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  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  Next

Comments 75351 to 75400:

  1. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    "Hey! Look! Over there! A thingy thing!!" (Hides crappy 'paper' under the desk...)
  2. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    FYI: the Arctic has just hit the trifecta: extent, area, and volume minima. True, this is only according to differing agencies, but none of the agencies is in significant disagreement. The volume drop in particular is alarming, since 2010's drop was sharp enough to seem anomalous to the untrained eye (and perhaps even to a few trained eyes).
  3. CO2 is just a trace gas
    An open thread where things like Dan69's current understanding of GHE can be worked through would be nice. Newbies could use it as a foyer (then to be directed to the appropriate thread). I would like to read Dan's current understanding of AGW all at once (summary form, preferably semi-narrative) instead of this piece by piece kind of deal (unless it only exists in pieces).
  4. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Mark Chu-Carroll over at Good Math/Bad Math often critiques mathematical crankery as espoused by those who set themselves against one or more broadly-accepted phenomena in science; one of his most pointed critiques is that the worst kind of math is no math at all. If I may, I feel the same criticism can be levelled at Dan69 here: when trying to rebut a well-supported conclusion in physical science (e.g. CO2 warms the atmosphere when added by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion), the worst kind of science is no science at all - an appeal to philosophy of science is of little value in and of itself.
  5. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Dale #37 - as far as I'm aware (though my info may be out of date), the only issue Dessler and Spencer are discussing is the ratio of ocean heat transport to TOA flux change due to clouds (Dessler's 20 to 1 ratio). Spencer claimed it was closer to 2 to 1, but commenters found a number of errors in his calculation. But I hope they can come to an agreement on a range of possible ratios based on the various available data sets. Other than that, Dessler agreed to update his introduction to more accurately reflect Spencer's opinions regarding cloud changes not necessarily causing ENSO, but that won't effect the content of the paper.
  6. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    Ooops, that's what I get for posting at like, 5AM my time.
  7. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Thank you.
  8. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    "IMO the much more likely explanation is because both Prof John Nielsen-Gammon and Prof Andrew Dessler work at Texas A&M University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and chat from time to time." Dessler wasn't keeping his smack-down of Roy secret, either. As he's said, he tried to educate Roy *before* Roy made a peer-reviewed further fool of himself.
  9. Dikran Marsupial at 23:39 PM on 9 September 2011
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69 I wrote: "To answer your question directly: (i) CO2 is not the only forcing, so even if CO2 is rising temperatures can still fall in the long term if there is a negative change in other forcings (e.g. solar) that more than compensates for the increase in CO2." you wrote: "You seem to be agreeing with my premise; wherein CO2 levels could be increasing, yet the temperature could be falling." This is a clear case of confirmation bias. I was not agreeing with you at all. All things being otherwise equal, a rise in CO2 will produce a rise in global surface temperatures over a time scale long enough for internal variability not to mask the change. That is basic physics, which has been very well understood for at least sixty years, and is not contested by skeptic scientists such as Pat Michaels or Roy Spencer or Roger Pielke Sr... (in fact is there any skeptic climatologist that is willing to make such a claim anymore?). You are way out on a limb on this one, and don't have the backing of the all but the most extreme scientists on either side of the discussion. It is clear you don't understand the basic physics, I suggest you go and read the sources I suggested and come back wehn you can at least coherently explain the widely accepted theory of the greenhouse effect. If you can do that, and put the philosophy of science to one side, then and only then will you have reclaimed the status of being worth talking to that you have thrown away by your behaviour so far on this thread. It is your choice.
  10. Dikran Marsupial at 23:25 PM on 9 September 2011
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69wrote: "If I were to hypothesize that CO2 is increasing in the environment, and more CO2 creates better living conditions, how would you falsify this premise?" Like most "skeptics" who pontificate about Popper, you have just demonstrated that you fundamentally don't understand the idea of falsificationism as the above is obviously directly falsifiable. We could conduct an experiment where pehaps we doubled atmospheric CO2 using fossil fueld emissions, if this failed to produce better living conditions (note a follower of Popper wouldn't have left the prediction as vague) then the hypothesis would be fasified. I see this sort of philosophy of science garbage used frequently as a means to refuse to accept well founded scientific theories, and I am sure that the originators of those philospohies of science would be just as appauled by it as I am. For instance David Hume showed that it is not possible to have certain knowledge regarding the real world by any empirical means. Does that mean that scientists should not perform experiments or draw conclusions from the outcome? Of course not. Hume himself said "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.", in other words, even though certain knowledge is not possible, you can still guide your actions by weighing the strength of the evidence (this is merely common sense and pretty much what scientists actually do). No wonder I am reaching the point of "whenever I hear the word 'epistomology' I remove the safety from my Browning" [metaphorically speaking of course]; it is rare these days to engage in a proper discusion of philosophy of science or epistomology these days that doesn't end up in frankly BS use to ignore inconvenient truths that are quite obviously on sound foundations to anyone capable of using their common sense in intepreting the bounds on certainty. Perhaps it is just that work with uncertainty (in a statistical sense) that I find it so hard to understand this issue. We can't have certain knowlede; but we have a perfectly good framework for optimal decision making under uncertain knowledge (which is available) "The true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities." — James Clerk Maxwell Any more discussion of philosophy of science ought to be off-topic.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Any more discussion of philosophy of science ought to be off-topic."

    Agreed.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

  11. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69 @76, it's about time you stopped playing fast and loose with philosophical concepts of which you obviously have no understanding. You yourself introduced to this discussion the Duhem-Quine hypothesis, ie, the thesis that theories cannot be tested in isolation, but only in conjunction with a number of assumptions about initial conditions and the validity of other underlying theories. The immediate conequence of the Quine-Duhem hypothesis is that naive falsificationism is invalid as a scientific methodology. Indeed, Popper recognized this, but his solution, that the determination that a particular theory has been falsified must always be in part a matter of convention leaves something to be desired. But despite your introduction to Duhem-Quine to the discussion, you now insist on just the sort of naive falsificationist tests that it precludes. Either you are deliberately playing a deceptive rhetorical game, or you have introduced concepts you do not properly understand because you have a vague feeling that they support your position when, in fact they do not. That is a rather common tactic among deniers with a certain level of sophistication - to introduce Popper into a discussion as a means of reversing the burden of proof. Likewise it was you who introduced Hume and the "Is-Ought" gap into the discussion. If principled, that would require you to be very careful of the distinction between fact and value. But no, now you wish to introduce as a supposedly scientific hypothesis that is falsifiable the claim that, "If I were to hypothesize that CO2 is increasing in the environment, and more CO2 creates better living conditions, how would you falsify this premise?" "Better", is of course, a value laden term, so that your hypothesis, by the principles you supposedly espouse cannot be a scientific hypothesis; and a singular statement (by Duhem-Quine) cannot be falsified in any event. And just for good measure, you throw in an irrelevant reference to "slippery slope" fallacies. A person who understands concepts uses them to illuminate discussion. In contrast, you are using the concepts of philosophy inconsistently and with the apparent intention to make the discussion obscure. You sully treasures which you do not comprehend.
  12. CO2 is just a trace gas
    76, Dan69, First, your entire post should be deleted because you are dragging this thread off topic and using it as a podium for your personal rants rather than to discuss the subject at hand. Second, your understanding of CO2 is weak and inaccurate. You should be using your time on this site to read and understand, rather than to pontificate about what you don't in any way grasp. Third, all of your nonsense about falsification is a foolish distraction. You can't argue the facts, so you instead want to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fourth, CO2 levels are currently at 390. Doubling the preindustrial level of 285 to 570 will only require another 180 ppm. At 2 ppm per year, this will happen in 90 years, so your math is wrong. That aside, it's also a foolish distraction. First, the effects don't all wait until that happens. It's not like turning off a ticking bomb seconds before it detonates. In fact, the worst of the warming comes earlier, rather than later, due to the logarithmic nature of the beast. Second, the presumption that the increase will only be 2 ppm per year goes along with the presumption that the rest of the world will not pick up pace in economic and social development. That's not a very safe assumption. Lastly, Dan, you do deny everything. You are so lost in what you want to believe that you have no clue whatsoever about what the problems are or we should do, and you contribute nothing to the dialogue except noise. You're like the kid sitting in the corner with his hands over his ears chanting "nah nah nah I'm not listening nah nah nah." Study first. Think second. Participate in the discussion after you've accomplished those two things.
    Response:

    [DB] "Study first.  Think second.  Participate in the discussion after you've accomplished those two things."

    On a personal note, that is the orbit trajectory I followed.  Despite have degrees in the field, it had been well more than a decade since I had done anything professionally related to it.  So when I came back to it, I spent nearly 2 years studying & reading the literature before I posted my first blog comment.

    Not saying this is the ideal path for anyone; for me, even with the educational background in the field, I felt I needed that 1,000 hours or so of reading & studying to get my comprehension levels back up to snuff.  The field had progressed rapidly and had made huge strides in that interim.

    And I was getting old.  :)

  13. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69#76: Let's start here: You state a. "it is my understanding that CO2 slows cooling." and b. "That means the resulting temperature would be due to an underlying factor" There is no logical connection between your premise a and conclusion b. To state the CO2 'slows cooling' is a bit like saying that placing a lampshade over a lamp 'slows darkening' once the light is turned off. That metaphor holds a glimmer of truth, but reveals little about actual mechanisms. Mountains of measurement show the physics of CO2 and radiation; there is no need to use anything but the appropriate language. If you appeal to 'underlying mechanisms,' you must specify what they are and how they work. Then and only then can you hypothesize, deduce and falsify. To state that an undefined 'something more fundamental' might be operating and simultaneously claim 'harmony with science' is a position of absurdity. Your arithmetic is sketchy: Even at a constant 2ppm per year, getting from 390ppm now to 560ppm (doubled pre-industrial level of 280ppm) doesn't take 175 years.
  14. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Moderator, Thank you for answering my question when you state: "To answer your question directly: (i) CO2 is not the only forcing, so even if CO2 is rising temperatures can still fall in the long term if there is a negative change in other forcings (e.g. solar) that more than compensates for the increase in CO2." You seem to be agreeing with my premise; wherein CO2 levels could be increasing, yet the temperature could be falling. To be very clear here, it is my understanding that CO2 slows cooling. That means the resulting temperature would be due to an underlying factor outside the effects of CO2 itself. If the temperature were to be retreating (and not through aerosols, but something more fundamental), CO2 would still be slowing the rate of cooling. There is no change to the physics regarding CO2, so I am in harmony with the science. Deductive Approach: Hypothesis – Theory – Observation – Confirmation. Inductive Approach: Observation – Pattern – Hypothesis – Theory. Inductivist methodology supposes that one can somehow move from a series of singular existential statements to a universal statement. Based on Popper's falsification theory, what part of your hypothesis, i.e. that man introduced CO2 will destroy the environment, can be falsified? If I were to hypothesize that CO2 is increasing in the environment, and more CO2 creates better living conditions, how would you falsify this premise? I detect the slippery slope fallacy coming. (an interesting side question; if we were heading toward an ice age would this community advocate increasing CO2 levels to reverse this trend?) Answering this question will create interesting conflicts of thought. Based on the current 2 ppmv added to the environment, it will take 175+ years to double the CO2 content and potentially realize all the catastrophic results implied. I deny nothing but conclusions. Using ad hominem labels, such as "denier", will not change the narrative.
    Response:

    [DB] "my premise; wherein CO2 levels could be increasing, yet the temperature could be falling"

    All other forcings and feedbacks staying uniform, increasing levels of CO2 will raise temperatures.  Period.  It's physics.

    "There is no change to the physics regarding CO2, so I am in harmony with the science."

    The physics are unchanged, you are just not in harmony with them.

    "I deny nothing but conclusions. Using ad hominem labels, such as "denier", will not change the narrative."

    The "narrative" is unchanged: centuries of physics and research shows adding GHG will warm the climate.  We are adding GHG at a rate 10x that of the PETM and the climate is warming accordingly.

  15. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    jmsully @16, N-G is at Texas A&M. So, of course, is Dessler.
  16. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    Dikran, Dessler is at Texas A&M, N-G is at UTA.
  17. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    skywatcher#36: "the blog word of a mining geologist" Just as a nitpick, McIntyre's training is mathematics and economics (both 4 year degrees). He's not a geologist.
  18. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    Outstanding!!! Any imperfections in the peer-review system certainly have not slowed the rapidly rising rates of carbon emissions and warming of the planetary system. Arguing about whose hose to use while watching a hourse burn is a prescription for disaster. Of course, many are missing the real issue and that is Spencer wants us to believe in magic. We are well above the highest CO2 levels in the past 800,000 years and rapidly increasing that carbon. For some reason clouds are going to stop major climate changes this time even though they never did so in those previous 800,000 years.
  19. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    OK, I just had my head chopped off :-). Note to self: check affiliations...
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 17:02 PM on 9 September 2011
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Ryan L.J. Analogies and models are not intended to be truly accurate, they are necessarily simplifications intended to help convey an idea. GEP Box wrote "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Pedantry regarding the inaccuracies of analogies, or attempts to extend the analogy in ways that do not reflect reality, are a common way in which "skeptics" try to evade discussion of what the analogy is intended to convey and derail a discussion that is heading in a direction they don't like. It is a cheap rhetorical device, I;ve seen it all before, and I am not impressed this time either. The important idea conveyed by the analogy is that forcings affect long term statistical behaviour of a chaotic system, and that this change in statistical properties is predictable, even if the trajectory of the system itself is not. BTW, I got home from work yesterday to find that Mrs Marsupial had written a Java program animating a double pendulum and had worked out the maths for the version with the electromagnet. :o)
  21. Dikran Marsupial at 16:39 PM on 9 September 2011
    Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    @Marco,sout If Prof. Nielsen-Gammon is a colleague of Desslers in the same department it is very unlikely that he would have been a reviewer of Dessler's paper. It would be an obvious conflict of evidence and as such it is very unlikely that an editor would have made such a choice.
  22. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Please note (and I'm not posting this to start an argument, but to merely inform if it hadn't been noticed) but Spencer has said on his blog that he and Dessler are working together on a couple of points in Dessler 11. Spencer has updated his 'The Good, The Bad, The Ugly' post with some information about what has come out of those discussions.
  23. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:08 PM on 9 September 2011
    Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    @ Marco #11 - that's one explanation - and very much in keeping with the topic of this article. It's almost certainly wrong. IMO the much more likely explanation is because both Prof John Nielsen-Gammon and Prof Andrew Dessler work at Texas A&M University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and chat from time to time.
  24. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Camburn, you've not said why you think the blog word of a mining geologist who has been known to fiddle statistics before (see Wegman fiasco, note the sneaky sorting), is worth more than the peer-reviewed evidence of Dessler, presented for us all to see? What makes you think McIntyre even has much of a clue about what he's bloging about, even if we were to disregard his past repeated attempts to muddy the waters of climate science? Or are you just shouting "Squirrel!" in the hope that it will somehow detract from Dessler's demolition of multiple bad climate skeptic papers?
  25. Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
    Albatross #2: John Nielsen-Gammon's comments to Roger Pielke Sr, i.e. that Dessler easily found the flaws in SB2011, were made before Dessler et al was out. This suggests he already knew the content of Dessler's paper. There are multiple ways that John N-G may have known this, but I am willing to stick my neck out here and propose John N-G was one of the reviewers.
  26. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    The Queensland Australia floods were in south and central QLD, coloured light blue in the graphic above. I'd attribute the water gain across much of central and western Australia to La Nina year rains accumulating in usually dry salt lakes. Lake Eyre being the best example. It has had the largest inflows in more than 20 years.
  27. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Holy Toledo, Dan69: "The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) message is appealing. It promotes the fear of catastrophe with the hope of salvation. It is promoted as the 'right thing to do'. The dark side, is that if AGW is wrong, the path to salvation is the most unnecessary and self destructive thing we can possibly do to our economy." "It" does not "promote" anything. The theory is a physical theory, not a rhetorical strategy. Its presentation to the non-scientific public definitely involves a rhetorical strategy based on fear. You know why? Because it's a deadly situation. If a scientist working on disease found evidence of a virus that could wipe out 10% of the global population, would you expect the scientist to keep her mouth shut and continue to work on whatever she was interested in or was paid to study? Or would you expect her to change the program and begin working on verifying the find and the potential consequences? Would you say that she was "promoting fear" by mentioning the find? I'm wondering, Dan, what evidence would convince you of the seriousness of the problem. Do you rely on someone else for your opinion regarding the seriousness? Or do you understand the situation well enough to provide an argument against the seriousness? And as for "appealing" I can think of little appealing in AGW. It means destruction and disruption on a global scale; only the wealthy are largely protected, and only the wealthy and the opportunists can turn the chaos into profit. Unlike many here, I am highly skeptical of fast development of market solutions in the current mode, particularly when the current mode is in a crisis phase that is only marginally related to the climate crisis. People tend not to make the best long-term decisions when their short-term survival is in question. Of course, I'll still bike to work and work on local solutions, but the history of capitalism is too full of catastrophic failures of vision to give me much hope for the near future.
  28. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    "Neither Dessler nor Spencer have put forth evidence that their views bear credibility when examined closely." So Dessler analyzing all of the models rather than the cherry-picked six of Spencer isn't credible evidence in your mind. Next, you'll be touting some future paper that proves models are wrong by cherry-picking *zero* results from a sample. "Why the big fuss over poor papers that can not demonstrate without huge error bars, anything certain at this time?" Spencer's paper had huge error bars? Where did he say that? Can you point to a figure in the paper, please? If you're right, and Spencer's paper *did* calculate huge error bars, why did he state that "hey, this is my latest wooden stake in the heart of global warming"? (OK, he didn't say this this time, he's smart enough to use different phrasing each time he "disprove" physics). You're a one-sided skeptic, which in my personal dictionary equates to ... "denialist".
  29. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Camburn, Look forward to your take down of Dessler (2011) ;) I'll keep any eye open. While you are harvesting, maybe you should think and reflect about what Dr. Nielsen-Gammon said: "Why would anthropogenic CO2 now be the first forcing that doesn’t engage net positive feedbacks?" That all aside, good luck with your harvesting!
  30. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    This is the part that puzzles me. Neither Dessler nor Spencer have put forth evidence that their views bear credibility when examined closely. Why the big fuss over poor papers that can not demonstrate without huge error bars, anything certain at this time?
    Response:

    [DB] If you are simply incapable of cogently reading a scientific paper and evaluating its merits, why bother advertising that fact to the world with comments containing no actual analysis of your own?

    Please stick to the science rather than venturing forth unsupported assertions and opinions.

  31. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Well I would say just more evidence of Camburn looking for reassurance rather than answers.
  32. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69, I find appeals to economic catastrophe to be the most laughable reaction to global warming. First, global warming aside, ignoring impending oil shortages coupled with geometrically increasing world development and energy demands are a recipe for sure economic disaster for a country like the U.S. who has enjoyed a century of cheap energy. Second, the actual expense of converting to renewables and more efficient energy use, the same expense that will be needed to prepare for the coming energy crunch, is not anywhere near catastrophic, and will create new jobs and efforts that will help to boost the economy at this point in time. Lastly, every year of ignoring the problem makes it more expensive, and the ultimate expense of ignoring the problem until it is beyond critical could in fact mean economic catastrophe, along with untold and unnecessary human suffering. When I hear people say "economic catastrophe" I am listening to selfish, short sighted people that don't want to make the slightest, tiniest sacrifice to prepare for the future, much like people who graduate from high school and can't be bothered going to college because they can make money and buy a car with a job at the gas station right now.
  33. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Camburn @30, It seems that you are easily Impressed by some R-code and statistical parameters. That blog analysis is about Dessler (2010), not Dessler (2011) which is the primary subject of this post. Note too that people at the blog you linked us to, not being climate scientists, are having trouble understanding what to do with the CERES data and which values to use. Hardly reassuring. It is impolite to ignore people when they ask you questions Camburn (see my post @20). How is your reading of IPCC Chapter 8 coming along?
  34. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    I suggest that people read the analysis at this site More stat analysis I normally like to do my own analysis of papers. I am harvesting now and very short on time. The above site provides some very important statistical information.
  35. CO2 is just a trace gas
    "The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) message is appealing. " You must be the only person in whole world who thinks this unpleasant reality is appealing. "the path to salvation is the most unnecessary and self destructive thing we can possibly do to our economy." And this is fear-mongering. Substantiate that. There might be bad ways of dealing with problem, but there are many other ways.
  36. CO2 is just a trace gas
    #67 & #68: Dan, you're way off the mark here. Your 'science friend' was wrong, as 'greenhouse gas theory' is utterly and intimately tied to AGW. The 'A' just means that we are making an extra contribution to the greenhouse effect, through our CO2 emissions. The reason that this causes warming, and the magnitude of the forcing, is explained by the physics of greenhouse gases. Nothing emotive or philosophical there, just physics. Reading through the literature, or perusing the IPCC summary reports will show you that what actually happened is what you describe for much of your 3rd paragraph of post #67. The only ones jumping to conclusions without consulting the full body of evidence are climate skeptics, the most recent example being Roy Spencer, who will happily ignore both observations and palaeoclimate evidence for high climate sensitivity while claiming to overturn the established science. In a physical sense, you can argue that GHGs slow the Earth's cooling rate - without GHGs we'd be about 33C colder. By the same logic, adding GHGs further slows the Earth's 'cooling' rate, warming the planet. But unless you change another forcing by a sufficient magnitude, you won't be actually cooling the Earth while adding GHGs. At present, you'd need a cooling off of the Sun not seen in human history (much larger than Maunder Minimum), or a series of very large volcanic eruptions in order to drive a long-term cooling.
  37. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan68#67: "I feel inadequate to address the actual math and fear I am wasting everyone's time. " Many of us have difficulty with the actual math. That is no inadequacy; nor is a bona fide effort to learn a waste of time. What tends to waste time is the repetition of debunked fallacies pulled straight from the disinformation sources. Those who are wasting everyone's time are those who refuse to admit that there are things to be learned.
  38. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69#67: "AGW message is appealing" If you feel the message is appealing, why do you follow immediately with 'fear of catastrophe'? That is the hard core rhetoric of the group with which you say you do not want to be associated. "The dark side ..." Appealing ... dark side; again, you're not sending a clear message. And again, this 'most self-destructive to our economy' is straight from the pages of those d-word folks. Are there no jobs in renewable energy? No new investment in technologies? No benefit from increased efficiency? No freedom from foreign energy suppliers? None of those items are in any way self-destructive. If you truly don't want to wear the cloak of denial, I suggest you re-evaluate your rhetorical choices. "Convergence is NOT a scientific conclusion." Sure beats divergence; a scientific conclusion supported by only some of the evidence isn't all that firm. One supported by the convergence and weight of the evidence is.
  39. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the GHG theory basically result in a slowing of cooling? If that is the case, is it possible to have increasing GHG levels yet have decreasing temperatures at some point? If GHG theory can be shown to be part of both circumstances, then I would not be promoting a dichotomy.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It seems to me that you are carrying a substantial amount of misinformation regarding climate science and the best way for you to make progress would be to go back to the start and understand the basics, and ask questions about the more advanced issues later. I would recommend Spencer Weart's excellent book, there is an on-line version here.

    To answer your question directly: (i) CO2 is not the only forcing, so even if CO2 is rising temperatures can still fall in the long term if there is a negative change in other forcings (e.g. solar) that more than compensates for the increase in CO2. An example of this is the levelling off of temperatures in the mid 20th century that is thought to be due to an increase in sulphate aerosols. (ii) The climate has internal variability, due to things like ENSO (which redistributes heat between the Pacific ocean and the atmosphere). ENSO acts on a timescale of about a decade, and has an effect that is much larger than the change in CO2 radiative forcing. However ENSO is cyclic and averages out to nothing in the long term, but CO2 forcing doesn't, so in the short term the effects of ENSO can mask the effects of CO2 giving a short term (a decade or two) cooling even though there is a long term warming trend due to CO2. The "skeptic" canard that is based on this is debunked here.
  40. CO2 is just a trace gas
    I hope not be be castigated as some "denier" as I deny nothing. I acknowledge climate change. A science friend of mine told me there is a difference between Greenhouse gas theory and AGW. Understanding the science behind GHG theory (settled physics) doesn't mean acceptance of AGW (package dealing). The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) message is appealing. It promotes the fear of catastrophe with the hope of salvation. It is promoted as the 'right thing to do'. The dark side, is that if AGW is wrong, the path to salvation is the most unnecessary and self destructive thing we can possibly do to our economy. The science tells us the truth about climate and there are many sources of high quality data. This broad spectrum of data must be examined in detail and reconciled with the physics. All anomalies must be adequately explained and all influences correlated among the different data sets. Jumping to conclusions without thoroughly understanding the data will inevitably lead to an incorrect result whose errors affect all subsequent analysis. You should understand confirmation holism with regards to predictive values of models. Convergence is NOT a scientific conclusion. At least it seems to me. This might be my last post as it does not contain much science or physics, and for that I am sorry, as I feel inadequate to address the actual math and fear I am wasting everyone's time.
    Response:

    [DB] You promote a false dichotomy:  you claim to acknowledge the physics of GHG but deny that rising GHG levels are a problem (even though the physics of GHG say they are).  That is internal inconsistency at its skeptic finest.

  41. CO2 is just a trace gas
    And, Dan69, remember that science itself as an activity is essentially political. What does science look like in a totally privatized world--pure free market? Different? Do the same scientists who practice today under government funding work as scientists under the conditions of the pure free market? I don't want to start an economic argument here; my point is that currently science is the social construction of knowledge, and it is therefore necessarily political. When Rick Perry says he wants to re-staff the EPA with a different kind of people, he knows that doing so will have a direct effect on the production of knowledge. Politicians alter the social construction of knowledge, restricting it in some areas and expanding it in others, according to their needs. As skywatcher implies, the "ought" actually comes before the science. It comes in the form of the social structure that frames and re-frames the practice of science. Climate science exists because it has been determined that it ought to exist in order to serve human progress. Some politicians and, quite frankly, political tools (Morano) want to end climate science--indeed, imprison climate scientists. In other words, there "ought" to be no climate science.
  42. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Same song, 2nd verse: From Jeff Masters Sept 8: This is the second year in a row Binghamton has recorded a greater than 1-in-100 year rain event ... Binghamton has also already broken its record for rainiest year in its history. Records go back to 1890 in the city. ... The Susquehanna River at Binghamton has risen to 25.69', its highest level since records began in 1847 -- emphasis added
  43. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Jonathan#105: "scientific scholars of the time, mostly Jesuits," 'Scientific scholars' is quite a misnomer for the entrenched political interests that upheld the doctrine denying that the earth could move. What observations did these 'scholars' make? Or were they simply saying 'it can't be us' - the same line today's deniers use. For someone with Rick ('we teach creationism in Texas') Perry's track record to even mention Galileo in this context is laughable. For Spencer to take on the mantle of Galileo is a travesty.
  44. CO2 is just a trace gas
    LJRyan @64, if you wish to make a point refuted, if not a thousand times, then over 500 hundred times in just one thread, then you could at least have the decency to make that point where it is on topic. As it stands your analogy is inexact. Indeed, the double pendulum is too simple to be a useful analogy of the various parts of the climate system. It does, however, usefully prove that claims made about chaos and predictability by skeptics are false.
    Response:

    [DB] Spot-on recognition, Tom.  Ryan L.J. = L.J. Ryan, who wasted many a participant's time earlier.

  45. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dikran Marsupial @48 For your double pendulum analogy to be truly accurate, the electromagnetic field must be powered from the dynamic non-linear chaotic motion of the pendulum itself. Moreover, the drive which powers pendulum can only account for 62% of it's peak drive energy, the other 38% must somehow be derived from the conductor (pendulum) passing through the magnetic field (CO2)...powered by the pendulum...which gets 38% of it's drive energy from the electromagnetic field feedback...etc. Now I suppose 38% represents the entirety of atmospheric forcing not just CO2, so adjust accordingly. Good luck!
  46. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan, you've slid from questioning the scientific basis in #44 to questioning the philosophical basis in #60 (a tad O/T for this thread). Remember that the science pertaining to what we 'ought' to do tells us a lot about temperature, precipitation, likely soil moisture, weather extremes, acidity levels of the ocean, sea levels etc, all physical quantities. These are all valid scientific questions that have a direct bearing on food production and other necessities of human habitation of parts of this planet. (unless you think food production is not a necessity?) The science is bound into the SRES scenarios, so we look at what is likely to happen if certain economic and social conditios prevail in the future (e.g. BAU). The results are perfectly scientific, given the future emissions and actions of people, and most crucially the decisions that people must make in regard to their future cannot be made without that scientific basis. And you'll see if you've followed the links I and others have given you, the trace gas CO2 is very important in determining what that future will look like.
  47. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69 @60, Hume's greatest service to philosophy was that he awoke Kant from his "ideological slumbers", and Kant showed that if you accept a prescription of rationality, "ought statements" do indeed follow from "is statements". More importantly, Western Democracies, by their nature are committed to certain very explicit values ("ought statements"). In fact, in the US their nation is founded on a claim that "These truths are self evident ...". It is a common place of ethical theory that "ought statements" together with "is statements" can certainly imply other "ought statements", and the core values of Western Democracies together with the facts that science advises us of certainly prescribe that we take urgent action to mitigate climate change. That is in fact, the reason for climate change denial. Many people find themselves in the unfortunate position of wanting to do that which is precluded as immoral by a basic understanding of the ethical values of western democracies, and the basic facts of climate change. To resolve this dilemma, they choose to deny the science.
  48. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan @60, The IPCC assumes that economic prosperity and preservation of life are morally desirable, and provides its recommendations given this assumption and the results of scientific observation and logic. The only "ought" question is whether economic prosperity and preservation of human life are indeed morally desirable goals. I highly doubt you're seriously questioning this assumption, so your beef with the IPCC has nothing to do with the "is-ought" problem. Asking whether the IPCC's findings are correct given these moral assumptions is a different question entirely, and well within the domain of modern science.
  49. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Dana... And he applies the same bizarre methods to both subjects. He oversimplifies to the point of ridiculousness, omits what might show him wrong and then claims he's figured something out. It's surreal. Other-worldly. It's a reality that only exists in Roy's head.
  50. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @Jonathan #105 and Rob Honeycutt #106: Thanks for the additonal histroical information about Galileo and insights about how what transpired back then relates to today's discourse about climate change. The false Galileleo analogy is being regurgitated by deniers on the comment threads of many articles about climate change. Perhaps it is time for an SkS article rebutting the "Galileo myth"?

Prev  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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