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  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  Next

Comments 76951 to 77000:

  1. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    I agree that both R Gates and Denning deserve medals. I have no patience for Anthony’s. I have used “arch stanton” at many places on the ‘net and the only time arch’s email was ever spammed (and phished) was the day after I had a run in with the mods at wuwt (I had lost my cool with “smokey”). My hat is off to Gates and also the folks here that can keep their patience as they counter the same untruths time after time.
  2. How does global warming affect polar bears?
    Etr#5: "we do not know if the recent warming has affected the polar bears in a positive or negative way. " No one has proposed any ways that warming benefits polar bears (wait until oil exploration is big time in the Arctic; that'll sure be good for 'em). The question is no effect or a growing negative one. It's looking like we'll be finding out very soon. Now you have to choose: Do nothing or do something. Choose wisely.
  3. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Chris G at 05:17 AM on 22 August, 2011 You said: The only way I see is to make fuels which produce GHGs more expensive that ones that don't. I don't see any other alternative that would be as effective or would allow for more market freedom than your suggestion. Internalize the externality and let the market creativity sort it out. There will be no market for great solutions if causing the externality is free.
  4. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    2, Camburn, Economics... so you're counting on a huge, global depression to keep CO2 levels below 570 ppm? Efficiencies... so you're counting on some technology to just appear, without free trade pressures amidst an environment of cheap, heavily entrenched fossil fuel infrastructure, to keep CO2 levels below 570 ppm? Both of these answers are more "oh, don't worry, the problem will solve itself eventually". Sorry, your answers are a complete failure.
  5. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    84, ETR,
    ...during the past several decades.
    Read what I actually wrote. Your comment is a case in point. The constant Those-Who-Deny-AGW-But-Aren't-Deniers-In-Any-Other-Sense (TWDAGWBADIAOS, for short) straw man is to talk about what has happened recently and ignore the future, or to hold it up as some sort of argument against what a very different future might hold.
    Sphaerica seems to be using as a distraction the remote possibility that their ecosystem might be effectively destroyed. That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research. Obviously, if the Arctic turned tropical...
    "As a distraction?" What's that supposed to mean (outside of just being an out and out personal insult meant to belittle me and my statements)? "Remote possibility?" That we're destroying the Arctic? Are you kidding me? "Pure speculation, not supported by scientific research?" "Turned tropical?" Oh? Your "scientifically supported" contention is that unless palm trees grow on the Arctic shores, polar bears will be just fine? Really? No, you use "it hasn't happened yet, so don't worry" as a "distraction" from the gravity of the issue. As far as your claims about scientific research... well, hounding such a researcher out of his position is hardly a good start. But I don't think it takes rocket science or a whole lot of research to recognize that accelerating Arctic ice melt is going to do destroy that ecosystem (as it is defined for polar bears). Of course, if you need to wait 35 years (as you do) just to "buy into" the idea that climate change is happening... Sigh. I'm tired of you, Eric. It's always the same story... wait and see, it's not happening, and don't worry yet (until it's actually bad that it's too late).
  6. How does global warming affect polar bears?
    As CB stated on a separate thread, the polar bear population increased from ~5000 in 1964 to ~25,000 today, largely due to hunting restriction. The decrease prior to 1964 was due to unrestricted hunting. This has clearly been a much more significant influence on polar bear populations than the recent warming, especially since polar bear populations are currently stable (within measurement uncertainty). Unfortunately for CB, his claim that just because there is no evidence that climate change has had a negative impact means that climate change has not impacted polar bears. The problem is that human interactions have swamped any potential climatic effect. Neither Muller's claim of no polar bears dying due to global warming, nor other claims of polar bears dying due to global warming can be verified at present. That does not immediately falsify either of those arguments, as some have contended on this and other threads. Even the studies to which muon linked show no statistical difference in polar bear numbers in their studies. The only correlation was the decreased survival of sub-adult bears, although increased human contact could not be ruled out as a cause. In short, we do not know if the recent warming has affected the polar bears in a positive or negative way. Contact with man is known to have negative consequences.
  7. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Nice summary in the challenge, but I would not hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer. I once engaged a libertarian who objected to the US health care act largely on the grounds that, as it stood at the time, it would have forced individuals to buy insurance or pay tax penalties, and he felt that, as a young and healthy individual, it should be his choice whether to buy insurance or not. When I finally pinned him down to _if_ he was in a major accident or got cancer, which would result in treatment costs beyond his ability to pay, who did he think should pay for his care? His response was something to the effect that he was willing to run that risk. What risk? If something bad happens to him, someone else has to pay for it. So much for the libertarian ideal of personal responsibility. Humans are feeling creatures that think, not thinking creatures that feel. Strong feelings often get in the way of rational thought, and it is rare that the person with strong feelings will be convinced to change his course through reason. Still, it is a good question to ask because it can help bystanders see which side has a rational argument. We are at an unfortunate intersection of a commons problem and the other golden rule - those that have the gold make the rules. Camburn, Alexandre, I agree, with the exception that I make no personal claim as to the most effective alternative, or combination of alternatives. I must have a little libertarian in me because I'm willing to let the market sort that out. Economics will drive the masses where no amount of information or brow-beating will. The only way I see is to make fuels which produce GHGs more expensive that ones that don't. The delays caused by the "debate" serve the purposes of those that have the gold. It might be that the public will not endorse policy changes until the majority understand that the current policy serves those that have fossil fuel interests more than it serves them. The fossil fuel people are not stupid. They see this, which is why we have green-washing of FF companies, fear campaigns of economic catastrophes if we quit buying their goods, and merchants of doubt. Oh, sorry for the length; this topic must have struck a nerve.
  8. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    There are many solutions, but some fear that discussing real solutions will lessen the pressure to do something now. It's an odd political conundrum on the blasphemer/true believer scale. Here is one of the new literally melt-down proof nuclear plants. On a political level it has been known to separate watermelons from independent minds. http://gt-mhr.ga.com/
  9. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn, How many thorium reactors have actually been built? Why don't you propose a solution that we can start on today?
  10. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Dikran, You're not thinking magically. The Sink is specific to anthropogenic CO2 and the source is connected to mystical natural cycles that are beyond human understanding. There's an intelligence that turns on the sink, in order to fulfill the biblical promise of no more floods (I find the argument that G* promised not to destroy the Earth again after the flood applied to human actions particularly painful when I run across it), corrects for human action, but doesn't tamper with the natural cycle accourding to the Divine plan set down years ago. This imaginary intelligent action is why they start talking about intelligent actors doing things to the bank accounts in their attempts to refute you....that was the clue to me that they have a specific neutralizing response to ACO2 You are in essence arguing a theology with them.
  11. Antarctica is gaining ice
    I was recently quoted Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk 2002 as proof that WAIS is gaining ice. In the article I read that the sheet is marine based, but grounded, so does that count as land ice? Also, the the third to the last paragraph the article indicates that it is only about the Ross ice streams: “This analysis covers only the Ross Sea sector of the ice sheet, and negative imbalances are observed in other areas of West Antarctica such as Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers.” Is that why there isn't any conflict between that article's gaining ice conclusion and the GRACE 2002-2009 data showing land ice loss?
    Response:

    [DB] The WAIS is in negative mass-balance.  While the interior of the EAIS is gaining mass, its edges are losing mass sufficient to put the EAIS overall into negative mass-balance.  Now that negative could be as little as 5 Gt/yr or as much as 67 Gt/yr (IIRC).

    Antarctic sea ice is gaining some in the metrics of area and extent, but this is an expected response to increased precipitation to the warming of its circumpolar current.

    The PIG and Thwaites are the linch-pin to the WAIS; without their stabilizing presence, ice flow rates will accelerate greatly.

  12. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Garethman, Well everthing above absolute zero emits heat. Any given atom or molecule can acquire via collision enough energy to knock an electron into a upper orbital, from which decay emits a photon, in this case an infrared photon, otherwise called, albeit misleadingly, 'heat'. Regardless, then whether a given CO2 molecule in the air has even picked up an IR photon or not, it can be energized by random collisions to an excited state where it radiates in the IR region. The freqency of the photons is governed by the modes of bending and stretching that the CO2 molecule has, and the intensity of emissions is governed by the air temperature. The higher the temperature the greater the frequency IR photon emissions. The response to temperature is governed by the Stephan-Boltzman distribution. This is all highly probably in common temperatures. The reason that CO2 emits and O2 and N2 don't is that the lowest excited state for those gases is much, much more energetic than for CO2, so the odds of a molecule of oxygen or nitrogen acquiring enough energy in the atmosphere at ordinary temperatures is many orders of magnitude smaller. (I could look up the constants and do the math...but I don't think it's necessary for understanding. Understandable? Let me know.
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 04:42 AM on 22 August 2011
    Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Dave123 I really don't understand the difficulty "skeptics" have with the mass balance argument, the funny things is that it is true whatever the mechansim governing the behaviour of the natural carbon cycle. With the mechanism you suggest, the natural environment would still be a net sink and the mass balance argument would demonstrate that to be the case. The real thing though that prevents useful discussion is the unwillingness to engage with analogies, or to take up challenges (essentially giving a hint of what they would need to show to prove me wrong - how more helpfull could I be?). I made several on that thread and none were taken up. Or to answer direct questions (for instance I asked one respondant repeatedly that given they had accepted the natural environment is a net sink, how can it be the source of the rise. No answer was ever given. I pointed out this question would help me understand their point of view, so if truth seeking were the aim, you would have thought they would have been eager to answer, but no!.
  14. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    garethman at 04:22 AM on 22 August, 2011 The source of heat is (almost) entirely solar, as Denning said. Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit the infrared photons.
  15. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Dikran, I took a look a the Carbon-Dioxide Balance thread on WUWT and I think I've identified the cognitive issue a couple of the people have- the ones going on about needing to know all the flows between compartments in detail They've got an implicit mechanism in mind, that they won't spell out because they also internally know it sounds ridiculous... something like this....Athropogenic CO2 (ACO2) is 'different' from natural CO2 (it is of course by isotope ratio), but more by magical thinking. They imagine a special unknown sink for ACO2 that comes into operation when ACO2 comes into existence and it soaks up all the ACO2. Then there's a source (also unspecified)that for climastrological reasons just happens to start pumping out something around 1/2 of the ACO2 levels at an increasing rate. The sink for ACO2 comes and goes as ACO2 comes and goes.... but the climastrological product of natural CO2 going into the system is now turned on and won't stop just because we stop burning fossil fuels. And response to has been in many cases, prove that you've accounted for everything, that the 'intelligent design' for an ACO2 sink doesn't exist, that there isn't a climastrological source that's putting in fossil CO2 ...putting you in the box of proving a negative. That's what I think is going on, and why they don't buy your mass balance. But they'll never say so directly, or own the responsibility of naming the sink and source that the rest of the world missed finding. That's partly what they mean by it being too complex to figure out as well....it's a way of ducking the responsibility to name the sinks and sources. Magical thinking.
  16. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Hi MP3CE, I did not check your figures, but you should be going for ppmv (parts per million by volume), instead of mass.
  17. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    I think R.Gates deserves a medal, or at least an R.Gates club for people who dare. Maybe Scott Denning would have membership card number 1.
  18. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    My response to CBDunkerson has also gone in that direction http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-does-global-warming-affect-polar-bears.html
  19. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Hello all ! I have one question regarding CO2 emisions: Well when I calculate CO2 emisions from mass (31 GT according to source here should be mass 31E+12 kg) and mass of atmosphere according to wikipedia (5.14E+18 kg, source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass ), I get about 6 ppm instead of 4 mentioned here. What I am missing or doing wrong here ?
  20. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I agree, Camburn. The effort to deal with denialist crap (I would not deign to call it "arguments", let alone "scientific arguments") effectively prevents the debate to reach what really matters at this point: policy and technological solutions.
  21. How does global warming affect polar bears?
    85 CB Dunkerson. Think about your logic here. If Polar bear are endangered, why is it OK to shoot so many per year? If you think shooting 700 bears per year in just one country is OK, it rather undermines your concern for the welfare of an animal you claim is endangered, especially when you say hunting is nowhere near as much of a problem as climate change when you freely admit there is no reliable data to support such a claim at present. I’m afraid it’s opinions like this which give climate science a bad name. Your views on climate change appear to be based on good science,I am puzzled as to why you are so blinkered on this issue. Bears may well be threatened in the longer term by the loss of Arctic ice, but the reality is that they are threatened here and now by shooting. Or is it OK to reduce the population because they are going to suffer under climate change regardless? I must confess, your logic on this one is very strange. . If a species is endangered it’s OK to shoot them and reduce the population by many thousands, as long as we understand why they are endangered in the long run ? The only way out of such an impasse is to say, well they are not endangered at present, so it’s OK to shoot them. But does that not then impact on your original idea of bears starving and drowning with a fall in population due to climate change? You cannot have it both ways.Or are you saying the effects of climate change are bad, but lets shoot them anyway? Mullers claim about not a single bear having died from the effects of climate change is odd. How can he know that? We don’t know how every bear dies, so we don’t know whether that is correct or not. We just know that there is no direct evidence at present. It is a recurring theme that just because we know that there are long term negative effects from climate change, we tend to overlook the here and now dangers impacting our environment. ps, Neither of your links “disprove” anything, or make statements “blatantly false” What they do is draw strong correlations between a reduction in some populations and melting ice, which I think you will agree, is different. By the way, the links also contradict some of the points in your own posts. Apologies for the length of the post
  22. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    A major solution is so obvious, yet is met with so much resistance. 1. Thorium reactors. Cap and Trade: The idea of Cap and Trade was started by Enron, endorsed by Goldman Sachs. It was looked at as a money making scheme with government blessings. Goldman Sachs had thought they had found a new gold mine with this. What you fail to discuss here is economics. Economics, in and off itself, will dictate lowered energy consumption. Part of the reason that you see USA co2 emissions declining is the recession. But a larger part is increases in effiencies of energy consumption.
  23. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Hopefully. the fact that both the Kremlin's Russia Today English-language TV and the Russian Geographical Society did not mention Kapitsa's claim that warming causes a rise in CO2 shows that the Russian political and scientific officials don't want to be associated with this ignorant theory any longer. During Climategate, Russian scientists were mostly silent. Only one--Professor Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University--said that the Climategate hacking was a provocation against the Copenhagen meeting. Kirpotin's words were only reported on the Russian Greenpeace site, not in a major Russian paper or in English. Still, only a few famous scientists in Russia denied global warming; but these were given access to the media in English. I think Kirpotin was brave. He spoke truth to power, and hopefully, Russian politicians will respect his sense of responsibility to his country and the world. President Medvedev is no longer calling global warming a trick. He says it is happening. Perhaps he now realizes that climate change is not a "trick." Still, all the Russians have right now is gas and Gazprom pays the bills. I write about Sergei Kirpotin on my blog pretty often. He said the theft of the CRU emails was a "provocation" that was clearly "ordered" by someone in order to create doubts about the science behind the theory of global warming. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/01/tomsk-scientist-sergei-kirpotin-has-few.html
  24. CO2 effect is saturated
    Tom Curtis: Excellent response! Thanks! My apparent criticism of the spectral work of Harries and others is not that they didn't demonstrate a change in the spectrum of outgoing radiation due to increasing CO2. They clearly did. My objection is in the phrase "and therefore the greenhouse effect..." The change in a spectral component of the OLR does not directly translate into a global temperature change - the total behavior of the OLR must be impacted to affect the energy balance. I would agree if all else remained constant. - athough that is not very physical... For example, you can see that a slight increase in the average frequency, duration, altitude or size of thunderstorms (see your third graph @170 (excellent by the way!)) would easily offset any changes in CO2 - they have a much wider band, much higher brightness temperature at the high end of the variation, very large swing in the effect on the spectrum. Are you aware of any analyses of experimental data that would put this to rest? This is a foundational aspect of AGW theory, and it would be a little weak to rely entirely on assertion or models...
  25. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Great challenge. Paraphrasing the question: Does the right really have solutions to offer or is its only way out to deny the problem?
  26. How does global warming affect polar bears?
    Continuing from here. Someone asked for research: Durner et al 2011 Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat Amstrup et al 2010 Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence Polar Bear Abundance and vital rates Survival of juvenile, sub adult, and senescent-adult polar bears was correlated with spring sea ice breakup date, which was variable among years and occurred approximately 3 weeks earlier in 2004 than at the beginning of the study in 1984. We propose that this correlation provides evidence for a causal association between earlier sea ice breakup (due to climatic warming) and decreased polar bear survival. Mortality During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears. We hypothesize that nutritional stresses related to the longer ice-free seasons that have occurred in the Beaufort Sea in recent years may have led to the cannibalism incidents we observed in 2004. And what of the poor walrus, who seems to get no respect? Walrus Tracking and Sea Ice Decline in the Chukchi Sea Let the skeptic arguments come forth! Correlation isn't causation; no specific cause of death attribution; not a long enough time sample; swimming is great exercise; they would have died anyway ...
  27. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    This guy is GREAT!! "When will you stand up and offer sotlutions?" "Are you cowards?" I have this kind of thought for some time time now (like here), and it's great to see someone like this Scott Denning saying this right in the middle of denialism-promoter Heartland Institute. Way to go, Scott. Keep it coming.
  28. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Etr#84: "That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research." And your speculation in the prior paragraph about a large polar bear population increase is supported by what research? But we just went around the polar bear question with friend pirate. It's vastly off-topic here, so I will reply here.
  29. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    garethman wrote: "But hunting has a here and now catastrophic effect." Nonsense. The world polar bear population increased from ~5000 around 1965 to ~25000 by 2000 while suffering this supposedly 'catastrophic' effect. Uncontrolled hunting is a major problem... which ended fifty years ago. Controlled hunting is scaled back or increased based on polar bear numbers and thus does not cause any significant reductions. It certainly cannot wipe out populations. EtR wrote: "Sphaerica seems to be using as a distraction the remote possibility that their ecosystem might be effectively destroyed. That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research." Actually, it is accepted reality amongst most of the scientific community... not to mention oil and shipping companies. The summer Arctic sea ice is going away. The claim that this is not supported by research is just fiction. Ditto your statement that, "there simply is no evidence that climate change is affecting the polar bear populations". If you want to pursue these blatantly false statements further please do so on any of the existing threads which already cite evidence disproving them. For instance; Muller's false claim about not a single polar bear having died EtR's false claim about global warming having no impact on polar bears
  30. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    The name of the 9-11 Truther whom Pravda published on Climategate and the coming ice age is named Gregory Fegel. I write about him on my blog. He thinks President Bush and the US government are behind 9-11. He also writes conspiracies about Climategate and he thinks earth is on the verge of a new ice age. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/gregory-ffegel-9-11-truther-is-on-thin.html Here is Fegel's Pravda article about Climategate. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0/ Here is Fegel's Pravda article about a coming ice age. He doesn't understand that the tipping of the earth is weak compared to CO2. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/ I read on DeSmogblog comments that Fegel is a nurse, and someone claiming to be Fegel posted a rebuttal. http://www.desmogblog.com/drudge-and-pravda-state-owned-media-aligning-coverage
  31. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Sphaerica, I beg to differ. Human impacts from hunting, habitat dectruction, human hunting of polar bear food supplies, and other encounters have had the greatest impact on polar bear populations during the past several decades. CB, Increased polar bear deaths may simply be due to the large population increase. More bears mean greater competition for the prime hunting territories, and weaker bears being pushed to less favorable areas. Did the bears drown because there was less sea ice, or because they were forced out further than ideal due to the presence of the stronger bears? Sphaerica seems to be using as a distraction the remote possibility that their ecosystem might be effectively destroyed. That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research. Obviously, if the Arctic turned tropical, the bears would be in deep, deep trouble. However, there is no indication that that will happen, and he is just distracting from the current situation. This is just a straw man argument with little supported data. This is one of the weakest of the AGW arguments, and should be avoided by those who wish to convince others of its validity. Sphaerica is correct in that it is a distraction. But it is a distraction for the wrong reason, there simply is no evidence that climate change is affecting the polar bear populations. Hence, skeptics can use this argument effectively to counter AGW supporters.
  32. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Denning's presentation to that audience was, to me, quite stunning. He scorns the scientific details, implicatively repudiates the debate and flings down a challenge. That is miles away from where I operate and looks like genius to me - probably because I could never have conceived such an approach. I'm in this debate because I'm dismayed at the gross offences to reason and science and scientists by climate change contrarians, not to persuade anyone politically. I would sure like to know what motivates Denning. Or anyone here, for that matter. Why do we post at WUWT and Judith Curry's? Why do we try to reach across the abyss even as we say "it's no longer a worthwhile activity"? Do we secretly think that persistence will eventually pay off?
  33. Greenland is gaining ice
    Here's a story from the human perspective--Inuit Greenlanders and their changing culture due to changes in ice. It was published in Business Week of all things. Of course, it does hit on the drill, baby, drill aspect of Arctic change.
  34. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Here is a 2006 article in Pravda (English version) that quotes Andrei Kapitsa on global warming. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/21-12-2006/86045-ozone_hole-0/ This article was first published in another Russian paper. Pravda is now a nationalist publication with a lot of girlie pictures. They publish a lot of scientific conspiracy theories. For example, they published an American 9-11 Truther's Climategate conspiracy theories and also his theories about a coming ice age. The Truther was cited as a "Russian scientist" by American right-wing publications, but the author was really an American conspiracist who is not a scientist. I read he is a male nurse. Pravda observes: "Professor Andrei Kapitsa, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that the issues of global warming and rapidly increasing ozone holes are myths disguised as scientific revelations." In Russia there is a very powerful gas company called Gazprom. It used to be the Soviet Gas Ministry until it morphed into Gazprom. It is majority owned by the Russian government and pays the bills for the Russian government. I imagine they know perfectly well that the permafrost is melting, but they want to sell gas. The CATO Institute's "expert" on climate change, Andrei Illarionov used to work for Chernomyrdin who ran Gazprom. President Medvedev used to be the head of Gazprom. I think Putin put him there. Medvedev said global warming was a "trick," but after the fires last summer he said it was really happening. Pravda tells Kapitsa's conspiracy theory about money: Prof. Kapitsa believes it would be wrong to maintain that the ozone layer has been largely depleted over the last ten years. The question is: Why do people keep talking about the dangers relating to the decrease of the ozone layer? “I’m afraid the money is a key word in this case,” Prof. Kapitsa said. “Chemical companies producing the so-called healthy Freon refrigerants make lots of money once the refrigerants are replaced at a nationwide scale. The replacement of refrigerators and air-conditioning systems in the U.S. alone cost the consumer a total of $220 billion last year. Former president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences Frederick Zeitz said a long time ago that all the theories relating to global warming were far-fetched and couldn’t be proven correct,” Prof. Kapitsa concluded. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/21-12-2006/86045-ozone_hole-0/
  35. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    82, garethmean, Get real. Hunting polar bears in the Arctic wastes is never, ever going to have the same impact as permanently destroying their ecosystem. Please. The fact that no bear deaths can be attributed to climate change is a distraction from the real problem. The fact that bears die (from hunting or anything else) is another distraction from the real problem. The fact that the effective destruction of their ecosystem hasn't measurably happened yet is yet another distraction from the real problem. The fact that Those-Who-Deny-AGW-But-Aren't-Deniers-In-Any-Other-Sense (TWDAGWBADIAOS, for short) love the polar bear issue because they can make a lot of straw men with it is the real problem.
  36. There is no consensus
    Eric the Red @425:
    " The divergence occurs when asked, "how much?" You have alluded to this point quite well. While 90% may believe that we humans are warming the planet, how much we are warming the planet is very much open to debate. There are those you will jump from the Doran survery (or Anderegg) and claim that those same scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas also believe that the claims of large positive feedback and exponential warming. This is were the consensus breaks down, with a wide array of beliefs, each supported by scientific research. We currently have an "average" value of warming."
    I know you would like this to be true, and you have asserted it on several occasions. They only thing lacking has been the evidence. Let's take scientific opinion first. Among climate scientists 62.01% think the IPCC accurately estimate the magnitude of future changes of temperature. A further 15.64% think the IPCC slightly under estimates the magnitude of future temperature changes, while 11.73 think that they slightly over estimate them. That means 89.93% of climate scientists think IPCC estimates of future temperature changes are accurate or only slightly inaccurate. A further 4.47% thinks the IPCC significantly under estimates future temperature changes, leaving just 6.15% who think they significantly over estimate those changes. Those figures are hardly signs of a consensus that has broken down. That means that there is a consensus (>90%) of climate scientists who believe the temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, a figure that is dangerous at anywhere in that range. Indeed, that is something the climate scientists also agree on, with over 60% being strongly convinced that climate change poses "a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity", with a further 31% being moderately convinced of that claim. Just 6% significantly doubt that possibility, and from those 6%, only a third are completely unconvinced of any danger.
  37. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Here is Andrei Kapitsa's obituary. His death did not get much notice in the English-language Russian media. http://int.rgo.ru/news/andrey-kapitsa-dies-in-moscow/ http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/988 The Kremlin's English-language satellite channel Russia Today (RT) mentions his old discoveries and his important family but does not mention his theory that higher temperatures cause more CO2. http://rt.com/news/prime-time/kapitsa-exlporer-scientist-died/
  38. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    garethman, I don't care about or get much stick. I try to craft my posts there in ways that are hard to distort. One careless word and that's the bit they'll focus on, not the thrust of the argument. I've gotten better at paring it back, and fewer respond to me now - I reckon it's because they've less to jump at. Or my posts are more boring! But when they do respond they dodge the point, move the goalposts, torture analogies, assassinate my character - you name it. They pull every intellectual contortion there is not to have a reasonable, on point discussion. It's argumentative, not argument. It's about winning points, not testing them. It's the sheer inanity of the replies, when they come, that puts me off, as well as seeing the myth I've just busted repeated by the next commenter who arrives fresh from skimming the subject enough to regurgitate it in mostly complete sentences. I know it's a waste of time, but some faint hope seems to remain that some one there will actually take the blinders off and reflect for a few minutes. But really, it's not worth it at that place. Not brave, not heroic, not stalwart. I don't know whether R Gates should get a medal or a smack on the hand for carrying on there, but I know I couldn't maintain that pace without it becoming a bit of a sickness.
  39. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Dear Mr. Cook, Salby seems to be giving the Andrei Kapitsa line on CO2. Kapitsa, a geographer, was one of the Russians that Senator Inhofe cited on global warming. Andrei was insulted that British scientists didn't listen to him. He died on August 2 at 80 years old and did his good work about 50 years ago. Below is a link to a post I wrote about Kapitsa's claims some time ago. Kapitsa's ideas were also spread in the Indian and British media. This was my very first post about Climategate, so maybe some observations are not correct. I never paid attention to climate change until Climategate. Then I was surprised to see that the Republicans were citing these official Russian sources and that the Russian media was trashing our scientists. I think it is possible that there was Russian involvement in Climategate. Scroll down a bit to see the information about Andrei Kapitsa. According to The Hindu (7-10-08), Kapitsa claims: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.” http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/11/russias-hacker-patriots-embarrass.html I hope you will take the time to read my very first post about Climategate because it discusses Kapitsa's perspective, which I don't accept. If you search Kapitsa on my site, I have more about him, but this is the main post about him. He is from a famous family, and you have to be careful not to confuse them. His father was the very famous Pyotr Kapitsa and his brother is Sergei Kapitsa. I think they were more famous than Andrei. His Wikipedia is dinky compared to Pyotr and Sergei's. You can learn a lot about Russian scientists by reading about this family.
  40. Dikran Marsupial at 00:23 AM on 22 August 2011
    Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Garethman the problem with discussion science at WUWT is not that you get a "lot of stick" - it is that you get a lot of rhetoric used to evade engaging with the scientific points raised (a symptom of denial in the psycological sense). Here is a classic example, I use a joint bank account as a simple analogy to the carbon cycle, however rather than engaging with the analogy, the respondant elaborates the analogy in ways that have no relevance to the carbon cycle so as to avoid the point of the analogy. Another respondent does the same sort of thing here and yet another one here! Here is a respondant refusing to point out the flaw in a step-by-step argument that proved his position wrong; but not admitting that he couldn't find such an error and trying to deflect the discussion back to issues where there was uncertainty in the data, rather than engage in an argument where there was little uncertainty. A bit later he does say that (incorrectly) that the mass balance argument makes incorrect assumptions, but he still doesn't say at which step it is introduced. The whole point of laying out the steps one by one was to make the argument as easy to definitively refute as possible - but no takers. After a while it gets so tiresome that it is no longer a worthwhile activity.
  41. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 21 August, 2011 [quote snipped] I have not made any claims, I just asked if anyone had any citations. Read my post. You are correct of course that you cannot prove they have, or have not died of climate change.Some ice melts every year, so there will always be areas where there is water where there was previously ice in the short term. Bears are feeders in the pack ice, not in the thicker old ice, and not particularly on shore. When the ice melts in the summer in coastal areas they lose weight, though do scavenge. Old and infirm bears are likely to die at this time. Generally well fed bears in prime condition are not the ones who die, except of course from hunting. All bears do die at some point. I just wondered whether there were any records or firm correlations with climate change. As an expert maybe you could point me in the direction of good peer reviewed papers that demonstrate an increase in starvation levels in areas which previously had plenty of food? Even if the reduction in food is not linked to climate change it is still a critical factor which is likely to have an impact on bear populations. The link as you say is at present hard to define or refute due to an absence of reliable data on bear deaths. But a bullet in the head is easy to connect with bear deaths, and there many thousands of those recorded over the last few years, and many more to come. Logically climate change will unavoidably effect bears. But hunting has a here and now catastrophic effect. Any real concern with the wellbeing of bears should look at what we know are mortality issues, as opposed to what we surmise could be an issue. That is what deniers with their logic do apparently.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] As previously requested please refrain from quoting large sections of other peoples posts in your replies; add a link instead. Please review the comments policy.
  42. There is no consensus
    Agree Muon. Rickoxo, EtR raises an interesting point, and one that I tried to address earlier. He says, "the divergence occurs when asked, 'how much?'." This is the problem with asking about significance in this context. If humans are warming the planet, what does significance mean? Are you measuring over a day, a year, a decade, a century? If we get just a 1C global average increase just from CO2 per century, is that significant? If you say no, a thousand years from now you might say yes. If the effect of our aerosols masks that increase, is the effect still significant? Nature is trying to cool the Earth right now (orbital slightly and solar), so what do you measure significance from? The natural trend? The most recent climatological period? Pre-industrial? Significance is not a simple question here. There are also some who might answer the question thinking, "Well, we've hit peak oil, and emissions will soon decline, and we'll end up mitigating, so while we could, we'll never really hit the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenarios, so I'll answer no." Yes, Doran knows what statistical significance is, but the survey question doesn't limit the conditions of significance. At this point in your travels into climate science, what would you answer to both Anderegg and Doran? And what is the confidence level of your answer? If you want to find out why there is not a 100% consensus, go to the publications. Ask Anderegg which scientists he found who did not demonstrate support for the theory. Ask Doran for the names of the 2.5% of climate scientists. Look at their reasons, their publications. You will then know why the claims of consensus are accurate. You'll gain environmental (contextual) knowledge that many of the posters here already have but that outsiders (survey readers) don't have. And now you see why it is so difficult to communicate the science to non-scientists--and why it is so easy for those who are motivated to do so to obfuscate, misinform, generate doubt, and generally stop we, as a whole, from doing anything about the growing problem.
  43. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Dave, my last crack at WUWT was over the Charles Monnett (polar bear paper) kerfuffle. It was obvious that virtually no one commenting on the quality of his 2006 monograph (which was just about everybody) had even read it. As usual, the game for me became trying to be as lucid and compelling as possible simply to draw attention to errors of fact. Seeding hoaxes sounds amusing, but not my style. I sometimes imagine that some of the denizens of denialdepot infiltrate for kicks, agreeing with the milieu in the most inane, yet plausibly contrarianesque ways possible to see if the posts will be admitted, perhaps with the hopes that passers by will read the pap and give the place a mental thumbs down.
  44. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Thanks Barry, I suppose the thing that bothered me was someone posting an article which complained about funding for a particular project (rightly or wrongly) but then extended the article into what was a racist comment and refused to withdraw, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of how inappropriate the post was. Even Anthony Watts commented that he would never have allowed such a post if he had seen it, but once posted was hard to remove. When someone posts such an article and truly believes they are right, how much does that impact ones trust for the rest of their science? The thing that undermines the site more than anything is the right wing tea party types who see all science as suspicious. I still think it is worth posting comments on WUWT , even if you get a lot of stick!
  45. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    funglestrumpet: Without proffering any opinion on the WTC1 collapse, I have to ask: are you a structural engineer? Or have you had any training in materials science, including failure modes of structural steel and concrete, both static and dynamic? If not, what makes you think you know more than those who do? In this one respect your analogy is apt - it's quite a similar situation to the global warming 'debate', in that the experts in the field are saying "We're pretty sure it's X", and others with little or no knowledge or qualifications are saying "But it must be Y, because X is unacceptable to us". Is it Dunning-Kruger at work? In some cases, I think it is (and I rather suspect some of the more 'qualified' sceptics are suffering badly from D-K). Many cases are just sheer ignorance of what the science actually says (due to, in no small part, deliberate disinformation by vested interests). Others are from misunderstanding the science, due to lack of knowledge of the field (and I'll raise my hand as being guilty of that on occasion). In others, though, the only appropriate term is the D-word: denier. John's written a whole book about it. I recommend reading it. It's quite educational, I've learned a lot about the psychology of denial that I didn't know.
  46. There is no consensus
    Eric @ 425: "There are those you will jump from the Doran survery (or Anderegg) and claim that those same scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas also believe that the claims of large positive feedback and exponential warming. This is were the consensus breaks down, with a wide array of beliefs, each supported by scientific research. We currently have an "average" value of warming." For what it's worth, the Anderegg 2010 is neither a survey nor a poll and should not be associated as such. I also think it is important to realize that probably none of those consensus studies would have been conducted had the skeptic/denial side not stooped to the level of deliberate misinformation by compiling huge lists of climate change skeptics who were "scientists" but not climate scientists; but nevertheless suggesting they somehow have some expertise in the area.
  47. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    21 - Barry- The question is, are you looking in on the skeptiverse or the loonisphere? I think there's a sociology paper out there waiting to published see how many of the posters on WUWT etc (the Loonisphere), can be found to embrace anything as long as it looks like it will stick it to the AGW camp- demonstrating no ability to separate contradictory and competing denialist claims. It would be lovely to seed it with a few hoaxes as well. btw..re "loonisphere". my wife...being who she is deplores the term mathturbation, and prefers (coined?) mathtycism instead, which I think lines up nicely with "climastrology".
  48. Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 2 of 2)
    Stevo - there are many of us who choose not to support either major party in Australian politics. That's the reason we have a minority government right now - only our second in the past century (the previous one was in 1940). At least on climate, Labor have an actual plan (flawed as it may be, although that's definitely a debate for another forum).
  49. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo, Very good arguments. There are those (especially here) that will point to the Doran survey and claim that 97% believe in AGW. I cringe every time I here that. As you have detailed, the survey is quite vague, and the paper should not used as evidence for a consensus. The further problem with poeple using consensus is that they confuse what actually makes up the consensus. Yes, a vast majority agree that the planet has warmed and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The divergence occurs when asked, "how much?" You have alluded to this point quite well. While 90% may believe that we humans are warming the planet, how much we are warming the planet is very much open to debate. There are those you will jump from the Doran survery (or Anderegg) and claim that those same scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas also believe that the claims of large positive feedback and exponential warming. This is were the consensus breaks down, with a wide array of beliefs, each supported by scientific research. We currently have an "average" value of warming. Of course, muoncounter says it best, "in science, opinions don't carry much water." Whether 97, 90, or whatever believe in something does not necessarily make it true. Science is based on research, not opinions. This is not to say that it is not ture, but only that it does not supply evidence of its truth (either way, as you explained).
  50. There is no consensus
    rickoxo@422: "How do you know if someone is a legitimate scientist, they accept GWS. Anyone who doesn't is a myth peddler." You continue to frame the argument in a manner that is entirely backwards. One is not a myth-peddler simply by 'disagreeing with IPCC.' One os a myth-peddler because one peddles myths. In this quest, you've missed the fact that this site challenges the work of those it labels myth-peddlers. When fault is found in their work, those faults are called out. Those who continually publicize conclusions based on work identified as flawed (or even false) are the myth-peddlers. What is shown time and again to be settled is the weight of the scientific evidence, not necessarily the scientific opinion. But in science, opinions don't carry much water. But you then pose the question a tad differently: ""we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades?" Could a legitimate climate scientist disagree with that statement" That's a new, vastly higher hurdle; some no doubt can and do disagree with your words 'quantify,' 'verify' and 'essentially all'. The IPCC statement typically quoted is not at all the same: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. I find it fascinating that you've analyzed what is a higher-order science (one that is composed of parts from many disciplines - and therefore brings all of their uncertainties) through the lens of opinion polling, a kind of 'meta-knowledge' that does little more than introduce its own uncertainty. Its a bit like trying to measure a very long distance, not by using a meterstick (difficult enough), but by using a stick of uncertain length. But that's just my opinion.

Prev  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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