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. There is no consensus
    RickG, great cite, thanks for throwing it in. Wow, what a difference from Doran. Incredibly rigorous, careful, precise, hits me as a powerful study. Two things hit me most strongly in reading it, one, a slight problem with Anderegg's using publication frequency as a proxy for expertise, but the main thing, Anderegg's finding that 10% of climate scientists with at least 20 publications are unconvinced by the evidence for GWS. The 2 second take on Anderegg's using publication frequency as a proxy for expertise is that I think every single journal in which these articles were published are put out by scientific societies that have made public statements asserting that GWS is a settled issue. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that the likelihood of getting published is equivalent for both sets of scientists. At least in education, it's much easier to get published in a journal that agrees with the major tenets of your research than in one that disagrees with them, even though both journals are dealing with the same topic. But the killer for me in this article, Anderegg came up with 90% in the convinced camp and 10% in the unconvinced camp (CE = 817, UE = 93), a hugely overwhelming and solid finding, but one that leaves 10% of climate scientists with at least 20 publications unconvinced by the evidence for GWS. So try out this idea and tell me if it helps folks understand what I'm facing as a skeptic. I absolutely guarantee, bet every penny I have, that there wouldn't be 93 out of 910 physicists with at least 20 journal publications who don't believe Newtonian mechanics describes simple observable motion of objects. Those laws are easy to understand, can be empirically validated any time and there wouldn't be 10% of the physicist community saying objects don't accelerate when they fall or momentum doesn't = mass times velocity. In the post on the homepage, "The Big Picture", Dana1981 wrote, "Sometimes people ask 'what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?'. Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries." If this is the case, how can 93 climate scientists with at least 20 publications not agree with you?
    Response:

    [DB] So, if 9 cardiologists out of 10 said you need open heart surgery STAT, but the outlier said to take 2 aspirins and see how you felt in the morning, you'd be OK with that?

    Similarly, if 9 out of 10 oncologists said you had a form of cancer requiring the most agressive course of chemo and radiation to survive, but the other one recommended some holistic therapy, you'd be OK with that?

    Because that is what you are essentially saying: the outlier has equal credibility.

  2. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    From my experience in the Japanese-speaking part of the Internet, I have a piece of caution. Tracking a piece of material (e.g. a carbon atom) and evaluating mass balance are different things. Some AGW skeptics insist that, because the mean residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is around 3 years, anthropogenic emissions cannot affect climate more than at this time scale. They claim that such introductory remarks as“nearly half of fossil-fuel CO2 remains in the atmosphere”are wrong assuming that the expression must reflect tracking of CO2 molecules. Surely the introductory remarks should be composed a little carefully indicating that this is a issue of mass balance. I tried to discuss as follows (though I am not sure whether the audience understood.) Even if an “anthropogenic” CO2 molecule go to the ocean, a “natural” CO2 molecule can fill the place, then the anthropogenic effect to the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere does not change.
  3. There is no consensus
    Sphaerica, while I get the issue of consensus is a bit of a red herring, I think that consensus actually serves as a proxy for is the important question, is the science settled? Attempting to assess consensus gives us a window into that question. I like your progression from 1-6, but I don't quite buy the pattern idea that it at least hits me you're suggesting. I had never heard of Doran (2009), it was cited here as evidence that scientist agree in the high 90% range with the basic premises of GWS. That is a simple proposition that can be evaluated apart from being a never ending progression of denial at every turn. It hits me that as part of the peer-review process of making sure only the best quality resources get cited as evidence for GWS positions, I'd think the GWS community would kick out the Doran paper because it so easily opens them up to criticism. I partly picked the issue of consensus because it's more accessible to the non-scientist, I live in the world of grant writing and publishing so I have a lot of experience with some of the effects of consensus and I'm very curious about the proposition that the science is settled. Since I am not so capable (or have the time/energy) of going into all the science and determining its validity for myself, one of the ways I can partially address the question is look around in the community of experts to see the range of opinions expressed. Pretty much no one questions whether or not we should teach systematic phonics to support beginning readers--the consensus is established, the research base is solid and it's pretty much a done issue. But figuring out the line from yes teach systematic phonics, but the exact methods, the amount of time per/day, the books that best support phonics instruction, all of those secondary questions aren't so settled. Some of what I'm hoping to see in the consensus debate are the types of questions experts in the field say are a done deal and the types of questions they say are still open to debate.
  4. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    "Well are or aren't claims that the Earth has presently suffered harm scientifically based?" Yes, but your choice of words is a trick and a trap, isn't it? There's scientific support to the claims of some of the damage. Extreme events like record floods, storms, droughts, heat waves, arctic disruption, all combine the science, the expectation, and the observation. It shows up in places like your insurance premiums and food prices.
  5. Models are unreliable
    And yet another thought - if we were getting an extra 2W/m2 of solar radiation (twice the range of the 11 year solar cycle), would you say that models were incapable of predicting that this would warm the planet?
  6. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Anthony Mills, I have put a further comment here
  7. Models are unreliable
    For Anthony Mills - you might like to consider that you can make useful prediction with even very simple models. eg Broecker's model However, it is also fair to say that climate models have no skill at short period prediction, not even decadal, for reasons that include your concerns.
  8. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    " They say IR absorption is already over 90% implying that we only have less than 10% to go to reach the limit." Dr Doom, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread but it is a common misconception. Please see CO2 effect is saturated thread. If the article doesnt answer your question, I suggest you continue there. The Science of Doom article (well the whole sequence of articles) does deal with this in some detail.
  9. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    More on Guvna Perry The man is a buffoon (and I can say that because I live in his state).
  10. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    If you look at the arguments behind the photos many don't actually address the so-called 'Climate Myth' but rather just play an exercise in tit for tat. Look at Muller's entry for a prime example: "claims that global warming has harmed the Earth so far are not scientific". Well are or aren't claims that the Earth has presently suffered harm scientifically based? The 'reality' posted is that negatives outweigh positives. That doesn't address what he said at all. I could mention a lot more that's just one concise example.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Every rebuttal specifically addresses the myth in question.  If the one-liner response is too succinct for your taste, click the link to see more detail.

  11. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    ginckgo at 10:28 AM on 19 August, 2011 Do we really have to bow to their bullying and call them 'skeptics' instead of 'deniers'? -------- No, but this is the name they want to use. They have made an iron rod for their own back, since they have changed the meaning of climate skeptic to mean " I will believe anything as long as it makes my fear of AGW go away." Terms like denier they can twist: those wicked warmists are calling us Nazis, cry, sob. They cannot twist "climate skeptic" because it is their own. Use the term "climate skeptic. As often as possible.
  12. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    alan_marshall at 09:59 AM on 19 August, 2011 What I notice is the abundance of grey hair. ---------- I have noticed that old people feel the cold more. So maybe it's a case of not wanting to move to warmer climes like old people do now. They want the warmer climes to move to them.
  13. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Can we have Bolt & Jones as well? Also, I think Muller deserves an honourable mention for infuriating the denialists by replicating the existing terrestrial temperature data with his own analysis. I'm almost thinking that he is a mole in the denialist ranks.
  14. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    DrDoom#237/239: "y = ln (x) where y is temp. and x is CO2. The CO2 sensitivity is the derivative dy/dx defined as the change in temp. per unit change in CO2." This may be the source of your continued misunderstanding. The logarithmic function in question relates radiative forcing to relative CO2 concentration: delta F = 5.35 ln [CO2(t)/CO2ref], where t is time and CO2ref is a baseline value, usually taken as ~280ppm. Forcing F is measured in watts/m^2 delta T = lambda delta F, where T is temperature The sensitivity parameter lambda can be seen as the derivative of T wrt F, not T wrt CO2 as you have repeatedly claimed. The function ln x is indeed concave down; it is in fact unbounded, with a derivative that approaches (but does not reach) zero as x increases. But to find a time derivative of temperature, dT/dt, we need the function CO2(t). Taking measured values of CO2 over time, we find that CO2(t) is strongly concave up. Temperature as a function of time is thus both increasing and concave up; a net positive forcing, regardless of CO2 concentration, causes temperature increase. Increasing the forcing (increasing the CO2) increases the rate at which temperature changes. Further discussion of this particular point is more appropriate to the thread linear warming.
  15. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Dikran, In scientific discussion, you don't presume ignorance or lack of understanding. You explain why the argument is flawed. Focus on the argument not the person. I presume you understand my point. If CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic, then the sensitivity dy/dx is diminishing and approaching zero. At a certain value of x (CO2), increases in CO2 will no longer increase temp. I think it is important to know what that value is. In essence, that is a physical limit on y (temp.) Now, I understand your point about doubling CO2 will always increase temp. by the same amount. However, in reality you cannot do this forever because to get the same temp. increase down the road, you need almost infinite amount of CO2. In reality, there will be a diminishing CO2 sensitivity. We can speculate that the ‘physical limit’ on temp. is far down the road. But it is better to calculate this value than to speculate. An accurate calculation of the sensitivity of doubling CO2 does not tell us anything about where the ‘physical limit’ is, whether it is near or far the current temp. Since this website is about answering the skeptical arguments on climate change, I suggest you take a look at this issue because it is one of the skeptical arguments. They say IR absorption is already over 90% implying that we only have less than 10% to go to reach the limit.
  16. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
    Alex @11, Mercury is not tide locked.
  17. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
    "On Mercury, there is no heat distribution and very little thermal inertia; before the sunrise..." Isn't Mercury tidally locked? How can it have a sunrise or noon? I see the note that the concepts discussed probably apply to tidally locked planets, but Mercury *is* tidally locked. Was the Moon meant as the example at this point?
  18. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    After spring chicken Motl (1973), I think that Tony Abbott (1957) is the youngest of the lot.
  19. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Mills - yes to questions. You might like to consider how much difference it would make to planetary energy balance if latent component was out was 5%. It will affect the accuracy of predictions about heat distribution, but the energy imbalance remain, ergo, planet continues to heat up. This discussion belongs in "Models are unreliable".
  20. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    garethman - if there really is a piece of actual science that runs contrary to the main line view, then it will be published and then get commented on. What's around in the pseudo-science blogs etc just does not cut it. If you want see real skepticism then try our tearoom, but junk "science" doesnt cut it. So do you have a peer-reviewed science paper that you think should be discussed? An idea has got to clear that bar to get much serious consideration.
  21. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    John, The fact that Watts rates you as his number one enemy is a great compliment to you and the contributing authors. Hats off to Dana and Mark for an excellent piece!
  22. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    guinganbresil @53: 1) A person can reasonably be understood as insisting upon the logical consequences of that on which they do insist. Insisting that the names of proponents of views not be mentioned when discussing those views, or that opinions not be indexed by their proponents has the effect of granting the benefit of anonymity to people who are using their apparent immunity to criticism in public life to launch vicious and slanderous attacks against climate scientists. 2) It is quite clear that Skeptical Science has not personalized this. They have done no more than index opinions by the names of the authors of those opinions. The fact that those people espoused those opinions was already a matter of public record, so if anybody has personalized this, it is those authors in not issuing anonymous opinions. You seem fundamentally confused about the difference between critiquing a persons views and launching an attack on their person. Skeptical Science does the former. It tries to restrict the later with its comments policy. Les @10 was frankly, talking nonsense. This is a witch hunt, what we see above is an index.
  23. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    guinganbresil @53, like it or not, the first recorded use of the word "denier" was in 1536 (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). That it was then used some 450 years later to describe holocaust deniers is no reason for it to be suddenly cease being used in any other context. In particular, that climate change deniers are working themselves into a manufactured outrage over that descriptive term is no reason to cease accurately describing them.
  24. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo, What about Anderegg 2010?
  25. keithpickering at 08:41 AM on 20 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Minor quibble: The sentence reading: "because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 and 14 to 12 ratios. " ... would be better read as: "because plants have a preference for the lighter isotope (carbon-12); thus they have lower carbon-13 and 14 to 12 ratios."
  26. There is no consensus
    406, Rickoxo, You seem to put a lot of thought into this. I think part of what you need to realize is that this need for scientifically establishing a consensus is itself a red herring. People don't ask to see scientific proof that scientists believe that the genetic code surrounding ATCG is accurate, or that planets really have been discovered around other stars. What we have is: 1) A branch of science where the people who work in the field know what is accepted and what is not to varying, imperfectly fuzzy degrees (i.e. normal science) 2) A group of people who have questioned the validity of the science because they don't like the answer 3) The fact that the vast majority of people in the field do accept the science and the conclusions as far as they go 4) A group of people who then take it a step further and question not only the science, but whether scientists actually agree about the science 5) A scientist who created a study to determine the strength and characteristics of any consensus 6) A group of people who then take exception to the study, insisting that it is invalid for various reasons (not a representative sample, not a well worded question, not applicable to the problem as a whole) Do you see a pattern here? Do you see this happening with any of the other thousands and thousands of areas of science? My own opinion concerning your opinion is that if you don't trust the consensus or Doran, then do what the rest of us have done... read enough scientific papers to move beyond trying to water the consensus down to a yes no question and a percentage of respondents, and instead read enough of the current literature to realize how few people disagree and how many people do agree with each other's findings. Personally, I do wish Doran would repeat his study to accomplish what you're asking. Make it a long questionnaire, with more specific questions and a larger population sample. But honestly, I don't see the point, and I don't need that degree of analysis to define the consensus for me, and I think that most people (I'm not saying you) who are requiring that sort of proof of consensus are just going to move on and add a point number 7 (and then 9, and then 11) to my list above.
  27. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Tom Curtis @44, at no time did I "insist that not only should deniers be able to libel climate scientists and launch vicious attacks against climate scientists, but they should also have the advantage of effective immunity..." It is undeniable that Skeptical Science has "personalized this": Names & Pictures, references in the comments to "rogues gallery", "dammed(sic)" etc. The question is whether or not it stoops to Alinsky's level. les @10 rightly warns of a "witch hunt" domain. Moderator [JC] @40, from your response I understand where you are headed with this new SkS resource - it is reasonable and I believe it can be done professionally. I apologize for my evisceral response @40. On my first read, I saw "denier" vice "skeptic" in the post and my error put the whole post in a very negative light - admit it or not, the term "denier" is a not-so-veiled allusion to "Holocaust Denier". There are plenty of other sites to organize personal attacks, it would be a shame for SkS to join them.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The term "denier" is in no way an allusion to holocaust denial. "Denial" has a specific meaning in psychology that is pretty close to its usage here, note that Wikipedia gives defintions of:
    • simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
    • minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
    • projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.
    It is not difficult to find examples of these types of denial in the list of most used climate myths ("its not happening","its not bad","its not us"). Yep, seems like a good match to me. It isn't a term I like to use, except where unequivocally warranted, but linking it to the Holocaust is just hyperbolic rhetoric.
  28. There is no consensus
    I get that Doran (2009) is just one study, but we can't argue about every paper and every thread all at the same time, so it makes sense to me to see what Doran (2009) actually proves, especially since I had never heard of it before I got here and folks on this site brought it up and cited it as evidence. DSL, I have no problem saying CO2 is a mechanism for warming and represents the significant role humans have played, I accept that 100% and I bet that most skeptic scientists would agree as well. The issue is the jump you're making from Doran's simple two questions (has the planet warmed since 1800 and have humans played a significant part) to your statement that accepting those two is essentially accepting the theory of AGW. Doran says pretty much what you said at the end of his piece, "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. I agree that the planet has warmed since 1800, but agreeing with that does not in any way commit me to agreeing that humans caused the majority of that warming. The biggest flaw in Doran's survey is the wording of the human impact question. Having a significant effect does not mean anything about size. You said you were in ed research so you know tests for significance mean very little, effect sizes are everything. I get CO2 has gone up, I mostly get it causes warming but I am not convinced how much warming it's caused, what percent of the variance in temperature from 1800 till now has been caused by humans. Doran never asked this question so he has no grounds to speculate on an answer and when folks here cite the results from this survey as an example of agreeing with AGW science in general, that jump doesn't follow from the data. It could follow from all sorts of other places, but it doesn't get any support from Doran (2009). When Doran said there is no debate over the role of played by human activity, he has no evidence for that statement. The wording of his human impact question is so poor that it leaves open all sorts of possibilities for yes answers on the survey that wouldn't at all indicate agreement with ICPP conclusions or even his own summary. Because he included nothing at all about the degree to which human activity is responsible for the warming since 1800, the degree to which human activity explains the variance in temperatures, just saying 90%+ of scientists surveyed agree that human activity deserves to be in the list of factors is not a helpful piece of information. It says nothing about Doran being a fraud or dumb or anything, just that that survey question isn't useful in supporting the argument for a strong statement of consensus (like IPCC 2007). It also doesn't in any way imply there isn't consensus, it gives no evidence against consensus, but Doran (2009) is not evidence of a consensus of any significant position. If I were a scientist receiving this survey and unless I wanted to lie to thwart what I thought was the intention of the survey, I'd answer yes to both of those questions as well and I don't know of many skeptics that wouldn't as well. But when you have a question that doesn't reliably differentiate betweeen two fairly distinct groups of participants, it's just a bad question. And since we've never seen any of the other data and Doran says these are his two most important findings, it pretty much knocks out any usefulness of his study. In the light of this site as a model of peer review, I saw a response to Doran by Murray Goot (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-%27scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change%27.pdf). The author made the same point I'm making, that the question is so poorly worded as to make it of little value, but the author goes on to give a broader lit review saying there's other evidence of consensus so Doran isn't necessarily wrong. Again, I'm saying nothing about there not being consensus, I'm not saying Doran did fraud or anything bad. Writing surveys is incredibly challenging work and sometimes in writing questions, you come up with ones that don't actually give you the information you were hoping to get at. I'd love to see folks on this site get that Doran (2009) is fundamentally flawed and stop referring to it as evidence of consensus.
  29. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Dana and Mark, excellent post! You mention that d13C has been declining since about 1850. This is well illustrated by measurements taken from corraline sponges: The secondary source of the image is from Ferdinand Engelbeen. Although he is a skeptic of AGW, he retains his ability to think critically, and his page on CO2 is an excellent resource, as is his take down of Beck's nonsense. Interestingly, Engelbeen has posted his arguments on Wattsupwiththat, so Anthony Watts knows the evidence against Salby's view. Indeed, reading Watt's post on Salby, he never endorses Salby's views. Rather he couchs all comments of the impact of Salby's views in conditionals. It appears he is just feeding his sharks some climate denial chum.
  30. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    My apologies:an attempt to be brief led to a misleading statement.The"about 2W/m2 "was intended to be an indication of the change in radiation forcing due to observed CO2 increases,and this change is at least an order of magnitude less than the latent heat transport.My comment is a response to dana's statements "Climate models have already proven that they can make accurate predictions" and"Because it is based on solid,fundamental physics,climate science---" Central to computer climate models is the coupling at the air-ocean/land interface through a surface energy balance in which the latent heat component is so much larger than the changes in CO2 radiation forcing under consideration .Can this component be calculated using"solid fundamental" physics with a meaningful error bound? If not ,I doubt whether the models can make satisfactory "predictions" of CO2 effects.
  31. Models are unreliable
    382, rcglinski, I'm not sure that anyone could do what you ask except for a primary researcher working with the model in question, and then I think that compiling and presenting that information is a fair amount to ask of that person, even with their familiarity. I also think the models are so complex that the result may be many, many pages long, and require a lot of supporting information. All in all... I think (I could be wrong) that your request is way, way out of line with what is reasonable. Anyone who has that level of interest needs to go to the models and look at them themselves. Beyond that, there is a huge, huge wealth of information below these comments, under Notes, including links to papers, pages about modeling, and blog articles. Maybe a list of links to the pages for the GCMs, as well as those that can be downloaded and run by the really ambitious, should be added to that, but again... if you're that involved that you're going to do that much work, then you can use Google to find them.
    Response:

    [DB] Bob, I don't believe the Notes section is viewable.  If there's a relevant section in it, you may want to post it in a comment.

  32. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Coincidentally, I just read the first chapter of Stuart Ewen's PR! A Social History of Spin. It is indirectly relevant to this and other threads, and it may answer guiganbresil's concerns about why this thread attacks individuals and, as in neilrieck's link, "Why Americans Continue to Deny Climate Change." Briefly: because SkS wouldn't exist if concerned science knew how to effectively battle the forces arrayed against it. The science doesn't explain itself. Explaining the science isn't enough. Every attempt to misrepresent the science must be addressed, and that must be done efficiently, because organized misinformers are allowed every PR trick in the book. They don't have to make sense; they just have to do what it takes shift public opinion. It then becomes efficient to attack individuals who have become PR-bots repeating the same range of arguments--not ideology-driven arguments, but arguments for the sake of power: arguments for the sake of opinion-making. Devalue a robot to the extent that it becomes useless, and the purchaser of robots is forced to buy another one. And occasionally one of these discarded robots rediscovers his/her humanity. Hammer Bastardi's bizarre physical model. Hammer Spencer's Fun With Variables. Hammer Salby's New Improved Physical Model for a New, Postmodern, A-Historical You. Hammer E&E and their potpourri of industry-friendly, uhhh, research. Hammer their "science" through them. Kill two birds with one stone. As for neilrieck's linked question "Why?": because they've been largely constructed to be receptive to the tools that power uses to make their opinions. Conspiracy? Not at all. Read the chapter.
  33. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    The response to skepticism of human generated increases in C02 in the atmosphere seems simple to me. We know we transformed a lot of carbon from oil/coal into atmospheric CO2. If some of it has not accumulated in the atmosphere, where did it all go? It did not turn back into oil. Please point to it and demonstrate that it is there now. Likewise, if temperature rise caused natural increases in CO2, it had to come FROM somewhere. Please point to where it was and demonstrate that it is gone. (OK, this is just conservation of mass, but I think it makes the point better than saying "what about conservation of mass" to people who don't understand science)
  34. Models are unreliable
    This page could be improved a lot by considering at least one global circulation model. Pick one that's referenced in IPCC AR 4, describe the initialization state, describe the data series being fed as inputs, show the output over the time period between when the model was written and the present, then compare its predictions to predictions of less complex models like a time series. I actually think a lot of folks who come to this page will be surprised by the lack of such a comparison.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You can probably find most of this at climateprediction.net, although you would have to add the time series models yourself. I am not sure there is much point in comparison with the time series models, for a start would they give coherent spatial predictions? This sort of comparison has been done, and the model runs etc archived (search for CMIP3). However writing a good blog article on this would be a huge amount of work and beyond my capabilities (and I have worked with the models!).
  35. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    I seem to be accused @#7 of suggesting that the laws of physics can be rewritten or suggesting some inter planetary flux of CO2 is a possibility. I'm sure more mundane speculations can be dreamt up to fit the role - mundane but of course still fantasy. The carbon cycle is very strongly "settled" as described @#9. It is highly improbable that this siutation will be scientifically challenged. Any scientific challenge really must address that "settled" status quo as emphasised @#8.
  36. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Here is a refreshing change of pace from Republican Presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
  37. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    While browsing through books in Toronto stores this past week, I noticed that only a small number of books on "climate change" were located in the the sections labeled "general science" or "geoscience". The majority of "climate change" books were found in the section titled "History & Political Science" and included authors like Spencer and Plimer. I'm not sure who suggested this organizational scheme to the bookstores but I think it is safe to assume that anyone outside of the influence of Rupert Murdoch's "megaphone" (publishing and broadcasting empire) already knows the truth. Unfortunately, the fossil-fuel industry is still making such obscene amounts of money that there is no way petroleum businesses in Canada, the United States, or Australia will ever give up without a fight. (think "big tobacco"; they never really went away) Why do Americans Continue To Deny Climate Change? NSR (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)
  38. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Heh, the decreasing atmospheric oxygen level provides an amusing counter to a popular 'skeptic' argument: If increasing CO2 means more and healthier plants then clearly decreasing oxygen means fewer and sicklier humans. :]
  39. Nicholas Berini at 05:18 AM on 20 August 2011
    Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    To add to dana's comment, hindcasting (seeing how models reflect past changes) is a way (probably the best way) to test their accuracy. It is testing the model against real data without having to wait for it to happen.... And as dana very clearly showed in this post hindcasting is not employed by Loehle and Scafetta.
  40. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    It just depends on your definition of "settled", and I provided my definition in the post (and comment #3). "Settled" doesn't mean "can never change", but it does mean that given what we know, it's exceptionally unlikely to change. As other commenters have noted, there would have to be something seriously wrong for our understanding of this issue to change. I call that "settled".
  41. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    In this case it is simple not a matter of interpretation in any respect. From the accounting approach alone we know (not "are very sure," "know") that the CO2 rise must be due to humans. The fact that more is emitted by us than accumulates precludes the notion that the CO2 increase has been a natural product; this is now a matter of mathematical proof, not which evidence is stronger, or of a higher "calibre" (to use MA Rodger's term). If "skeptics" want to show that the CO2 rise is natural, they MUST address this - it's not even worth going into arguments about the number of submarine volcanoes, or the possibility that the 13C ratio change could be due to other natural forms of organic carbon, because it doesn't matter. Either the math is wrong or the observations of accumulation v. emissions are wrong. The first is simply not a point of contention, the math of course works and can only work that way given our observations; and the observations, barring some sort of revelation of horrible instrumental error, are not a point of contention either. This is a prime example of "settled science."
  42. Dikran Marsupial at 04:28 AM on 20 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    MA Roger In the case of the anthropogenic cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, the new evidence that would be required to unsettle the science would be evidence that the carbon cycle violated the principle of conservation of mass. Good luck with that to anyone looking for evidence of that nature - UFOs using CO2 for fuel is one of the more plausible avenues open to you! ;o) If this isn't settled science, one wonders what is!? [pedantry]Technically it does violate conservation of carbon, but only very slightly in that tiny amounts of C14 are constantly being created in the upper atmosphere and tiny amounts of C14 constantly decays back to N, but the amounts involved are not nearly enough to matter[/pedantry]
  43. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    The idea that some piece of scientific learning can be settled or not settled is a bit simplistic. The calibre of new evidence that is required to 'unsettle' some finding becomes greater as the evidence builds. When the evidence has become overwhelming, it would still be possible for someone to present appropriate evidence of fitting calibre to re-open the finding to re-examination. The new appropriate evidence would be presented alongside the exisitng evidence (that it appears to contradict) & the reason for the contradictions examined. The problem for climate science is that there are plenty of village idiots claiming to have the necessary evidence and insistng that any contradictions (which they normally fail to specify - a very unscientific thing to omit) are the work of cheats and liars.
  44. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    DM#4: "a demonstrably wrong opinion!" The denier crowd ignores trifles like 'right and wrong'; the mere fact that there are "scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change" gives them more fodder to chew. I'd love to hear someone respond 'show me the evidence' to Gov. Perry (who I quoted above).
  45. Dikran Marsupial at 02:41 AM on 20 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    muoncounter It isn't just that Salby's interpretation of the temperature and CO2 data is opinion, it is a demonstrably wrong opinion! A scientific issue should be regarded as "settled" regardless of how many scientists disagree if their analyses are demonstrably incorrect! What the skeptics need is a plausible physical explanation that can be used to make a falsifiable projection. Generally they have one or the other, but not both. The mainstream scientific position has both, embodied by AOGCMs.
  46. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    "Show us the evidence" - I like it, muoncounter. I tried to define "settled science" in the conclusion of the post.
    "There are some scientific issues for which the supporting evidence is so overwhelming and clear, that it's accurate to say the science is settled."
    I agree, that somebody disputes a fact does not mean it's unsettled. It's the evidence that rules the day when it comes to science.
  47. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Perhaps a working definition of 'settled' is in order. It is not enough to say 'its not settled' just because some disagree with the conclusion. Such disagreement is largely based on interpretation and opinion, which as we all know, can be biased (not to mention bought). Example: Salby's interpretation of temperature and CO2 data is not evidence; it is opinion. This is not about the weight of the opinions, it is about the weight of the evidence. It must be enough to say 'it is settled' when no one can demonstrate a sufficient body of contrary evidence. Speculation ('it could be a natural cycle' or 'its changed before') is not evidence. So the next time (and it will probably be very soon and on this thread) someone says 'its not settled,' why don't we respond with a Jerry Maguire-style 'Show us the evidence.'
  48. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Physics is full of settled science. We need the idea of a consensus based position to determine how to launch a rocket, build a car or any number of more trivial applications. Yet there are many areas on the frontiers of physics that are not yet settled. I struggle to understand why people cannot understand this. Also there appears to be no penalty in among contrarians for getting things constantly wrong.
  49. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    rhjames - it's too early to verify model accuracy if you only look at data starting in 1998. But I don't know why you would do that, since we have an instrumental temperature record that spans back into the 19th century, and proxy data long before that. The models are accurate.
  50. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Definitely a typo. It should by "unjustifiably" as you have no doubt surmised.

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