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  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  Next

Comments 77551 to 77600:

  1. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Stephen, My complaint is that those who call "deniers" and those whom the deniers call "alarmists" refuse to budge from their established positions. I have heard some claim that they will shift positions, if evidence is presented to verify that change. Well evidence has been presented, but it is claimed to be bogus based an any number of criteria. To top it off, there are those who call anyone who is not in their own camp (denier or alarmist), as being a member of the opposite extreme, when their views in no way mirror that faction. I did not believe this until recently.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] I am more than willing to consider any evidence that can be a silver bullet that overcomes AGW.  Indeed, that's one of the main reasons I continue in my involvement here.

    Could you please enlighten this one as to which evidence you have presented? 

    Please note, said evidence should be able to be reproducible, survive peer-review and be internally & externally consistent with the physics of our world.

    Look forward to it.

  2. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Stephen #33, "We should be talking about what we do in light of it's existence, not whether it exists." Exactly Stephen. However, "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW refuse to accept the evidence so that they do not have to take action, changing their ways frightens them. They also appear to be scared that by accepting the evidence they will be on a slippery slope, so best to dig their heels in early. That is probably one of the reasons why you rarely see "skeptics" and those in denial concede making errors or bothering to correct them. Rob @32, Yes, the psychology of denial and fake skepticism is fascinating and something I was naive about until two years ago. DB @27, "you [EtR] have ceded all semblence being an "honest broker" and have formally donned the mantle of denial" Is it not interesting that for the longest time s/he was trying to come across as a "skeptic", not a real one mind you, but at least not someone in denial. Well, don't I feel deceived/cheated.
  3. How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
    Given that the graphic has now been posted on both Climate Progress and Grist with links to this article, will we see a swarm of climate deniers posting on this comment thread?
  4. Stephen Baines at 03:24 AM on 12 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    I can't even figure out what EtR's exact complaint is. It can't be the "catastrophic" thing, because that wasn't even referenced in the question, AFAIK. To see that word there is to read into the question based on preexisting expectations. It can't be the cherry-picking of expert opinion over uninformed opinion. That would make no sense, unless he subscribed to the "consensus as conspiracy" thesis. This much I will say. The image is compelling - and therefore threatening to those who are committed to denying the existence of the overwhelming agreement among active climate scientists. That agreement is real. We should be talking about what we do in light of it's existence, not whether it exists.
  5. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    I honestly find the psychology of EtR fascinating. It's as if I've drawn a circle on a piece of paper and he's trying to say it's a square... because it's not exactly a perfect circle.
  6. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Has something gone wrong with the formatting of comments? I see unusual things going on following barry's comment.
    Moderator Response: [RH] See if that fixes it. There was a missing "/" in one of his blockquotes.
  7. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR @27, This is not a high school debate. You need to raise the bar. You are the one being presented with volumes of evidence and facts and choosing to cherry pick which ones you believe or ignore to support your beliefs. True skeptics consider the body of evidence.
  8. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Hang on folks, I think we have this back to front (or maybe I do). As far as I can recall it was "skeptics" and those in denial who initially claimed that "there is no consensus". They made the argument-- something along the lines of "we do not know everything , therefore we know nothing". This essay by Oreskes in Science supports that, she notes: "Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Confusion, uncertainty and delay are the tactics used by those in denial about AGW and "skeptics". And one way they do that is to make the strawman argument about "consensus", and then try pull the "science is not done by consensus" card when their strawman is addressed. So that misguided belief (i.e., that there is no consensus, or that there is a raging debate that we are even increasing CO2, or that the "greenhouse effect" is even real) had to be addressed, and it has been, a few times now. The fact is that when you speak to experts in the field, and by "experts" I mean people who are active in climate research and disciplines related to the climate system, then, apart from a few mavericks/outliers (who are found in every scientific discipline-- some medical researchers still believe that HIV and AIDS are not related!) almost all of them agree that 1) CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans are increasing almost entirely b/c of human CO2 emissions and activities, 2) The "greenhouse effect" is real (a misnomer, but the experts know that) and that 3) We humans have thus very likely caused most of the warming. Moreover, scientific societies and academies across the world agree with these statements. In fact, because of that we have not consensus but consilience. The 'skeptics" trolling this thread are doing themselves no favours by doing the very things that John has pointed out in the series of videos.
  9. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR #27: Yes, you have indeed proved that.
  10. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    It just goes to prove my earlier statement about those who are firmly entrenched refusing to be swayed when the inaccuracies of their arguments are presented. Thank you all for the confirmations.
    Response:

    [DB] And thank you very much for the most excellent Alice in Wonderland impression on this thread.  Most illuminating, the way you have ceded all semblence being an "honest broker" and have formally donned the mantle of denial.

  11. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC#112: "In Singapore the minimum temperature above ground is also either 298 deg.K or 299 deg.K every night of the year" Using only one data point to represent the entire globe (the ultimate cherrypick!) proves nothing. Singapore is at 1 N latitude. Locations that close to the equator have nearly the same solar radiation input all year long; their temperatures don't vary much. source Try again at higher latitudes (all values from weather.com): Wellington NZ (41S), nighttime annual range 7 - 14C Amsterdam (51N), nighttime annual range -1 - 12C Note: I chose cities near sea level for comparison to Singapore. One could also infer that the presence of a large body of water at these locations moderates their temperature range. Try the high desert, noting that elevation difference is insignificant (since you are starting your thermal gradient at great depth): Phoenix (33N) nighttime range 7 - 27C (the largest range, validating the ocean-as-moderating influence suggestion). Your 'diffusion will prevail' argument fails.
  12. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric @ 16... Come on, bub. Think about the statement. Put it together. "Of Climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change 97.4% of them said they think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." That is perfectly consistent with the statement that "97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming." The 82% you refer to is the measure of "all respondents." It's a measure that is fairly meaningless because of the breakdowns of the various respondents. And not only that, Anderegg 2010 came to essentially the exact same numbers using different methods. That suggests the results are robust.
  13. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug, there are direct measurements of DLR all over the place. Use scholar.google.com. Here's one: http://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~emde/publications/wacker2008.pdf
  14. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Tom, re #91: I did not say O2 and N2 don't emit any photons. Re-read what I said: .."don't emit many photons." I said this because the number of photons emitted by, say, an O2 molecule is a lot less in number than the number emitted by a CO2 molecule which is capturing and emitting all the time. So it was "not many" in relative terms. Note also that the photons emitted by O2 are high energy and so (very roughly) 1 such photon may have, say, 100 times the energy of a low energy photon from CO2. All molecules will emit photons when their energy drops suddenly to a lower quantum state. I don't see any contradiction in what I said.
  15. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric the Red @22, it strains credulity that you do not want to consider the group of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change as not being expert on climate change. If we are not to consider the actively publishing (and hence researching) specialists in a field as expert in that field, then we have evacuated the notion of expertise of all meaning.
  16. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    In reply to all comments: Some don't appear to acknowledge that I did calculate feedback at http://earth-climate.com/calculations.jpg and, yes, I based it on a similar diagram to the one referenced in #111, albeit 1998. The link again is http://earth-climate.com/ipccdiag.jpg . The 20.7% becomes 33% assuming all photons are captured and all energy re-radiated - so no warming of atmospheric molecules. Both these extremes are unlikely, so I reduced the 33% to "< 30%" - this comparing likes with likes regarding the IPCC diagram. Show me if you can what is wrong with my calculations as they stand taken from the data on the diagram, whether or not the diagram is correct. My reasons for selecting the NASA based diagram were several. But firstly, I would like to see physical measurements of low frequency radiation coming down from the atmosphere. If anyone can point me to such, many thanks. It seems to me that such radiation could still be expected to continue when the sun is behind a cloud, or when one stands in the shade of a building late afternoon, and even immediately after sunset. How can this radiation have about double the energy of direct sunlight? If it does, block it with an umbrella and see if the difference is noticeable. The second reason goes like this. There is an underground temperature gradient inversely related to the conductivity of the rock, clay etc. German borehole measurements found 270 deg.C at 9,000 metres - let's call that 540 deg.K. Now, at the equator for example, underground temperatures are about 298 deg.K. In Singapore the minimum temperature above ground is also either 298 deg.K or 299 deg.K every night of the year. If this temperature of the air were only controlled by radiation (at night) how on Earth does it "fluke" the same temperature? I suggest it can only do that if the main (if not nearly all of the) heat transfer is by diffusion, which is like conduction and happens between solids and gases by molecular collision, and which creates equilibrium. Now, over the whole globe, winds will cause more radiation when they lower air temperatures enough below surface temperatures to allow quantum energy level falls within molecules - which is when photons of radiation are emitted. But, in calm conditions, diffusion will prevail as in the lamp cover experiment on my site: heat at the side goes straight up. http://earth-climate.com/light.jpg Finally, refer to the Mexican Professor of Physics who (in May this year) showed that when a box has a lid which is transparent to both high and low frequency radiation the air still warms due to contact with the hot walls and base, not "trapping" of radiation. A lid that acts like a GH gas still leads to the same temperature rise. Just as good old Prof Sumner-Miller (Sydney Uni Physics Dept - 1960's) taught me to ask, "Why is it so?" I ask likewise of any and all readers.
  17. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    I would have difficulty answering the question because of the word "factor." Lose the warming from CO2 and water vapor is largely removed from the atmosphere. That makes CO2 a pretty big factor. Water vapor, though, is clearly the dominant GHG at any given moment in the recent atmospheric composition. What would you answer, EtR?
  18. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Regarding thermal inertia, the executive summary of the IPCC's Chapter 5 that tells us that over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C ... but since 2003 there has been some cooling. Sounds to me like the heat build up isn't very much and not very consistent.
  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    If you look up the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Wikipedia for example you will see that it requires an "isolated physical system" which the atmosphere is not. Furthermore, one of the results of it acting is, not only that it produces uniform temperature, but also uniform pressure. Neither of these is seen between the top and bottom of the atmosphere. The pressure difference causes warmer air to rise as is well known. That said, the theory relating to the "greenhouse effect" recognises that we are not supposing that warmed air is physically being trapped and somehow warming the surface. Instead it is all about radiation. Incoming high energy radiation passes straight through GH gases, whereas low energy (low frequency infra-red) radiation which comes from a solid or liquid surface can be captured by GH gases. The photons are delayed and then others emitted. If, and only if, the ones emitted have less energy than the ones captured then the GH gas molecule will be warmed a little. This will mean that it is more likely to emit its next photon sooner, with consequent cooling, and/or it may pass on some of its heat to other air molecules. The issue is, to what extent does this happen? There are two very different sets of figures - one used by the IPCC and the other sourced from NASA. The NASA based diagram shows much more heat being transferred by conduction from the earth surface to the adjacent air, and less by radiation. When feedback calculations are applied to the NASA based one the results relating to radiation feedback are less than 30% those that the IPCC claimed. In fact, the IPCC figures indicate radiation coming down out of the air from GH gases far exceeds the radiation received from the sun. This means that, just after sunset, you should shield yourself with an umbrella to avoid feeling the heat. ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Endless self-promotion of website snipped.

  20. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DCotton: The graphic you cite (wikipedia) is hardly a scientific source document. That image seems to be a derivative of the graphic shown here, a web page written in 1998, which shows this '30%' reflected to space. In that page, the image is linked to NASA's Langley archives, but no original version of the image (after all, it is at least 13 years old). Is this graphic the basis for all your subsequent calculations? If so, it was clearly pointed out by CBDunkerson starting here that you've misinterpreted the numbers and by Tom Curtis that you've ignored more modern source material. Until you provide appropriate citations for your sources, use the most recent data available and correct the errors already identified in your comments, no one here will take your claims seriously.
  21. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    First skim - The tentative results are non-intuitive (to me), specifically regarding biodiversity at different temperatures. I would have thought that life would flourish more in a warmer (stable) global climate, like microbiological cultures in the lab, but the work indicates otherwise. Fascinating stuff. I'll re-read and follow up on the references. And I'll refrain from digressing here any further. Thanks for the allowance.
  22. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR#22: "If you want to convince people" Eric, please. You are losing all remaining credibility by standing on this particular issue. If you want to convince people in our world, tell the biggest lies you can get away with. FauxNews proves this, as does the 'petition project,' '800 peer reviewed papers' (Not!) and so on. Search cherrypicking (or Goddard) for more examples.
  23. apiratelooksat50 at 22:03 PM on 11 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    DB @ 13 Please explain. If 99.9% are not climate scientists, then 0.1% are. From there it is simple math.
  24. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Bless you, Rob. Just the thing. Making time right now to read.
  25. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Barry - There are papers suggesting that global biodiversity was diminished during "Greenhouse' periods. Contrary to James Inhofe's elementary school recollections of the time of the dinosaur. Such as this study: A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record - Mayhew (2007) Kinda makes sense for the marine environment. The oceans were uniformly warmer from pole-to-equator, and from the surface to deep ocean, therefore oxygen levels in the ocean would have been greatly reduced.
  26. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Stephen, The 97% represented a small fraction of the respondents who fell in a certain category. They are not necessarily "experts." Now, 82% is very good, and should be presented as such. Why is there such a need to paint 97% as the value, when that was not the case? Also, those 82% believe that mankind has been a significantly factor in rising temperatures. That does not translate to 82% believe all the predictions about catastrophic temperature rises. It includes people like me who see a similar rise this century as last based on "business as usual" scenarios. Remember, those 82% believe in a wide range of temperature changes and climatic effects. If you want to convince people, use accurate and pertinent data to support your stance. Otherwise, you are viewed as a politcal activist, not a scientific source.
    Response:

    [DB] "That does not translate to 82% believe all the predictions about catastrophic temperature rises."

    Strawman.  What would lead someone to interject "catastrophic" into the discussion out of nowhere, which is what you have done?  You are arguing ideology.  Rhetoric fail.

    If you want to convince people, use accurate and pertinent data to support your stance.  Otherwise, you are viewed as a politcal activist, not a scientific source.

    And you continue to evade Sphaerica's question on the other thread.

  27. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @106, allow my to draw your attention to my post 91, where I draw attention to your assertion of a contradiction to defend your theory. Once a contradiction is accepted as true, you can prove any propostion from it, thus voiding your assertions of any significance. If you wish to be taken seriously on this forum, perhaps you could adress yourself to making your beliefs non-contradictory before blathering on about things of which you evidently know nothing. As to your specific challenge, I have already met it twice on two other threads, to which your sole response has been to thread hop. If you cannot stand the response, don't issue the challenge. Put simply, the sole relevant difference between the Top of Atmosphere Energy Balance from ERBE data that you use, and that based on Kiel and Trenberth, 97, is of necessity, the Top of Atmosphere data, as measured by satellite, cannot measure the long wave radiation originating in the atmosphere, and absorbed by the surface. Therefore it neither includes that radiation, nor the long wave radiation originating at the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere that balances it. It does include a small term for IR radiation emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere, but satellite data can only detect that term indirectly, by measuring the shortfall in the known energy balance of the atmosphere. In contrast to the ERBE data, Kiehl and Trenberth (and Trenberth et al 2009) include data from actual measurements of the up welling IR radiation from the surface, and the down welling IR radiation from the atmosphere as detailed here. These measurements have been made all over the globe, and very extensively, with one data set of such measurements including (as of 1999) 220,000 monthly data sets from 1,500 stations around the globe as detailed here and here. This means that the correct comparison between Kiehl and Trenberth and the ERBE data is between the net surface long wave radiation balance and the ERBE surface radiation. For Kiehl and Trenberth 97, that value is 66 W/m^2, compared to approximately 72 W/m^2 for the ERBE energy balance. Using the correct comparison, it is ERBE, not Kiehl and Trenberth that have the largest radiation component. It should be noted that if the approx 72 W/m^2 where the total flux from the surface, rather than the net flux, and with an average temperature of 288 degrees K, then from the Stefan-Boltzmann law the emissivity of the Earth's surface must average around 0.18 which is nonsense, with no major component of the Earth's surface having an emissivity much less than 0.7, and with water, snow and ice having emissivities around 0.98 for the IR spectrum. Your claims not only attempt to sweep vast amounts of observations under the carpet as inconvenient, they also are physically absurd given known laws of thermal radiation and known radiative properties of the surface.
    Moderator Response: [mc] fixed link text
  28. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    just because man has flourished does not mean that biodiversity has increased at the same time
    I think you mistook my question for a statement. :-) I need more time in the day to look this stuff up.
  29. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Barry #1 - don't you think two percent is pretty good?
    rpauli, I was responding to the last question in the article.
    And lastly, they also used our scientific consensus infographic - but can the sharp eyed reader notice the difference between the infographic used in the video and this newly updated version? (bonus marks if you can explain the difference)
    Two of the last three figures are a different colour from the third. My guess was that they represented undecideds. What's the answer, J C?
    Moderator Response: [RH] Repaired first blockquote.
  30. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Bern: #107 That is not correct. I have calculated feedback in great detail. See the links in #108.
  31. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Re my #101 & #106 the links you need are ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg http://www.climate-change-theory.com/calculations.jpg
  32. Warming causes CO2 rise
    I couldn't bring myself to read the comments. If one wants to argue that recent CO2 levels depend on temperature, one would first attempt to regress CO2 against temperature, rather than temperature against difference in CO2. However ill-conceived, the formula "Temperature Anomaly = (CO2[n+6] – CO2[n-6])/(12*0.22) – 0.58" asserts that temp is determined by CO2, together with some 12 initial conditions. In this formula, CO2 is the independent variable while temp is the dependent variable. How can this model possibly provide evidence that CO2 depends upon temp? Equally as bizarre, the model asserts the temp depends on the CO2 6 months in the future! This model violates causality. The given model also assets that when CO2 levels are constant the temp anomaly decreases by .58 every month. Is that reasonable? In any 15 year period of constant CO2, the anomaly would would decrease by over 100. In this model, the CO2 is obliged to increase, each month, just to maintain a constant temp.
  33. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton: you missed the bit on the right-hand side of the IPCC figure you referenced, labelled "back radiation". The lower figure doesn't show that greenhouse effect, and only shows nett energy transfer. If you only consider the nett energy, you then have the problem of trying to explain why the Earth's surface is 33ºC warmer than predicted for black body radiation, i.e. it only looks at the energy that goes up from the top-of-atmosphere to space, and ignores the energy that flows down, particularly from the warmer lower layers of the atmosphere. If you don't understand how heat can flow from the lower atmosphere to the (slightly) warmer ground surface, then can I suggest this post by Dr Roy Spencer?
  34. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Re my #101 and replies #102 #103: No one has as yet shown any proof that I am wrong in calculating that the ipcc estimates of infra-red radiation from the surface are incorrect by a factor of nearly 4 times. The detailed argument and the reference to the source of the information being nasa is at the foot of the linked diagram at http://earth-climate.com The application of Steffan-Boltzmann Law applies to the earth when viewed (as a true blackbody) from space, including its atmosphere. At the internal surface/atmosphere interface heat energy can be diffused by conduction (molecular collisions) directly to nitrogen and oxygen molecules. Quantum theory explains the processes involved and the priority of conduction over radiation in such equilibrium situations. In fact, as nasa indicates, about two thirds of such heat (previously absorbed in the crust and oceans from direct insolation) is transferred this way (and probably 100% in calm conditions) and so, the energy is reduced in the surface and it cannot emit as much radiation as a result. (The radiation to space subsequently comes from the air molecules.) If this were not so, there would never be (close) equilibrium causing very similar temperatures just above and below ground especially on a calm night. Radiation cannot bring about such equilibrium - only conduction and convection can.
  35. Where have all the people gone?
    Tom, Rob, Agnostic, who was it said "If you want to know where the science is, read the IPCC. If you want to know where the science is going, read Hansen."? (Obviously whoever it was said it a bit differently, otherwise I'd have picked it up on a search.) I'm quite happy with Tom's summary of various projections, but, I spend most of my 'climate-time' looking at the Arctic. Satellite images, graphs, blogs, papers - all of which tell me that the very best science of a mere 5 years ago was way off the mark about the rate of loss of sea ice. Even if SLR projections are only half as far off the reality as the Arctic sea ice calculations were, we're in for a good bit more than 1 or 2 metres SLR by 2100. As always, if we'd just get our act together and reduce GHG concentrations we could avoid some of the worst of it. And by that I mean not just reducing emissions. We have to get serious about sequestration - not of emissions alone, but of actual atmospheric/ocean concentrations already there from current and previous emissions.
  36. Stephen Baines at 13:27 PM on 11 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    OK, you lost me EtR. Why is the 97% cherry-picking? Because it refers to that segment of the scientific community likely to know most about the topic? Ya know 82% ain't so bad either. I remember a certain toothpaste company in the states claiming 4 out of 5 dentists recommending it to patients. That was a selling point! But in this case that 82% is bound to be biased toward the negative side of the ledger. I know if someone asks me as a "scientist" about my opinion on a scientific subject I know nothing about, I'm going to err on the side of caution and say "Well...." I'm paid to be an ornery skeptic afterall! Of course, if the interviewer asked me to rate the weight of that opinion though, the skeptic in me would have to admit my opinion wouldn't mean much. Now compare what happened in the Dolan paper with the OISM petition. People in my department actually received it in the mail, so I speak with some knowledge (I had to look up the OISM to figure out what the heck it was!). It came with a letter from an former president of the national academy of science (since repudiated for this action) and a paper formatted to look like it was published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal (even though it wasn't) that used clearly bogus arguments to attack the idea of a human impact on climate change. The OISM survey was deliberately misleading. John Cook is right, IMO, with his graphic. When a trap like that has been laid, the expertise of the people answering (or in this case signing) matters.
  37. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Barry #6, IDK, just because man has flourished does not mean that biodiversity has increased at the same time. From a certain distance, humans look like the most successful invasive species that has ever been. We are also a generalist species, and my impression is that generalists tend to do better than specialists during times of change.
  38. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR#16: "Cherry picking 97%" A cherry-pick is basically the expression of a double standard: the explicit judgement that some data points are 'better' than others. We all agree that's not right; nor is 'changing the verbage'. But deniers cry foul over this nonsense without making a peep about '31000 scientists sign petition' (they are not all scientists) or '800 peer reviewed papers' (they are not all papers and certainly not all peer reviewed) or 'no warming since 1998' (that's just silly). Talk about a double standard!
  39. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric the Red @16, anybody who "moves away from believing in global warming" on that basis was not a fence sitter to begin with. I can state that categorically because if the minor inaccuracy (at worst) of changing the wording from "significant contributing factor" to "causes" swayed their opinion, and the purported cherry picking of paying attention to the most qualified scientists swayed their opinion, then the egregious misrepresentation, lies, and blatant cherry picking by the deniers (not to mention the frequent promotion of flat out unphysical theories) would have them firmly wedded to the AGW camp. Anyone influenced by these considerations would accept AGW on the basis of the failure of the denier movement to repudiate Monckton alone. Alternatively, if they are influenced away from belief in AGW by these supposed inaccuracies and cherry picking, but give the Deniers a free pass (as they must do to not be firmly in the AGW camp) then they were not fence sitter to begin with. They may not have firmly committed to accepting denier beliefs, but they have never been open to accepting the theory of AGW. But having said that, I repudiate utterly your claim of misrepresentation and of cherry picking. If something is a significant factor and sufficient to cause warming, then it is a cause of warming. And there is no question that increased CO2 is sufficient given normal conditions (ie, the sun still shines) to increase temperatures. If would be a misrepresentation if the infographic claimed that 97% of climate experts think that humans are the only cause of global warming - but it does not. Further, if you are sounding out expert opinion on climate change, what does it matter what petrologists or geologist in general think? What about their training and publication history makes them any more expert on climate science than, for example zoologists, or vetinary surgeons? If the question is, what do the experts think, then only the survey results pertaining to the genuine experts are relevant. If we where to accept your claim of cherry picking here, then there is no logical basis of restricting the survey results to scientists, so that even the 82% would be cherry picking. Now you may be set against recognizing genuine expertise. You may think a theory heard by a random bloke in a pub is as good a priori as that expounded by people who have spent their lives gaining the intellectual tools, and rigourously applying them to the data. But I see no point in joining you in that delusional belief.
  40. Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
    And why is it that the engine of private enterprise is routinely claimed to be capable of doing just about anything....except when it means that capitalism's 'creative destruction' is aimed at certain people's stock portfolios and business investments...at which instance all becomes impossible. I hear cognitive dissonance.
  41. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Well I am with EtR to some extent. Exaggeration and misinformation in support of a cause does not help it. I think it is common for lobbies for overstate something on the assumption the other side does do, and so the objects of persuasion will fall to a middle ground. I think it is far more persuasive to understate and stick rigidly to facts. That way when a fence sitter examines the evidence and finds the understatement. On the other hand EtR, the graphic says "97% of climate experts", not "97% of scientists". That is an accurate statement.
  42. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Also, Rob you are continuing to reinforce my point about some continuing to believe misinformation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Cherry picking 97%, when only 82% of scientists answered yes, and changing the verbage from significant contributing factor to causing global warming are the major reasons that fence sitters move away from believing in global warming
  43. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Yes Rob, That is the fallacy to which I was referring.
  44. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric... This comes from Doran 2009: "Of these specialists [Climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change], 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2 [Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?]." You are continuing to reinforce my original point.
  45. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Advice, Jonicol: when visiting Venus, make sure you wear your extra-thick parka.
  46. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Further to my 103, this is the paper from which the above spectrums where obtained. The satellite making the observations was Nimbus 3
  47. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    jonicol @75, you claim that the CO2 in the atmosphere cools the surface of the Earth. In order to test that idea, could you answer for me the following questions: 1) Does on average the energy the Earth radiates to space equal the energy the Earth receives from the Sun (if we ignore negligible terms such as the radioactive decay of elements, etc)? 2) Does the surface of the Earth radiate IR radiation in same wavelengths that CO2 radiates IR radiation to space? 3) Is the surface of the Earth warmer than the average temperature of the levels of the atmosphere from which CO2 radiates IR radiation to space? 4) If your answer to (2) and (3) is yes, and given Planck's Radiation Law, does the surface of the Earth radiate more or less energy than the energy radiated as IR radiation by CO2 to space in those wavelengths in which CO2 radiates IR radiation to space? 5) In light of your response to (4), would the Earth radiate more or less energy to space in the wavelengths in which CO2 radiates energy to space if there was no CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere? 6) If your answer to (5) is "more energy", and in light your answer to question (1), would the Earth radiate more or less energy to space outside of those wavelengths at which CO2 radiates IR radiation to space taken in aggregate if there was no CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere? 7) If you answer to (6) is "less energy", and given Planck's Radiation Law, would the surface of the Earth be warmer or colder if there was no CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere? The above questions are very simple, and easy to answer for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of atmospheric physics. For somebody such as yourself who has widely distributed an article lecturing on the subject, you should have no trouble. You may find the following two diagrams useful answering the questions: For those unfamiliar with these diagrams, the firs shows the observed outgoing radiation over the Gulf of Mexico, with the theoretically calculated outgoing radiation shown alongside, with the observed spectrum displaced for easy viewing. The second diagram shows a detail of the same information without the displacement. The theoretically calculated spectrum was calculated using a Line by Line radiation model with observed data for temperature and humidity at different levels of the atmosphere, and shows a fair representation of the accuracy of the models (as of 1970) which are used by the IPCC and disputed by jonicol (and Doug Cotton).
  48. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    "NASA" figures and "IPCC" diagrams have a single source - Trenberth and Keihl 1997 (okay, or the update in 2009). The apparent difference is what they are trying to show. Try reading the 2009 paper linked in the article. If you have an alternative theory of climate, then make sure it can explain the measurements that are the basis of that paper.
  49. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    No, Eric. I would welcome such a theory with open arms - that would make my job safe for starters... An older theory will doubtlessly continue to have its supporters but when its clear that data supports a newer one, then the pendulum swings rapidly. Science follows the data.
  50. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    OK, I am droning, but let me clarify something I wrote above. I don't think it matters too much in terms of if we should continue BAU, or in terms of mitigation strategies. It might still be significant in terms of planning for adaptation. Especially considering that we may have already lost most of the WAIS even if we do manage to stabilize temps a little higher than they are now. Probably it is also useful it getting the public to acknowledge that something needs to change, because I suspect that it is easier (not easy, just easier) to put error bounds around sea level rise than it is to put error bounds around crop production.

Prev  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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