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  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  Next

Comments 77401 to 77450:

  1. OA not OK part 14: Going down
    All very excellent Keith! Can't wait for the complete booklet to hand to a couple of very 'skeptical' (lets say denier) Geologists here. Why is it that there are more deniers per square Km of Geologists than any other science fraternity or am I imagining it? ;-)
  2. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #162: scadenp: I'm reluctant to place much emphasis on that 1978 paper which acknowledges several limitations and short-comings of the models of the time. They had problems regarding critical lapse rates which implied these were overstated by the models, which they said were in need of improvement. My understanding is that improvements were (are still?) needed in the treatment of marine boundary layer clouds and tropical convective clouds.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The 1978 paper was suggested as a good place for you to start in gaining an understanding of the physics of climate and modelling. Of course there are limitations and there has been considerable progress in the last 30 years, however you need to start with the basics first. Your response is essentially a failure to engage with the discussion and your understanding of climate physics is unlikely to improve if you are unwilling to learn. Continue with this approach and you will find people will no longer respond to your questions as your responses suggest you are not interested in the answers.
  3. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Or if their motivation is self-interest the problem is the same. Scientists want more funding for research, but they think that scientists jig their research to get more funding. Again, they superimpose their own worldview on any given subject. Reason, rather 'truth' is the first casualty in the climate wars.
  4. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Tom, thank you for your time in replying. I have read and understood your argument, and did in fact already know about what you have said. I will endeavour to explain what I believe to be the fallacy and why what you say "And that can only be achieved by the surface of the planet, the source of the rest of the radiation, warming" does not give reason for assuming that long-term warming is happening. My points are ... 1) Obviously there have been times of cooling for several years, eg after 1960. Yet at those times there was CO2 in the atmosphere and that would have given a similar plot, complete with notches. 2) We all have walked on hot sand or rocks, so we know the surface warms temporarily on hot days, and cools at night. So that is all your quoted sentence is actually confirming. 3) You might as well just measure the inward and outward bound radiation at the top of the atmosphere, from a satellite I guess. In general, in regard to warming or cooling, it won't tell you any more than what you already know from temperature data. 4) There can, however, be differences between (3) and what temperatures tell us due to build up or decline in potential (stored) energy, such as ice melting, water vapour forming by evaporation etc. So, unless we can quantify these factors over the time span measured, the information is useless. (A company cannot work out its sales from its purchases unless it knows opening and closing stock.) Just one other point, O2 absorbs at various altitudes - UV-A and UV-B higher up, but UV-C right down to the lower troposphere. In general, UV has much more energy than visible light, let alone IR as everyone here knows. (The O2 may become O3 in the process which is, of course, relatively unstable.) That energy will end up, after collisions, as photons both surface-bound and space-bound. (It has to, or the atmosphere would warm excessively in the long term.) Finally, feedback photons from CO2 to the surface, convert to heat and thence back to (nearly) full spectrum IR radiation, and so most will not be absorbed by CO2 on the second iteration, or perhaps the third etc. (Feedback is a multi-iteration process.) In the limit, all can get out regardless of the amount of CO2 - within reason - usually by, say, 4am the next morning. But if some heat in the oceans builds up in summer months, it then has winter to cool off - as we observe happens.
  5. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Just goes to show the power of denial blinders. They seem to completely shut down critical thinking.
    They confuse the political consequences of the study of climate change in the modern age with its scientific underpinnings. The political focus on anthropogenic global warming is a consequence of scientific inquiry, but they think the scientific focus on anthropogenic global warming is a result of political aspiration. And they think that because their own focus is politically motivated. It's no surprise they defer to ideas that get cause and effect backwards, because that is the root of their intellectual malady.
  6. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    It comes down to this-if, as the deniers claim, warming is causing the rise in CO2, then *what* is causing the warming in the first place? We've had 6 consecutive decades of rising temperatures & atmospheric CO2 concentrations-but over that period we've had 3 decades of stable sunspot levels, followed by 3 decades of falling sunspot levels-not to mention above average volcanic activity over the 1990's. So again I ask- "where is the warmth coming from?"
  7. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Tom @10, Indeed. Re Fig. 17. Of course correlation is not causation, but one could argue that the increase in CO2 explains ~71% of the variance in the temperature anomaly. That is, most of the warming is attributable to human's burning fossil fuels.
  8. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    TomC#10: Nice! Just to be clear, the third graph's vertical axis is the change in CO2 over the 1900 concentration. I assume the horizontal axis, showing emissions as a volume fraction has been converted from the way it is usually reported - as mass in Gtons. Hard to argue that the linear fit in the 2nd graph makes any sense whatsoever. Although it does reinforce the point that both warming and cooling must be increasing CO2, just as the goblins want us to think. They are that good!
  9. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Ferdinand Engelbeen has three diagrams of particular interest to this debate: The first amounts to a visual presentation of the argument above: The second plots CO2 concentration against temperature anomaly: The third plots CO2 concentration against cumulative human emissions: (Note, cumulative emission, not annual emissions as shown in the graph @7) Salby and the denier cohorts are in effect asking us to ignore the 0.9966 correlation (R^2) in the third graph because they are impressed by the 0.719 correlation in the second.
  10. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @160, the atmosphere absorbs around 78 W/m^2 from the Sun, mostly as a result of H20 and aerosols (which each account for nearly 50% of the energy absorbed). Most of the rest of the energy absorbed is absorbed by O2 in the thermosphere, and O3 in the mesosphere and stratosphere. If we supposed that all of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere was absorbed in the lower 2 km of the atmosphere, that would represent just 16% of the energy absorbed by the surface at that level. The immediate effect of that would be to slightly warm the lower atmosphere with respect to the surface, thus causing conduction to be a net sink of atmospheric heat rather than a source. It would also cause precipitation to be reduced in the lower atmosphere resulting in energy from evapo-transpiration to be released higher in the atmosphere than it currently does. It would also increase the backradiation. Most importantly, it would increase the rate at which convection carries heat away from the surface and lower regions of the atmosphere. The net effect would be negligible. Importantly, the CO2 in the upper troposphere would still be much cooler than the surface. Consequently, CO2 radiation from the upper troposphere which escapes to space would be much weaker than the radiation from the surface (and the CO2 in the lower troposphere) that would have escaped to space if the upper tropospheric CO2 had been absent. Consequently, the net effect of the CO2 would still be to warm the surface.
  11. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @161: 1) The first spectrum shows a black body radiation for the surface of about 275 K. As black body radiation, it is a function of the temperature and emissivity of the emitting source, in this case the surface, which indicates the surface at the particular location and time the spectrum was observed was about 275 degrees K (or 2 degrees C). Spectrums at other times and places will show different temperatures. For example, the Sahara spectrum (third image, part a) shows a black body radiation of approximately 325 degrees K (52 degrees C); that for Antarctica shows 180 degrees K (-93 degrees C); and those for the Tropical Western Pacific and Southern Iraq show 295 degrees K (23 degrees C). If you divided the Earth's surface up into equal cells of about 2 to 4 times the size of the instrument resolution, and took a spectrum for each cell, then determined a mean spectrum for the whole Earth, then the mean black body curve shown would be for approx 288 degrees K, and the area under the curve would be approx the same as the area under the curve of a smooth (no notches or peaks) 255 degree K black body curve. 2) To quote the conclusion in full, so that it makes sense:
    " As, on average the energy radiated to space must equal the energy received from the sun, if the area under the curve is reduced by the absorption of IR radiation by green house gases, then the area under those parts of the curve in which IR radiation is not absorbed must increase in order that the same overall energy output is obtained. And that can only be achieved by the surface of the planet, the source of the rest of the radiation, warming."
    Consider, as a simple analogy, a water filled ballon. As water is uncompressible for normal pressure ranges, the volume of the balloon is constant. Therefore, if you press down on one part of the balloon, it will bulge out at other parts, of necessity. If it did not, the indentation from your pressing down would have resulted in a loss of volume. Returning to the spectrums, the area under the curve is the power output at the location measured. As indicated above, averaged over the Earth's surface, the area under the curve is the same as the area under a 255 degree black body curve. It must be, or else the energy coming in from the Sun will not equal the energy going out by IR radiation, and the Earth will be either heating or cooling to compensate. Because the area under the curve averaged over the globe is effectively a constant, if some part of the curve lies below the 255 degree black body curve, then other parts must lie above it to maintain the constant area. This is an exact analogy of the situation with the balloon. As it happens, the areas lying below the 255 degree curve do so because they are emitted high in the atmosphere by CO2. That means the areas emitted from the surface must lie above the 255 degree curve to compensate, and the only way they can do that is if the surface is warmer than 255 degrees K, on average. I have treated the averaged case because it is easier. It would be equally possible to treat each cell (see (1)) seperately, and determine the area of a black body curve having the same area under the curve as does the spectrum from that location and time. Any part of the observed spectrum lying below that curve represents greenhouse forcing, and needs to be compensated for by parts of the spectrum lying above the curve, ie, being warmer because of greenhouse forcing.
  12. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug, you are asking some question that actually requires doing the maths - (and thus avoiding hand wavy answers). The place to start is Ramanathan and Coakley 1978. To see what that looks like when you do the calculations then look at Modtrans code pointed to earlier. You will note that this mathematical model is extremely successful at predicting power and spectrum of both OLR and DLR. An alternative formulation would need experimental confirmation at least as good. For more on why stratosphere cools but troposphere warms with increased CO2, try looking at here. Again, same underlying mathematics.
  13. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    While on the topic, I cannot be the only person here to have noted the linguistic similarity between "ratio" and "rational". In fact, as confirmed in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, they stem from the same root, and where originally the same word. In other words, to be rational literally meant to keep the ratio in mind (or more colloquially, to keep things in proportion). Thus, in the strict use of the language, somebody who insists that we ignore the denominator, and hence the ratio, as apirate is doing, is strictly speaking not rational. Make of that what you will.
  14. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    apirate @24, Dikran @25, and Muon @26 have more than adequately responded to you. I will point out that the actual survey included eight questions, and so would have taken more time to complete than signing the petition.
  15. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    A quick count of the PhD's amonsgst signatories of the OISM petition whose name starts with A shows that 246/900 signatories, or 27.33 per cent of signatories have that qualification. Assuming that people whose name starts with A do not have an unusual disposition to gain (or not gain) PhDs, the proportion is projectable. On that basis, approximately 8,500 people with PhD's have signed the petition. To put that in perspective we need a denominator. Between 1998 and 2008 (inclusive) 426,538 PhD's were awarded in Science or Engineering. In other words, signatories of the petition with PhD's represent less than 2% of Science and Technology PhD graduates while the petition has been active, and probably significantly less than 1% of PhD graduates in Science and Technology in the US overall. (See also Muoncounter @19) Statistically, it also means that only 10.66 of the climate scientists signing the petition held a PhD. Don't you just hate the denominator - it has this horrible habit of putting things in perspective.
  16. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Albatross#8: "between 1950 and the mid seventies global temperatures declines somewhat, ... explain the increase in CO2" That's easy: since we know it can't be anthropogenic, both warming and cooling increase CO2. That's the power of goblin-based science: assume the answer, then manipulate the theory to produce it. QED
  17. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    DougC#86: "there is (as best I can ascertain) no statistically significant information either for or against correlation. " Look harder, there's plenty of information against. See the 'It's cosmic rays' thread.
  18. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    As I said, I tend to agree. I have not at any stage taken a position that solar winds cause climate change. I am just saying that it is one of many hypotheses that (other) people do seem to keep putting forward, and I was genuinely interested to see if there was anyone in this forum who held to such views. If there had been, then I too would have pointed out that, even where there have been attempts to reconstruct sunspot data for thousands of years back, there is (as best I can ascertain) no statistically significant information either for or against correlation.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There is a word for that kind of behaviour, namely "trolling". If you were genuinely interested in opinions here on the solar cycle length - climate correlation you would have found the relevant article, read it and the responses, and added a comment at the end saying that you felt that there was no statistical evidence for or against. Do not do this again. If you want to discuss an issue, do so directly, on an appropriate thread and state your own position clearly and unambiguously in your initial post.
  19. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Nice post Muoncounter @7, Indeed. Also, note that between 1950 and the mid seventies global temperatures declines somewhat, so how then does Salby explain the increase in CO2 of about 15 ppmv during that time. He obviously now cannot claim that the increase then was in response to the warming pulse from 1920-1945 either?
  20. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    I think we need to be very clear about an incredibly important point here. Anyone, and I mean anyone, peddling this hypothesis about the recent increase in CO2 being almost entirely attributable to the warming is a denier of the theory of AGW. What is telling is that for years some prominent "skeptics" have been lying to us-- for example, Anthony Watts proprietor of the pseudo-science site WUWT is now peddling Bastardi's nonsense which includes Salby's refuted hypothesis. What is odd is that very Watts takes strong exception to being labelled a "denier". It it is clear that his bluster (i.e., Anthony's) is just a facade to his denial and all these years he has been lying when he claims to be a "skeptic". That, or Watts has now finally jumped from being a "skeptic" to a full-blown denier of the theory of AGW. The underlying foundation of the theory of AGW, is as the name suggests that we are almost entirely responsible for increasing CO2 (and other GHGs), so to deny that or not accept that is to be a denier of AGW. So anyone who supports Watts or his site is now also by extension a denier of the theory of AGW. EOS. PS: Perhaps Salby can explain to us how we humans have managed to increase CFCs (measured in ppbv), N20, low-level O3 and other species that are not temperature dependent, while not managing to increase CO2?
  21. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    MarkR#6: "goblins are fixing the net CO2 flux" Now that's a headline worthy of FauxNews. These are some very smart goblins (or possibly orcs). They also know that the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase must slow whenever there is a drop in annual carbon emissions. That means they knew about such things as the oil price shocks of the late 70s and even the early 90s Bush 41 recession. source Note that when the curve doubles back to the left (a decrease in annual emissions), there follows a year or two where the dots are closer together vertically (less annual change in CO2). This must mean that 'Goblins control our economy!'
  22. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    The question is, "is CO2 entering or leaving the ocean at the present time?" The answer to this can be found by looking at the data - Millero's review in Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta in 1995 provides very accurate data for the temperature dependence of the constant relating the partial pressure of CO2 over seawater versus temperature, the Keeling curve provides the increase in CO2 partial pressure with time and the rate at which seawater is warming with time is quite accurately known. A "back of the envelope" calculation then shows that CO2 is presnetly entering and not leaving the ocean and that this will remain true for a long time to come unless some currently inoperative source of heating significantly increases the rate of temperature increase or the rate of production of CO2 is significanlty decreased.
  23. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    pirate#24: "went through the trouble of submitting the paperwork" Will the misconceptions never cease? Here's the 'paperwork' (from the petition project website): Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated. In order to obtain a pdf copy of the petition, click here. Please mail your signed petition to ... So all of 30 seconds to print, sign, check a box and write in one word (the credential section). Add in $0.38 for a stamp (a few years ago). That's it. Here's a takedown of the 'credentials,' with links to several others. Science as critiqued by petition; what a waste of time. But let's put it back on pirate: prove that there are as many active, published climate scientists among these distinguished signers as you claim. Be sure to cross off the ones who passed away prior to signing.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Spot-on, sir.  Well-done.

  24. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Also nothing presumptuous about pointing out the guy makes 2 completely contradictory arguments. Start with a model, ignore data that doesn't fit it, then argue something else that's incompatible with model you're holding above the data...and what are you left with? Certainly nothing of scientific merit.
  25. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    1. Wingding I accept that if the change in atmospheric CO2 is being fixed by magical goblins, then human contributions don't matter. If Joe Bastardi can provide evidence to demonstrate that goblins are fixing the net CO2 flux, and hopefully explain why they only decided to start doing it at the industrial revolution and increasing it proportionally to human emissions, then I would welcome the evidence and find it fascinating.
  26. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    Regarding this particular point though, I really cannot believe that so many so-called "skeptics" actually believe that CO2 is rising in response to temperature, when the argument is so easily debunked by this simple accounting approach (let alone the many other lines of evidence). Just goes to show the power of denial blinders. They seem to completely shut down critical thinking.
  27. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    MA Rodger - I've drafted up a post responding to Bastardi's Gish Gallop. At least the comments he made on Fox News and Tamino's recently. We'll publish it in a couple of days. Suffice it to say, as I'm sure you're well aware, Bastardi doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about on any of these points.
  28. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    The linked Bastardi comment on the Tamino blog provides mainly a cut & paste job from a post on WUWT which totals about 1,000 words of nonsense. I summarise it here (still 180 words because summarising nonsense is word-intense). Bastardi says in his Tamino comment that some think him and his ilk to be right-wing idiots. I don't know his politics so I cannot say that he is. SUMMARY Only 3% to 5% of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 rise of 1.5ppm is due to human emissions. This is small and (even if small is bad) oceans and atmosphere are big. And all the energy is in the oceans so showing the change is due to an atmospheric trace gas (has not been done &) is daunting. Contrary to climate models, satellites suggest the heat is escaping into space so CO2 sensitivity is low and model-assumed positive feedbacks are actually negative. Global warming from 1800 is said to be man-made with the assertion for 1977-98 “What else can it be?” But there was cooling since 1800, natural cooling so why not natural warming? Sunspots fit well as the driver of temperature since 1800. CO2 levels are driven by temperature as the ice core data show and so did Salby. Extreme weather events are more caused by cooling climates not warming ones. Ocean & solar cycles will cool the planet in coming decades. This will likely be obvious by 2020. If temperatures rise despite these cycles, “you carry the day.”
  29. Dikran Marsupial at 04:39 AM on 14 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    apiratelooksat50 wrote "And, you know all this how?" reading the documentation for the petition project would tell you that they organisers make no distinction between climate graduates and those actively pursuing careers in climatology. But surely you knew that already? The survey however does verify this distinction.
  30. apiratelooksat50 at 04:27 AM on 14 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    TC at 21 "But what of your 39 climate scientists who do not accept the consensus? The simple fact is that most science graduates do not go on to research. They still get counted as scientists for the purposes of the petition, even if their day job is slinging burgers at MacDonalds." And, you know all this how? At the end of the day, you still have 30+ climate scientists who went through the trouble of submitting the paperwork to have their names added to the petition, vs. 75 climate scientists who answered a vaguely worded, online, 2 question survey designed to ensure participation.
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 03:44 AM on 14 August 2011
    Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    wingding However it is implausble if we want to do some science where the causal mechansim must also be plausible. The problem for Salby is that the numbers don't add up for his theory. The fact that the numbers do add up for your (physically implausible) "theory" doesn't change the fact that they don't add up for Salby's. BTW anthropogenic CO2 emissions do affect natural uptake and emissions; the reason that the natural environment is currently a net carbon sink is a response to rising CO2 levels caused by anthropogenic emissions.
  32. actually thoughtful at 03:28 AM on 14 August 2011
    Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    Apirate, My comment wasn't flip. It was in earnest. While I respect your chosen profession, and that you are open to changing your mind (really, kudos on that - it appears we must simply wait for you to process all the good information you are getting and apply it to your life). I am very sensitive to the cognitive skills and development of teenagers, and I believe the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" applies more to teenagers than even to computers. As to your reply to me, your critical thinking, in falsely equating WUWT to SkS fails at points 3 (you have failed to judge the credibility of WUWT), 4 (you have failed to identify the assumptions of WUWT) and 6 (you have failed to judge the quality of the argument of WUWT). Given that, how can you possibly site 1-6 of your list as support for WUWT? You are not being internally consistent here. Here is a critical thinking assignment for your students (that you would benefit from): Pick an article in WUWT on a subject that also has an article in SkS - have your students compare and contrast the articles through the lens of 1-6 above. I think you will be surprised by the outcome. Most of us have already gone through this (or else it was intuitively obvious).
  33. Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
    What if the delta C atm (15) is fixed by temperature, or goblins, whatever. Meaning that human emission (30) determines the natural contribution: 15 = 30 + N So currently N, nature, is a sink of 15. If we cut our emissions to 0: 15 = 0 + N Then nature switches to being a source of 15. This is at least plausible on the face of it if we are just talking numbers.
  34. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    DSL#20: "using the same methodology" According to these results, there is room for significant doubt of a number of theories: Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun. Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water. Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly. On that basis: - Kepler's Laws (and Newton's for that matter) are subject to 'skepticism'; - evolution (and all the technology used for radiometric dating; indeed the fundamentals of radioactive decay itself!) are in doubt; - physical geography (and any form of satellite image analysis) are riddled with question marks. Is this how the science should be evaluated? By opinion polls? pirate, is that what you are teaching?
  35. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    Perhaps its time for a SkS Project Michael to match the NCSE's Project Steve? How long do you think it would take us to get 31,000 Michaels who accept AGW?
  36. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    apirate @17 & 18, the denominator is absolutely essential to critical thinking about poll results. Probability theory is just the science of ratios, and statistics is a special branch of probability theory that applies the theorems of probability to sampling. The upshot is, if you do not keep the denominator firmly in mind, your thinking about survey results will be simply nonsense. Now, if you want to break down the figures from Doran, you get the following figures: 10,257 research geo-scientists in the US; 3,146 respondents; approx 5% (155) climate scientists; 79 actively publishing climate scientists. From this you can determine that there are approx 500 research Climate Scientists in the US, or which 255/500 are actively publishing in climate science; of which 244/255 accept the consensus on global warming. That leave about 11/255 actively publishing climate scientists who do not accept that consensus, in the US. Approximately 88% of all research climate scientists accept the consensus, meaning there are about 60/500 research climate scientists in the US who do not (a number which inlcudes the active publishers). But what of your 39 climate scientists who do not accept the consensus? The simple fact is that most science graduates do not go on to research. They still get counted as scientists for the purposes of the petition, even if their day job is slinging burgers at MacDonalds. All you can deduce from that figure is that 0.12% of global warming skeptics with technical training of any sort actually have relevant qualifications to assess the climate science. Not a very reassuring statistic for those in denial about AGW. It's no wonder that you don't want to have anything to do with the denominator.
  37. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    I'm wondering what it would mean if, using the same methodology (well, a guess at the original methodology anyway), I managed to get 32,000 signers who accepted the theory of AGW. Exactly squat, I suspect. Yet I also suspect that the doubters and denialists would raise the same questions raised here about method and interpretation.
  38. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    pirate#18: "a silly attempt" Nope. This continued fascination with a meaningless petition is silly. It was silly two years ago: Robinson claims the Petition includes 31,000 scientists, 9,000 with PhDs (and the other 22,000 have what credential that makes them “scientists”?). Let’s pretend they’re all real scientists. So what? If the premise is that this is a HUGE number (as many in the Denialosphere have tried to claim, and still do), then what is our basis for comparison? In the US alone there are an estimated 2,685,000 scientists. The OISM sent out their call to a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science and it got broadly passed around the Denialosphere … and they managed to get a mere 1.2% of the American scientific community. So if you are bothered by the observation that not everyone who received the survey that resulted in '97% agree' actually responded, be very bothered by the appallingly low response rate of the petition -- a rate so low that it virtually invalidates the results. And in what way does the existence of this minority opinion alter the basic science? pirate, you're grasping at straws. Give this one up.
  39. apiratelooksat50 at 01:43 AM on 14 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    TC at 16 and DB at 17 The Denominator is a silly attempt to trivialize the fact that "climate scientists" actually signed the petition. It in no way invalidates their position. It is an exercise in futility. By the way, what is the definition of a climate scientist? How many climate scientists are there in the US?
  40. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    I should also mention, with regards to Dale's comment, that there are at least two obvious (to this non-scientist) reasons to reject Salby's conclusions: (1) If CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by natural factors and human emissions are not a factor, how does Salby account for the enormous amount of human-emitted fossil CO2 (30 Gt annually)? It has to go somewhere. If Salby cannot convincingly account for it (and show his working), there is no reason to accept his conclusions. Climatologists espousing the mainstream/consensus position can account for fossil fuel CO2 emissions as well as natural sources & sinks, and they can show their working. (2) It is my understanding that in the past, CO2 increases tracking temperatures were the result of oceanic CO2 outgassing following warming; it would follow in this case that the ocean pH would increase (alkalinization) as the oceans warmed. We find, however, that ocean pH is decreasing even as the oceans warm, which makes more sense in the context of warming following CO2 increase.
  41. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Salby's arguments are akin to claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We know it's wrong, we know why it's wrong, and we've known this for ages. There's nothing presumptious about pointing this out.
  42. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Further to: It is he who is trumpeting his "results" far and wide whilst with holding the data he used so as to prevent direct refutation. He has even gone to the extent of refusing to supply copies of his charts to interested persons on the basis that there is an "embargo" on their publication, while showing them to uncritical audiences, thus breaching the "embargo" himself. Haven't contrarians made an enormous fuss about actual climate scientists "refusing" to release their data? And here we find them cheering on an actual, obstinate refusal to share data which is at the heart of open scientific inquiry.
  43. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
    I agree Bart, Glad to see you noticed it. Posts like this need to be trumpeted far and wide.
  44. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    "People see what looks like half a 900 year cycle just because the climate was cold during the Maunder Minimum and then both increased till 2000" Sunspot cycles have been getting weaker for the last 40-50 years. At best there's been no trend in solar irradiance during that time; it's probably declined a very small amount. So no, "both" have not been increasing till 2000. And no, warming didn't end in 2000 either. We just had the warmest decade on record (and easily, too), according to all data sets. The oceans are still gaining heat. As for seeing a 900 year cycle in 400 years of data, I don't think there's much to say other than it's sheer folly.
  45. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    I do tend to agree. I was just interested to see what others thought about it. I guess the various institutes in 9 countries are wasting their time and money with the CLOUD experiment. People see what looks like half a 900 year cycle just because the climate was cold during the Maunder Minimum and then both increased till 2000.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] As I said, if you are interested to see what other people think about some subject, why not just read the relvant articles and responses first. The EU isn't wasting money on CLOUD; it is in the nature of research that some projects end up confirming an hypothesis and some end up rejecting them. If you know the outcome before performing the experiment it isn't research.

    Secondly seeing what looks like half a 900 year cycle is "climastrology". Human beings are excellent at spotting patterns in data where no pattern actually exists, especially when it fits their preconceived opinions. Next time if you want to talk about cycles, then at least present a statistically sound demonstration that such a cycle actually exists.
  46. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
    Excellent and very important post!
  47. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    "I wonder what Salby's motivation is?" Ask yourself this; had you ever heard of him before this brouhaha? I know I hadn't. Now he's being mentioned in lots and lots of blogs. He's a celebrity among the ill-informed and ignorati. Judith Curry thinks he's the Bee's Knees, and he may just be the David she's been looking for to kill the AGW Goliath. Look at the efforts that are being expended to counter him; surely this means the Team is scared, right? They must silence him now, and when his claims get torn apart and attract no favorable attention among climate scientists, he'll know he's a new Galileo. They laughed at him, remember? When they laugh at Salby it will be the same thing! He just knows it! JMTC
    Response:

    [DB] It would be best for everyone to refrain from such introspection into Salby's motivation.

  48. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    I wonder what Salby's motivation is? Why are some scientists in the twilight of their careers given to this sort of behaviour?
  49. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    (continued) My feeling is that there may be something to be read into (a) the current longer cycle (max June 2013) and (b) an apparent underlying 900 to 1000 year cyclic trend in sunspot activity rising from the Maunder minimum in the Little Ice Age. The fact that the 2021 minimum is also predicted to be very low might indicate a long term downturn at least in solar activity.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] (a) the solar cycle length - climate relationship is debunked here. (b) reliable sunspot data doesn't go back far enough to reliably detect a 900-1000 year cycle. Also if you look at temperature data that has the effects of ENSO and volcanic activity taken out (see e.g. here) there is very little sign that the solar minimum has had much of an effect on temperatures. The 11-year solar cycle is barely detectable in temperature data, the change in solar forcing is really very small. Please do yourself a favour and go through the answers to common skeptic arguments listed to the left of the page.
  50. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    #50 and others re solar activity (related to 10.7cm solar radio flux): Would anyone care to comment on these NASA predictions? source

    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please limit the width of images to (say) 450 pixels (I have fixed this post already). Secondly, link only posts are discouraged; don't simply post an image an ask for comments, instead explain why you think the image is interesting and explain why comments would be informative.

Prev  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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