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  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  Next

Comments 76151 to 76200:

  1. Temp record is unreliable
    I'm sure there is a response to this somewhere, but i can't find it: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ Any help would be much appreciated
  2. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    rcglinski#26: "I could define "pretty sure" as 65% certain if I wanted to, but it doesn't relieve the ambiguity." Why not? If I need to run an economic model, telling me that an event has a 65% chance of occurrence is an input to an expected value calculation. This happens in an industry of uncertain outcomes on a routine basis (my experience was the oil business, where 'chance of success' is taken very seriously). Calling this an ambiguity is purely a semantic objection. "when subjective judgments are expressed in the form of a number in a scientific publication" Look at the quotes from the publication discussed in this post: They are pure opinion, with no mathematical basis whatsoever. Arguing over the definition of 'more'? A bit like arguing over the definition of 'is'.
  3. It's not bad
    Muoncounter #128 "What is the 'science of predictions'?" It's not the science of predictions, it is the science concerning global warming's catastrophic future predictions which seems, at least to me, to have a very wide range of unclear benefits vs. risk, as opposed to the science behind the reasons for the global warming which to me seems settled, as in caused by humans. Also regarding the costs of prevention, I am not sure I agree with your relatively low cost of "boarding up and leaving town" example. I read somewhere on this site that the cost would be as much as 1-2% of GDP!!! That may sound like a low number but any economist would tell you that this is a huge number. The US/Europe seems to have just entered into a long period of slow growth (if not double dip recessions) and an additional 1-2% ball and chain weight on the economy would most likely add even more prolonged recessions/no growth/sustained high unemployment periods. Of course I understand your point of long term cost but playing up the worst case scenario that comes out of global warming when people are economically suffering today makes it difficult for the general public to sign up today for such a big cost for the benefit of our grandchildren. When you couple this with the general public tendency to automatically discount gloom and doom predictions (like the ones from global warming) and environmentalists' history of exaggerated predictions (maybe not on purpose but nevertheless...), as in BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez disaster both turning out to have a much much smaller impact on the medium and long term environment than predicted, that makes it an even tougher pill to swallow. Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them. With all due respect to environmentalists on this site. And in response to #129 sccadenp's question about switching from coal, the answer is no! It's not that hard to switch away from coal...especially if the free market demands it! So if it takes an extra decade or two to educate the general public in order to create the demand for the free market forces as well as give the technologies a chance to catch up, so what? I don't think anyone believes that the world will be past a tipping point because of that extra period.
    Moderator Response: [DB] "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them."

    Most of us? Who would that be? You imply that people who have taken the time to learn the science that think that "there's no problem" outnumber those that do. And you would be wrong to think that.

    Furthermore, the issue with today's CO2 excursion is not so much the amount, which is considerable, but the rate: 10x greater than that which occurred during the PETM.

    For further reading on that which we face given business-as-usual, try reading this post.

  4. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    "Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe formally endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president today, saying his fellow Republican has the right combination of executive experience and know-how about government regulations to beat President Obama. "Inhofe, a former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is a leading congressional skeptic on global warming and climate change. Perry made headlines recently for saying he has doubts about man-made global warming, saying it is an unproven scientific theory based on 'manipulated data.'" Source: “Climate change skeptic Inhofe endorses Rick Perry,” USA Today, Aug 29, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
  5. SkS Weekly Digest #13
    The climate graphics are owned by John and other contributors and are provided with a creative commons license so that they can be legally used elsewhere. The same wouldn't apply to cartoons, SkS would have no rights to distribute them unless they were created by John or other contributors.
    Response:

    [DB] Perhaps thumbnails hotlinked back to the originals?  You lawyers out there, what say thee?

  6. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    rdr95, postmodernity did not develop historically of its own accord. What we understand as 'postmodern' are a set of responses to a set of shared conditions (the conditions of global capitalism, its relations and demands). "These days, using one's gifts to obscure truth is a profession." Indeed, Muon: theory under market capitalism is a commodity, and doubt enhances the market for theory. Of course, it's only to a certain extent, because eventually the process reaches a point where theory becomes without value, and the market collapses. Louis Menand a decade ago recognized the end of useful production for the literary criticism industry. It's much like the relations that emerge from the replacement of workers with machines. Individual capitalist entities are driven to do it, but they must do so without regard for local or global economic repercussions. And that, rdr95, is one of those "shared conditions." Under capitalism, we are driven to produce more and more exchange value, and that demand encourages us to consider anything and everything as commodity, valued more for exchange than use. When you combine that with the inability of the average citizen to comprehend the science (not necessarily through disability but as well through not having the time, means, or training), the market for cow patties really opens up. I imagine the worst thing that could happen to Watts, Curry, Goddard, Monckton, Spencer, etc. is for one of them to be suddenly easily and demonstrably right about "it's not happening/not us/not bad." And that is also the best thing that could happen to scientists with conscience. Unfortunately, there's no indication (or physical basis) that it will happen.
  7. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    "The IPCC AR4 chapter 1 section 1.6 unambiguously specifies 'very likely' as more than a 90% probability of occurrence." That's not really a specification. 90% there means a subjective judgement expressed in the form of a number. I could define "pretty sure" as 65% certain if I wanted to, but it doesn't relieve the ambiguity. If the 90% value were arived at mathematically that would be different as the equations would constitute the definition. This is a special problem when subjective judgments are expressed in the form of a number in a scientific publication meant for consumption by policy makers who might be unaware of this nuance and assume the number was a result of a derrivation.
  8. It's not bad
    Joseph - the disruption to the water cycle is probably the most robust prediction of AGW, but its not a headline grabber. Floods and droughts have proximate causes which make it easier to ignore ultimate causes that increase the frequency. After that is sealevel rise which is dogged by uncertainty in how ice sheets will behave so advisories so far have been extremely conservative. And of course these have been costed - eg the Stern report. There have been attempts to demonstrate a lower cost for GW (eg Lomborg though he has changed his tune) but these only succeed be assuming unrealisticly low climate sensitivity. To be honest, I think we need better studies but the upper end of the uncertainty scale is frightening bad and for policy makers, surely the precautionary principle applies. Is it really that hard to switch away from coal over the next 30-50 years?
  9. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    rdr95#22: "my opinion equals your data" We certainly see a lot of 'I don't believe your data' or 'my back of the envelope analogy disproves your data.' It's as if there is inherent suspicion of 'data' or inherent fear that those who work with data are out to deceive. I don't accept that as a natural outgrowth of legitimate skepticism; it almost requires a politicized or biased point of view. This isn't a new problem. See the Huxley-Wilberforce debate: Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey. Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth. These days, using one's gifts to obscure truth is a profession.
  10. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Eric, looking over your postings over the last few months, it seems you believed a large number of false things to be true, but it seems no amount of corrections change your position. I notice you havent taken the challenge. Want to prove to us that your position isn't simply rooted in political values?
  11. Temp record is unreliable
    econ101lab - just a further comment on the anomaly method - this isn't just an hypothesised method. The strong spatial correlation of anomalies has been checked by studies (see KR articles for references).
  12. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Note that a dose of elemental iron of only 120mg/kg of body weight is "potentially fatal", which works out to 120ppm by weight, assuming I'm not playing too fast and loose with orders of magnitude. http://curriculum.toxicology.wikispaces.net/2.1.9.6+Iron So much for the "iron is people food, the more the better" meme.
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 05:48 AM on 30 August 2011
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    SocialBlunder The total number of CO2 moleclues above our head is closely related to the percentage. The mass of atmospheric carbon (not CO2) in Pg is 2.127 times the the concentration expressed in ppm. I'm sure you could work out the number of molecule from that, Avogadros constant, the radius of the Earth and a two atomic weights. However the point of the article is that you can't tell whether something is significant just by looking at the amount of it lying around, and often the units in which something is measured can give a misleading impression. The single figure that is most worth knowing is 1 degree C, which (ignoring feedbacks) is the direct effect on equilibrium global temperatures of a doubling of CO2. If CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere, it only needs to be 0.078% of the atmosphere to raise global temps by 1 degree C (all things being otherwise equal). If 0.039% isn't much then it won't take much to double it - the "skeptics" can't have it both ways! ;o)
  14. CO2 is just a trace gas
    H2SO4 cannot induce nucleation mediated by GCR: too low concentration in atmosphere: 200pptv (!) in the lower troposphere. ;-) ;-) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001JD000605.shtml
  15. CO2 is just a trace gas
    If "The total number of CO2 molecules above our heads in the atmosphere is more important than their percentage in the atmosphere", being able to compare the ppm, tons, and temperature shift would be helpful. In Hansen's Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications there is a tempting description of "An equation for climate forcing as a function of CO2 amount is given in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000)." I was not able to find the 2000 paper.
    Response:

    [DB] Try here:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

    Hansen 2000_Table1

  16. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Eric the Red, I find your claims overconfident and not supported by the evidence, as indication by your lack of support for any of your statements. "Solar activity was high" No. Solar activity trended downward. Solar Trends "volcanic activity was low" No. A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate "ENSO cycles yielded stronger and more frequent EL Ninos" There is such an ENSO/SOI trend during the covered period, but as we know from various ENSO-adjusted analysis, it has a limited effect on long-term trends. "The IPCC tried to diminish these effects, resulting in higher warming attributed to CO2 rise. " If they "diminished" the volcanic effect, there would be, if anything, less attribution to human causes. Nothing, however, was "diminshed".
  17. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    "Now Judith seems predominantly concerned her about the "motivated reasoning" of what she calls the "climate establishment." " Maybe I am off base here but if you read Dr Curry's commentary the verbiage sounds familiar. Not familiar as in 'others in her camp have said the same thing' (although true), but familiar in the sense that the same kinds of misuse of syntax and dismissal of data are common in the 'soft sciences'. Now those 'soft sciences' (polysci, sociology, economics) have, to a large degree, been undone by postmodern philosophy. The latter seems to boil down to 'my opinion equals your data, because all your data must be inherently biased'. I often wonder if the widespread adoption of postmodern philosophies in our universities has not had some terrible unintended consequences.
  18. It's not bad
    Joseph#126: "qualified with the word "may" as in global warming "may do this bad thing"." Quick and easy answer to that: look at the vicious criticism that comes out whenever a climate scientist makes a specific statement. But a better answer is simply that climate change is about trends, not specific events. You can say 'this is the observed trend; if that continues, here's what can or may happen.' "This suggests that even though the science about the cause of global warming may be settled, the science about its predictions is far from that." What is the 'science of predictions'? "And this in turn puts a big question mark on the importance of this issue in light of its economic cost." Absolutely not. The costs need to be studied as risk-adjusted expected values, which include both most likely and worst case scenarios. The cost of mitigation (reacting after the fact) is almost always far greater than the cost of prevention (or some form adaptation). Consider, for an obvious example, the cost of boarding up and leaving town in advance of a hurricane vs. the risk of loss of life and property damage if you do nothing. On some occasions, you leave town only to find that the storm goes elsewhere, but on another you may have saved your life. If you are not considering the worst case, you make bad decisions. That's basically what we are doing when we say 'the science isn't settled' and therefore 'do nothing.' If we can take action now to reduce the probability of occurrence of the worst case, then we are way ahead in the long run.
  19. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Eric the Red - Would you care to support any of the statements in your post? Natural forcings alone over the last 150 years should have resulted in a slight decrease in temperature, as opposed to the observed 0.8C temperature rise with our contributions. "I feel that the IPCC statements definitely lead to overconfidence, and they went out of their way to minimize other causes in the AR4 report." Are you accusing the IPCC of deception in this statement? They went through the evidence quite thoroughly - and that evidence supports the quite conservative (with many underestimates, in fact) statements the IPCC made.
  20. It's not bad
    Joseph, Quite impressive analysis for someone who has only been reading this site for a few days. The incluson of the word "may" is usually a reference to the uncertainty of an event, or the lack of data to back up an assertation. For instance, there are those who claim that global warming will lead to more and stronger hurricanses; others fewer, but stronger; some more frequent, but weaker; and others fewer and weaker. The qualifiers often occur in areas of disagreement.
  21. It's not bad
    I am new to this blog but I find this to be very informative, and as a result of reading through it the last few days I have already changed my opinion on this issue, having been solidly in the "global warming is just a natural cycle" camp, to believing that it is actually caused by human activity. Having said that I am not convinced that global warming is actually bad for humans. It does seem to me by reading many other posts/articles that your postings are biased towards the negative side. For example most articles I read suggest that warming will actually increase water supply for agriculture as a whole because of ocean evaporation/rainfall. But your posting concentrates on drought driven by heat and seems to downplay the potential increase in water supply from added rainfall. Also almost all your potential negatives (and to be fair your positives as well), are qualified with the word "may" as in global warming "may do this bad thing". This suggests that even though the science about the cause of global warming may be settled, the science about its predictions is far from that. And this in turn puts a big question mark on the importance of this issue in light of its economic cost.
    Response:

    [DB] "most articles I read suggest that warming will actually increase water supply for agriculture as a whole because of ocean evaporation/rainfall"

    Then I would suggest reading this post then for starters:

    The Dai After Tomorrow

  22. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    NewYorkJ I feel that the IPCC statements definitely lead to overconfidence, ( -Snip- ). Whose best estimate has natural contributions being negative? Solar activity was high, ENSO cycles yielded stronger and more frequent EL Ninos, and volcanic activity was low. ( -Snip- ).
    Response:

    [DB] Intimations of fraud and scientific misconduct deleted.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy, again, and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  23. CO2 is just a trace gas
    200 mg of arsenic is considered fatal, so 3 ppm is a fatal dose.
  24. Temp record is unreliable
    224, econ101lab, You are advised to eliminate the following sorts of offensive falsehoods and snarky implications from future comments if you wish to learn and be guided, rather than to make a splash and warp other people into matching your own flavor of I-read-it-somewhere-and-I-believe-it-until-you-prove-otherwise:
    • I have a tough time getting my arms around the "settled science" position
    • when two thirds of the planet isn't observed
    • one of the most significant variables isn't even modeled or clearly understood (clouds and cloud formation)
    • smacks of intellectual hubris
    • are there other untracked or unobservable variables of which I am unaware?
    All of this was in your opening paragraph, before you asked perfectly valid questions, but also laced them with a litany of misinformation and misunderstandings about temperature measurements on which your own confusion was based. In the future, if you don't know, simply ask. Don't broadcast an offensive and ignorant position, and use your comment to litter the world with even more misinformation of your own. If your goal is to learn, then learn. If your goal is to pontificate on things you don't understand, then expect a fair amount of blow-back here.
  25. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    “House Republicans are planning votes for almost every week this fall in an effort to repeal environmental and labor requirements on business that they say have hampered job growth.” Source: “House GOP revs up a repeal, reduce and rein-in agenda for the fall,” Washington Post, Aug 29, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
  26. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    "Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the 'anti-science party.' This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us." Source: "Republicans Against Science," Op-ed by Paul Krugman, NY Times, Nov 28, 2011
  27. Temp record is unreliable
    @ econ101lab Aside from using the Search function, there are several ways to get the most out of SkS: 1. By Argument # 2. By Popularity 3. By Taxonomy (my favorite) 4. By Chronological Posting These will find most of the 4,000+ blog posts here at SkS. As always, if/when questions arise on a particular thread, feel free to post those questions there (or on another more appropriate thread) and someone will get back to you. Regular participants here follow the Recent Comments thread, so any new comments posted will be noticed regardless of the thread that they are posted on. Happy Hunting!
  28. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    How can anyone seriously claim conservative IPCC statements lead to overconfidence as claimed in the conclusion? They go out of their way to highlight uncertainty. I haven't seen any attribution study that can assign 50% or more of the warming of the last 50 years to the net of natural causes, yet the IPCC leaves that open to a 10% chance. Then there's the best estimate that natural contribution has been nil or even a little negative. Also take a look at statements from Dr. Andrew Lacis. Lacis at NASA on Role of CO2 in Warming Also see: More Curried Leftovers
  29. Temp record is unreliable
    econ101ab @223, it is very late here, and I am very tired, so I will only respond to your second point tonight. Essentially, you are ignoring the fact that the temperature calculations are for temperature anomalies rather than for absolute temperatures. An extrapolation of absolute temperatures would be absurd for exactly the reasons you give. The temperature anomaly, essentially the absolute temperature minus the mean temperature over some period, will not be so affected. Specifically, if it is an unusually warm day at Palm Springs, it will probably be an unusually warm day at Big Bear Lake as well. The difference in their anomalies on any day will be small even though the difference in their absolute temperature on every day is large. This is explained in greater detail in On Averages and Anomalies Part 1. (Link give by KR in 219 above.)
  30. Temp record is unreliable
    Philippe, you question my sources. What do you think I am doing here? Rather than snarky comments about my motives, I appreciate the willingness of KR, Tom, and DB to show me how the site works and give me a start on how to find information. Geez, lighten up.
    Moderator Response: You'll find less "snarkiness" in responses to you if you refrain from writing so stridently and confidently before you have read up on the rudiments. Folks here have a hair trigger for such behavior because it happens so often. Your failure to understand the really, really fundamental fact that temperature anomalies are used, is exactly such a case.
  31. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    "Einstein said to think and not act is a crime," James Hansen tells SolveClimate News. "If we understand the situation, we must try to make it clear." Source: "NASA's Hansen Explains Decision to Join Keystone Pipeline Protests" by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 29, 2011. To access this informative and timely article, click here.
  32. Temp record is unreliable
    Tom, I will read your recommendation re: Ned's article. I fully accept your observation of the tenuous nature of macro economics as accurate due to the long time spans needed for observation and the virtually infinite and unobservable micro variables which can cumulatively affect the macro picture. This is why I have a tough time getting my arms around the "settled science" position. I'm not trying to be difficult but when two thirds of the planet isn't observed (either water temp or air temp over water) and one of the most significant variables isn't even modeled or clearly understood (clouds and cloud formation), the certainty smacks of intellectual hubris. As a non-climatologist, are there other untracked or unobservable variables of which I am unaware? Again, not trying to be a butt here. While I think Keynes and Galbraith were wrong based on the observable record and Friedman on the money, others dispute that looking at the exact same historical record (of course perhaps taking different micro impacts into account). OK, I've begun doing the reading suggested by KR (thank you again KR). I used the search function, unsuccessfully, to try and find previous posts for a few questions I have. My questions are regarding temperature records and how they're calculated. I ask the questions because I do not understand so please take them in that vein. First, wouldn't the cumulative error in a cell or block that is extrapolated vs observed, quickly make the data from that cell meaningless and affect the long term results more the longer it was used? Particularly if it was in close proximity to the central station and hence had a greater weighting? Second, Mr. Tamblyn does an excellent job laying this out for a non-climatologist. I understand the teleconnection concept and it makes sense as long as the station extrapolations take place from similar altitudes. I can think of numerous locations where I have been personally, where locations 50-60 miles apart might vary 50-60 degrees F. Palm Springs vs Big Bear Lake in California during the winter is an excellent example. I have played golf in the morning in 80 degrees in PS and then gone to the top of the tram where there's snow on the ground and the temp is in the 20's. If Big Bear were to be extrapolated from either LA or Palm Springs (both about 60 miles away) they would have significant weight due to proximity but no relevance. And is his contention that the Andes and coastal Peru have the same weather systems passing over accurate? The Andes are much higher than the San Gabriel Mtn's and the SGM's actually stop weather from the coast from moving inland. Meaning that one location (LA) has totally different weather from one 90 miles away (PS) precisely due to a geographical feature. Western and eastern Colorado create a similar situation. As do the Ngorongoro Crater and the Serengeti (went both places this summer, put it on your bucket list!) I looked at the gridded map and can see numerous places globally where this could logically happen. I see how it can be adjusted for if there are only occasional lapses in observed temp, but how is it adjusted when there is no station? Satellite? Thank you. Back to my homework.
  33. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    "Crisis of confidence, perhaps" I question just who is having this "crisis of confidence." I think that Judith is projecting her own "crisis" onto the larger public without evidence to support her speculation. That projection is fueled by the general vibe among her "denizens," who seem to be similarly affected. When I see what I consider to be overextrapolation, I tend to wonder about the very same sort of "motivated reasoning" that used to concern Judith with respect to the reasoning of "skeptics," predominantly. Now Judith seems predominantly concerned her about the "motivated reasoning" of what she calls the "climate establishment." What motivates that change in the focus of Judith's scrutiny?
  34. SkS Weekly Digest #13
    Grand Poopah is no doubt the title my wife & I will be giving Mini-Composer once he's born.
  35. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    16, Eric the Red,
    Although the sea ice has been present for 5000 years, it has been anything but constant.
    I do not agree with this statement. Do you have any citations to support this assertion? Can you quantify the variability that you conjecture has occurred?
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] EtR must be acknowledging the unprecedented loss of Arctic Sea Ice ongoing in today's time (unprecedented over the past 5,000 years)...

  36. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    This bit on Nigel Calder's blog has the 'it's cosmic rays' folks shouting, 'we told you so!' Calder apparently has dramatized the sequence of events in one experimental run to great success. I've interspersed a few questions that seem unanswered in his rendition.
    In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate.

    Q1: That electric field also acts as shielding. Why are any molecular clusters accumulating in a shielded chamber with no particle beam input?

    As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate.

    Q2: Most cosmic ray workers would interpret 'natural cosmic rays' as the background flux of muons produced by atmospheric interactions with the solar wind (usually referred to as solar cosmic rays). How do they automatically identify this background as GCRs? And what sort of electric field shielded the chamber from muons (negatively charged) with energies on the order of GeVs?

    How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still.

    Q3: 'Stronger' in this context must mean higher energy. The original experimental design called for a pion beam on the order of 600 MeV, no 'stronger' than the background muons. Further, charged pions decay quickly to muons. What does this utterly critical statement mean? Are they actually investigating solar cosmic rays and not GCRs? Are they now saying that solar cosmic ray muons cause cloud nucleation as well? The mechanism for Be10 production requires higher energies, usually in the form of GCR-induced protons. It was the link to paleo abundances of Be10 that kicked off the whole GCR-climate link in the first place. Calder's dam on which global warming is said to break has some leaks.

    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] CLOUD Project design sheets called for 3.5 GeV positive pion beam. A separate experiment in Denmark used 580 MeV.
  37. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Joshua#16: "she believes "Climategate" created a "crises"" That's a great observation, although it strikes me as an extreme overreaction to events. Crisis of confidence, perhaps; crisis in the observation and understanding of the science, no. I have to wonder how the 'denizens' would react to the conclusions of the 2006 paper. Conflict with their core beliefs (greenhouse warming is real? Does not compute!) is not tolerated.
  38. SkS Weekly Digest #13
    @Mark Harrignton #1: Thanks for the positive feedback. I'll forward your request that SkS create a "Toon Gallery" to our Grand Poopah, John Cook.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I think "poobah" was the word you were looking for! ;o)
  39. SkS Weekly Digest #13
    Sad and funny at the same time.
  40. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Re: #14 I've been reading Judith's blog quite a bit lately - and from what I've seen, her change in perspective is at least correlated to her interpretation of "Climategate." Judith has indicated that she believes "Climategate" created a "crises" in climate science - in the view of the public in general (although, interestingly, from what I've seen has yet to quantify the data that underlies her certainty about the impact of "Climategate"). My interpretation is that her view of a larger reaction to "Climategate" is more a projection (of her own reaction) - as she has stated often that "Climategate" deeply affected her own approach to the "climate community." I am sympathetic to Judith's concerns about the impact of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias in the debate about climate change; those basic psychological phenomena are fundamental attributes of the reasoning of people (scientists or otherwise) engaged in debate about controversial topics. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, ironically Judith fails to consistently apply similar scrutiny to her own reasoning processes, the reasoning of her "denizens," or the reasoning of other players in the "skeptical" blogosphere. Judith was concerned about phenomena such as "motivated reasoning" both before and after "Climategate" (even if the terminology she used to describe those phenomena evolved over time). I think that the dramatic shift in her own conclusions about the science of climate change, the related political context, and the reasoning process of people that she disagrees with, clearly lies in a shift in the "motivations” behind her own reasoning. I’m not suggesting anything particularly nefarious there; without knowing her personally it would be impossible for me to assess what lies at the root of her motivations. I think that it is “unscientific” for anyone to base conclusions about someones motivations based purely on speculation (although I will note that Judith seems unconcerned with the constant drone of many of her "denizens" attributing nefarious motivations to pretty much anyone who thinks that global warming is 90% likely to be anthropogenic). However, something fundamental changed with respect to what Judith is motivated to prove in her view of the climate change debate. As to whether “Climategate” or something else lies at the root of her shift in motivations may be a chicken/egg enigma – but perhaps the answer to that riddle could be found in “laying bare the underlying causal chain and potential approach to verification” evidenced in her reasoning process."
  41. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    Thanks Rob for the post and link to the Li paper.
  42. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Adelady, I wholeheartedly agree. AGW does not directly cause these events, but can affect the impact due to warmer temperatures and higher humidity.
  43. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    Ice-albedo feedbacks should be included in fast-feedback sensitivity as the absorption / reflection of solar radiation is immediate. There is some indication that the high latitude albedo effects are more localized than the ice-albedo feedbacks associated with continental ice, as witnessed by local temperature changes. I agree with Sphaerica (a rarity) about the 5000 vs 7000 year distinction about the Arctic sea ice. Although the sea ice has been present for 5000 years, it has been anything but constant. (DB, I think you are confusing sea ice extent with sea ice anamoly in your Antarctic graphic). Vegetative albedo feedbacks are slow and highly variable by comparison, and when combined with the absorption feedback results in a net negative.
    Response:

    [DB] You may want to check the link...both are down.  Just sayin'.

    SH Sea Ice

  44. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    24, Rob Painting, Thanks!
  45. SkS Weekly Digest #13
    I love these "toons of the week". Moderators may we please have a link to all of them like there is to the graphics?? The graphics are powerful ways of communicating the message of the science but the toons are, sometimes, an even more powerful and quite "disarming" way to rebut the denialists without the aggravation and confrontation that frequently ensues.
  46. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    muoncounter, Dr. Curry isn't the only scientist who's scientific philosophy has changed dramatically from straightforward participation in the scientific effort to politicized (one assumes) support of science mirepresentation. The psychology associated with these transitions is rather fascinating. Craig Loehle provides another example: 20-odd years ago Loehle felt so strongly against attempts at political interference in science, and particularly the efforts at "fraud-hunting" and "auditing" that he wrote a letter to Nature on the subject. some excerpts [see Nature (1989) 338, p. 370]:
    "There is a danger in the controversy over fraud in science of merging the concepts of fraud and error. The call for an audit of scientific papers for error is a symptom of this trend. Fraud such as fabricating data or publishing the work of other's as one's own is of course serious, particularly when it involves assessment of drugs and other medical treatments whwre lives are at stake. But error is an inevitable part of science. The fundamental point is being missed in the current debate...."
    and towards the end:
    "Who will review the error hunters? Who is qualified to punish whom?"
    And yet Loehle spends time on a blog where the sort of "auditing" that he decried all those years ago is used to bully and harass scientists. Googling "Craig Loehle fraud", uncovers many examples of his (scientifically pretty dismal) work being used to bolster the efforts of those bellowing "fraud" against science. Dr. Loehle seems to think this is now acceptable.
  47. Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
    @Gilles, #38 Concerning the amount of carbon still available in fossil fuels... I agree that there is much less accessible carbon in the world than commonly assumed. Some IPCC scenarios may well overstate the possible emissions. Still, I once calculated how much fossil carbon there is, based on studies by the Energy Watch Group (EWG) (http://www.energywatchgroup.org/) and found that together with the other CO2 sources (e.g. land use change, cattle), there is still easily enough Carbon in the ground to ruin the planet. To determine this, I researched the "carbon emission limit" that will keep us on the "safe" side. According to [Meinshausen et al. 2009] this is 1000 billion tons of CO2 equivalent between 2000 and 2050. They estimate that 25% of this are already emitted, so there remain 750 billion tons (Gt). Of this, about 40% come from other sources than fossil fuel burning: land use change, cattle, paddy fields, nitrogen dioxyde fertilizers etc. So there remain 450 billions tons CO2 to come from fossil fuel burning. To normalize these to pure carbon equivalent for easier comparison with fuel carbon content, I divide by 3.67 (the molecular weight ratio between 2 oxygen atoms and one carbon atom) and get ~123 Gt/C as the upper limit to what we can still emit from fossil fuels. Now comes a little eyeballing stunt: Looking at the respective coal and oil production curves from the EWG studies (and researching for the natural gas ones elsewhere) and multiplying the readings for 2025 and 2050 by approximate carbon content and summing these numbers, I come up with possible emissions of 7.403 Gt/C in 2025 and 5.421 Gt/C in 2050. Now even if I multiplied the lower number for 2050 with the remaining years up to 2050 (38), I get emissions of ~206 Gt/C - far above the limit. Of course, fossil fuel scarcity will not force us to drop to this 2050 level tomorrow - in a "peak fossils" scenario, production will follow a nice right-side-of-a-bell-curve trajectory, so actual accumulated emissions could be much higher than 200 Gt/C - shooting this planet to hell. Oh, and by the way... [Meinshausen et al. 2009] give a probability of 25% that 1000 Gt/CO2 until 2050 will *still* produce warming above the magic "safe" limit of 2°. Would you use an airplane with 25% probability to crash? No? And we are talking about a whole planet here, not just an airplane!
  48. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    Ice-albedo feedback due to sea ice and snow cover is　(in principle) included in fast-feedback sensitivity or "Charney sensitivity". Ice-albedo feedback due to continental ice sheets and albedo feedback due to vegetation are considered as slow feedbacks.
  49. Dikran Marsupial at 17:41 PM on 29 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Skeptical Wombat If Salby's answer to your question were to be "if the Industrial Revolution had not occurred then CO2 levels would still have gone up by 95% of the amount by which they did increase" he would be very wrong. I suspect what Salby meant was that if you look at the additional CO2 that has been added since the industrial revolution, then only 5% of those molecules will be of directly anthropogenic origin. This is basically true and completely consistent with the cause of the rise being 100% anthropogenic. I know that sounds rather counterintuituve, but it is true. The reason that only about 5% of the molecules are of directly anthropogenic origin is that there is a vast exchange flux that each year exchanges about 20% of atmospheric CO2 with CO2 from the surface oceans or from terestrial biosphere. However this is a straight exchange and hence doesn't alter the atmospheric CO2 levels, but it does mean that anthropogenic CO2 is replaced by "natural" CO2. The action of the exchange flux has confused many, especially leading to the "residence time" argument discussed on another thread. This is well known to those who study the carbon cycle. I am currently writing an advanced version of the "residence time" rebuttal, and it will include a simple model that explains the 5% figure (and I'll include an analogy for those that don't like differential equations). BTW, the sinks and sources are not undiscovered; the figures given in the IPCC WG1 report are consistent with an anthropogenic cause of the rise and there being only a small fraction of anthropogenic CO2 comprising the excess.
  50. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    "I suppose what I am getting at at what stage can we start safely matching extreme weather events to AGW?" One thing you can do is look at the average increase in humidity due to raised temperatures. When we say that there's 4% more moisture aloft than before, you can get hold of the weather service's measurements of precipitation leading to floods and other damage. Then do some calculations with and without that 4%. What height would the floodwater have reached if there had been x% less water flowing into the system? The big issue here of course is that 4% is the global average increase. Choosing - let alone justifying - a more suitable number for a specific time and place is much harder. But this sort of calculation can be illustrative if not definitive. Without a 4% increase in humidity, floodwaters may only have reached 2 streets from the riverbank rather than the ... distance they did. Not terribly scientific, but may provoke thought. And much more useful for real life. AGW may not cause certain events directly, but it can worsen the impact of those that do occur.

Prev  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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