answers were inadequate for this statement.) 6. What do the IPCC and other international agencies predict about global warming if we do nothing to stop it? Check all that apply. c. Plants and animals will be forced to adapt to changing conditions, and some species will become extinct. e. The Earth will be on average 2-5C warmer in 2100. f. The seas will rise up and drown coastal cities. g. Many glaciers will melt, causing a loss of drinking water for tens of millions of people. h. The changes will cause big migrations of people. i. Over the next century, some areas will get more intense rainfall, and other areas will become very dry. k. food and water prices will continue to rise rapidly. 7. What is more important, a healthy economy or a healthy environment? Note that choosing one does not mean you think the other is not important. (They are equally important. We should strive for responsible consumption by developed countries, and cooperation between governments, industries, and citizens to achieve a sustainable world.) 8. If you believe that a rapidly warming planet is a problem, how will (not "how can") that problem be solved? 9. Do you think climate science should be publicly funded (as it is now)? a. yes 10. How different will the world be for your grandchildren due to global warming? d. different, but only a little different because the problem isn't really that bad. (Some things will be better. Some things will be worse. Some things will not change.)
  47. Dikran Marsupial at 23:29 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    I would venture that is way too vague for a useful survey of only 10 questions, it seems a recipe for unintentionally biased questions as each question has to cover too much ground and hence must be quite nuanced. Might be better to have a survey of peoples knowledge of what the IPCC WG1 report actually says (giving an indication of knowledge of the mainstream scientific position). This would have the advantage that the questions would be based on specific IPCC statements and there would be ground truth for the answers. I suspect the knowledge of what the IPCC report actually says in the general public is rather better than in the readers of some "skeptic" blogs I could mention as they have had less exposure to disinformation. ;o) Here is one question: Neglecting feedback mechanisms, and assuming all other forcings remain constant, what is the direct effect on equilibrium global average surface temperatures of a doubling of atmsopheric CO2? (a) 2 degrees C (b) 1 degree C (c) 1/2 degree C (d) 1/4 degrees C (e) 0 degrees C Obviously a bit more thought needs to go into the exact wording of the question.
  48. apiratelooksat50 at 23:13 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    Dikran at 18 The purpose of the survey is to gauge the general knowledge, understanding, and beliefs of individuals asa pertaining to climate change, both historical, current and future. You are welcome to tweak that statement as well.
  49. apiratelooksat50 at 23:10 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    Oh, and the survy is not for the students. It is a survey designed by the students.
  50. Dikran Marsupial at 23:06 PM on 15 September 2011
    Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    apiratelooksat50 perhaps it would help if you were to specify the purpose of the survey. Usually the problem with survey design is that the purpose is unclear (or that the purpose is all too clear, but disingenuous). If you want a good survey design, you first need to be clear about the intent of the study.

Prev  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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