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  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  Next

Comments 84201 to 84250:

  1. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I have been censored and deleted repeatedly.
    I, like many others, was quickly banned. And my name outed by the site owner.
  2. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    J Bob:
    If a site has to delete items based on scientific analysis, and interpretation of said results, it shows it's true biased colors, and demonstates their position is on shaky ground.
    So if a geologist site deletes items claiming the earth is 6,000 years old, this is evidence that the earth is, indeed, only 6,000 years old. Quit being silly.
  3. Bob Lacatena at 13:46 PM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    93 J. Bob, Sure you haven't been censored or deleted, because you say what they want. I have been censored and deleted repeatedly. Usually, merely for quoting the science. Then 50 people start calling me names, and any post defending my position is deleted. So... take your statement about "if a site..." and think about it. WUWT isn't on shaky ground, it's on fog. If you honestly think you are getting truth or science from a cesspool like that, you are lost.
  4. Bob Lacatena at 13:43 PM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    apiratelooksat50,
    Where do you look for further information?
    I almost always find and read the original papers. When I don't understand the background science, I study that (but finding that is not controversial... I don't need to find a "balanced" site to explain how ice cores are analyzed to construct a proxy, or to understand how the satellites or radiosondes work, or the details behind molecular physics, and what the issues and complications and limitations are for any of them). I also usually read supporting, preceding, or conflicting papers. I will look at various sites to see what their "argument" is against a particular point of view, but I only use that to see what threads to pursue. Reading the actual studies... and understanding what they say... always leads to fair comprehension, not only in what I know and they know, but also what everyone doesn't know. By contrast, sites like WUWT and CA are nothing but vitriol and misleading misrepresentations. One can get absolutely nothing of value from those sites.
  5. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Sphaerica 76, makes a comment about looking at various sources, but stay away from the likes of WUWT. While I have posted items at that site, I have yet to be "censored" or deleted. In contrast, some of sites advocating AGW have no problem deleting posts, such as those Sphaerica posts on. If a site has to delete items based on scientific analysis, and interpretation of said results, it shows it's true biased colors, and demonstates their position is on shaky ground. KR 90, A couple of of the sites that have a very good summaries, and links to basic references are: http://www.climate4you.com/ for historical temperature & other data: http://www.rimfrost.no/
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed links.

  6. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Ken Lambert - The charts DB posted came from one of the links he provided, to Tamino's "5 Years" post. These are (to minimize arguments about data manipulation, and to remove high frequency noise) simple 5-year non-overlapping box averages, with <5 year periods being represented by the remaining data available (hence less smoothed). It's a nice illustration of what the long term trends are, with the short term noise averaged out. And it's an especially good antidote to some of the cherry-picking that goes on, for example, at WUWT, where they tend to select tiny periods to find short term down-slopes, and from that claim SLR is negative.
  7. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    #91 Michael Sweet says "James Hansen estimates the fast climate sensitivity as 3C based on paleoclimate data. " Over what time period do you think Hansen meant when he discusses "fast" climate sensitivity?
  8. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    The discussion with tallbloke should be taken to the censorship free zone on his blog. I can tell by his reply to me : "Yes, they must be mighty tired of nature refusing to co-operate with their co2 hypothesis." that it will be a most fruitful discussion.
  9. michael sweet at 11:33 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    James Hansen estimates the fast climate sensitivity as 3C based on paleoclimate data. He further estimates a climate sensitivity plus albeido change from melting ice as 6C based on the paleoclimate data. The ranges of climate sensitivity range from 2 up to 10 degrees. The limits on the lower end are strong but the upper limits are much harder to define. 2C is a denier position without allowing the possibility of 7C which is just as likely. That 3C is only a fast feedback estimate, the slow feedbacks are all on the upside. Can the skeptics please start to link their opinions to some data. I see a lot of unsupported opinions about climate sensitivity ("the climate sensitivity was between 0.5 and 4.5C / doubling") without links. Without links to data these are just your opinion.
  10. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB #102 Could you explain the origin of the charts you posted in the 'green box' at #102.
  11. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Albatross #105 Readers can judge for themselves when the my post being answered by Albatross at #105 has been deleted by Moderators without even a (snip). Hansen's latest synopsis explicitly draws conclusions about the reduction in warming imbalance from the OHC record for the period 2005-10 - 6 years. Yet I am criticised as a 'cherry picker' by drawing conclusions from the UCAR chart for the Jason 1 & 2 records over a 9 year period. This is then turned by Albatross into; "Not true-- and your accusation of cherry picking against Hansen is ridiculous and unfounded, or are you simply musing about scientific misconduct by one of the world's leading climate scientists?" I did not accuse Hansen of cherry picking. I said explicitly that if the likes of Albatross and DB want to label analysis and conclusions of short term records (in Hansen's case, 6 years) as 'cherry picking' then we are in the good company of Jim Hansen.
  12. Rob Painting at 11:05 AM on 1 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Mike Hauber - Shorter term trends are for a cooling of the key ENSO regions, not warming Not sure what you mean. A vast body of scientific literature expects the tropics to warm, thats what the climate model studies I linked to suggest. This could be the cooling cycle of the PDO Or might not be. Might cover that in part 4. Over 1900-2010 there appears to be a slight cooling of the nino regions as well, or maybe more accurately a lack of warming while everywhere else warms Sorted that too. A recent study addresses the lack of warming of Pacific SST's. It ain't going to last. Over the longer term there doesn't seem to be much of any pattern in the Atlantic, but I'm not sure how good the data quality is going back to the start of the 20th Century. Yup, that too. Tropical Atlantic SST warming is connected to the lack of Pacific warming. I don't want to thrash it out here in the comments. I'll discuss it in chapter 4. So I'm pretty skeptical of any link between warming ENSO regions and Amazon drought Again, not sure what you talking about here. ENSO shifts the Walker Circulation, pretty robust connection with Amazon rainfall throughout the observational record, and in the paleoclimate proxies too.
  13. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    An interesting historical record of life and Arctic Sea Ice. http://paleoforge.com/papers/EnvironArchaeo.pdf
    Response:

    [DB] Hot-linked URL.

  14. Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    joehopkins ... You're wrong about ice ages but ... 'I have difficulty being convinced with "We don't know what causes massive climate changes in the past but we have configured a computer model that can predict future climate."' It's actually hard to even *determine* past climates in many cases - look at the evolution of paleoclimate reconstructions for the last 2000 years (yes, that long series of "hockey sticks". We haven't had satellites measuring solar output for all of the past several billion years, good thermometer coverage of the earth's surface for the past several billion years, etc. So of course uncertainty going back into deep time is much, much higher than uncertainty today. I'm amazed that the fact that there are some issues pinning down climatic details in the uninstrumented past would lead you to reach the conclusion you do. What's amazing to me is the amount of knowledge about past climates that scientists have been able to glean from indirect evidence, not the fact that they can't do a perfect job.
  15. Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    joehopkins - perhaps you could enlighten us about which disagreement over cause ice ages you are referring to over in the Climate changed before thread
  16. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    apiratelooksat50 - I don't know about Sphaerica, but I go directly to Google Scholar (a lovely tool) and start searching on the terms of the discussion. I weight references that are more recent and more cited (with a look at the citations for more 'revolutionary' claims) as better references than older or less cited works. So personally, I do my best to look at the primary sources. If I don't understand what's going on in them, I follow up with searches on topical tutorials, review articles, and the like. What do you look at for further information?
  17. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Climate sensitivity is a genuine source of uncertainty, no question about it, but the pseudo-skeptics are only interested in the possibility of it being lower than 3, without consideration that it could be higher. The luke-warmer category at moment would also include those how postulate there is some hidden natural forcing that has somehow eluded science and is going to either save us all because its negative or let us off the hook because its natural. They should be in different category from those arguing about the science in the determination of climate sensitivity.
  18. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    apiratelooksat 50 You say, “And, to take it a step further, even if the source is a compilation of articles/papers/data more than one site should be used”. I’ll see you, and raise you. One might also look at who is doing the articles/papers/data, and who is supplying the $’s.
  19. apiratelooksat50 at 10:10 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Sphaerica at 76 Where do you look for further information?
  20. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I'm also curious why you've chosen 2°C, since the main difference between a skeptic and a denier is the basis of their opinions. I'd like to know if you have a valid scientific reason for believing 2°C is correct, particularly since it's on the low end of the probability range.
  21. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric #84 - that was all climate sensitivity studies (that BPL could find) since 1894. They have increasingly converged towards ~3°C over time, and only 4 papers that he found over the past 25 years or so found sensitivity below 2°C. More importantly though, I think most climate scientists would say (short-term) sensitivity is between x and y, in most cases with x around 2°C and y around 4.5°C. If you asked them to settle on one number, most would probably say around 3°C, but I'm sure they would prefer to give a range. Your range appears to be 1 to 5°C, which is interesting, since 3°C is the central value in that range, yet you seem fairly confident that the actual value is on the low end of your own range.
  22. Eric the Red at 09:53 AM on 1 June 2011
    If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    Thanks adelady, Yes, I was a little young during the Cuban missile crisis, so maybe the fear was more than I believed. I was keenly aware of the late 60s / early 70s movements. The anti-war movement was entirely anti-state. The civil rights movements was largely directed at state-run policies (Alabama and Arkansas for starters). In general, it was directed at any policy that inhibited freedom. I am not sure that today's mirrors that.
  23. Eric the Red at 09:45 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Utahn, Look over at the thread entitled, "Database of peer-reviewed papers." There was just a post concerning papers on climate sensitivity (although I cannot vouch for the accuracy). In 90% of the papers, the climate sensitivity was between 0.5 and 4.5C / doubling, with half being above 2.5 and half below. According to that, my range is slightly higher. Bob, I disagree that someone who believes that the climate sensitivity is 2C is in denial. That is firmly within the IPCC range, and every other range I have seen posted. 3C is not a consensus, but merely an average value. That average is taken by incorporating some higher values, so the median value is less (about 2.8). If you label everyone who thinks that the climate sensitivity is lower than what you feel is correct a "Denier," then you are going to label some esteemed climate scientists deniers. Are you so knowledgeable in climate science as to think that anyone who believes in a lower climate sensitivity than you is a "denier."
  24. Michael Hauber at 09:42 AM on 1 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Shorter term trends are for a cooling of the key ENSO regions, not warming. This could be the cooling cycle of the PDO, and so its possible that Co2 could be warming the ENSO regions but the influence is small over 30 years compared to PDO. Over 1900-2010 there appears to be a slight cooling of the nino regions as well, or maybe more accurately a lack of warming while everywhere else warms. So I'm pretty skeptical of any link between warming ENSO regions and Amazon drought. In contrast the Atlantic patterns in the 30 year frame are a bit closer to what some of these papers suggest may be causing drought. Over the longer term there doesn't seem to be much of any pattern in the Atlantic, but I'm not sure how good the data quality is going back to the start of the 20th Century. (Source GISS global map generator, in trend mode)
  25. Bob Lacatena at 09:31 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Utahn, My points are two fold. The first is that the more categories you make, the more rationalization it gives for all of the various disparities among those categories. The fact is that lukewarmers, skeptics, deniers... they are all deniers in some way. Each of them denies some piece of the science. Creating even those categories, let alone a more nuanced "effects denier" or "malignancy denier" or "attribution denier" is just giving more credence and credibility to what, ultimately, is simply irrational denial. Forget trying to categorize them. The science is clear, and the ambiguities in the science are also clear. One is either in denial of the science, or understands and accepts it. There is no middle ground, let alone 24 flavors of middle ground. Second, I personally think (and by "think" I mean that everything that I've read and understand about) your own adherence to a mere 2˚C per doubling as a likely or even reasonable possibility is another form of denial. The current consensus is 3˚C or higher, and every new study confirms this while leaning towards the "and higher" direction. There is very little reason to think that 2˚C per doubling is in the mix. Expecting 2˚C is denial.
  26. Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Apologies for the hackneyed sceptical argument (you've probs covered this before) but this article requires you to have faith in the computer models in the first place. Granted models show some degree of accuracy but the fact that climate scientists can't agree on what causes ice ages concerns me. I have difficulty being convinced with "We don't know what causes massive climate changes in the past but we have configured a computer model that can predict future climate." I just think it may be a case of SISO. Many thanks, Joe
    Moderator Response: See Models Are Unreliable. Also, there is in fact good agreement on the major causes of many past climate changes. See Climate's Changed Before and CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate.
  27. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Re actually thoughtfull at #34 Who defined what being pro science was: "The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response" The "opposite" of that is someone in denial/a denier/denialist is someone for whom the value judgement is: the body of evidence in climate change does not REQUIRE an active mitigation response. As I tried to point out in my post at #23, whether we take action or not depends on a value judgement which includes the hard science but ALSO a risk assessment of the consequences of action/inaction, the chances of the various consequences and a balancing of the known uncertainties versus the possible consequences. One could argue that someone who purely looked at the science could decide that they thought the less likely low climate sensitivity evidence may end up winning the academic prizes and this person goes on to promote this view. This is not being a denier/in denial. On the other hand, trusting the evidence that sensitivity may be low and turning a blind eye to the consequences if that view turns out to be wrong because sensitivity is actually closer to the mainstream position and hell and high water happen is denialism - a denial of the risks to everybody, a denial that the extreme minority climate science view (Lindzen, Spencer etc), if wrong, has terrible consequences for everyone, not just those who believe it. Basically, if denialists are wrong and too many listen to them civilisation is likely to be pushed close to, if not over, the edge. If majority climate science is wrong and too many listen, then there will be a lot of embarrassment but we will have already achieved a lot to wean ourselves off diminishing fossil fuels and being dependant on less than friendly nations for our energy supplies. Whether majority climate science is right or not it makes sense to go with the recommendations. Whether minority climate science is right or not it would be crazy to listen to those who use it to recommend doing nothing. Like being in denial of an alcohol or drug problem, denialism is a state of mind which prevents one giving due weight to all the evidence - it makes one turn a blind eye to evidence that conflicts with one's prejudices. It prevents one realising that one's beliefs are toxic to oneself, one's family or, by extension, the whole world.
  28. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric, so then you'd be "mildly in denial" as 2-4.5 is the IPCC likely range. I don't have any reason to not take them as the scientific consensus. Sphaerica, you have to have a cutoff somewhere, so I will personally reserve the use of the word denial for folks who think less than 2! Maybe the AR5 will change the range... Of course, there may be people who think it's greater than or equal to 2 but think that "It's be good for us". I'll have to think of a different category for them (something analogous to someone who accepts that they have cancer but thinks it will be good for them...) I will get right on that once I have more time for silly categorizations...
  29. Bob Lacatena at 09:17 AM on 1 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Rob, I'm unaware of an El Nino prediction for later this year. The NOAA CPC doesn't seem to be saying that. What is your source?
  30. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Roe falls spectacularly foul of the 'CO2 follows temperature' trap - the fact CO2 lags ice volume is his entire argument for saying CO2 is less important, yet that's hardly new science...
  31. Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Rob, thanks for your post. Another effect of El Nino we're used to here in Brazil is the increased rainfall in the South (including floods) and droughts in the Northeast. I have read a Brazilian review study some time ago that suggested these patterns should be expected more often under GW. Water that was usually recycled westward over the Amazon rainforest would be brought South through the South American Low Jet East of the Andes (SALLJ). Do you have any additional info on this? Since the majority of the Brazilian population is in its southern half, these would be some important regional consequences of AGW.
  32. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Moderator, I did not accuse Camburn of making a false statement....search the thread, so he is arguing a strawman. In my message to Ken I noted that it was demonstrably false of Ken Lambert to accuse Hansen of cherry picking, and also for him to say that we are avoiding discussion of the satellite altimeter data. Read my post @105.
  33. Eric the Red at 08:32 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Utahn, I would place my low range as 1-3C / doubling and high range as 3-5C / doubling. That bounds the average value in between the two rangesm and starts the low range with the physical affect directly attributable to CO2, with a high range of similar magnitude. Anything about 5C appears very unlikely.
  34. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Skywatcher: I was accused of false statements. I do not take that accusation lightly and felt a response was in order.
  35. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    #30: Read #9 again. Why do all the datasets, not all of them depending on reading and amalgamating station data, show basically the same trend? Tamino has a great plot showing the relationship between temperature anomalies of the 5 major series (John probably has one locally too, haven't found it just now). The 4th plot in Tamino's post is one to concentrate hard on. If all five major series agree so well, and they do exceptionally well, there's not much room for 'cooking' GISS or any other. But then if you believe everything's 'cooked' yet are unwilling to do the analysis (not pick the cherries) that would show that to be the case, then you're not in a strong position. Many people have replicated the trend without selecting out stations. Glenn's done an excellent service by demonstrating the nitty gritty of not just replicating the basic trend but the details of how to go from a quick-and-dirty spatially-weighted average of anomalies to a more rigorous treatment of heterogeneous data, and how to approximate for areas without nearby temperature records. I recall reading something about successful validation of the interpolation of gaps against reanalysis data, but cannot recall where? So it's warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. Why? You surely don't think it's just 'rebounded'? But that is of course O/T and should go to a more deserving thread for your insights.
    Moderator Response: ... and that other thread is We're Coming Out of the Little Ice Age.
  36. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    I know I'm not Albatross, but I can see at least ONE statement that is clearly, false, Camburn... Camburn #102: " ... I shall not post to this thread in the future." Surely you don't need me to back up why it's false :)
  37. CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    Dikran Marsupial @5. If I had said, "In the parts of the absorbtion spectra where CO2 and water vapor overlap _and where they exist together in the lower troposhpere_ water vapor seems to dominate the absorbtion and reduce the effect of CO2. The abundant H2O vapor is more likely to catch the photon down there, and if it happens to radiate another upward, that one also is most likely to be absorbed by H2O, and so on, like an Austraiian Rules football, until the game reaches an altitude where CO2 predominates and the photons are emitted at a lower temperature.", would you have believed I read the article? Connie Le Quere believes increased up and down welling caused by stronger and poleward migrating westerlies will reduce the oceanic uptake of CO2. An interesting article disagreeing with her at AAAS states a model run showed decreasing uptake to about year 2000 and increasing uptake thereafter. All of this presupposes that the westerlies increase. The recent trend toward polar warming may reduce the gradient that drives the westerlies.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, but that isn't what you wrote, and it is entirely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect that water vapour absorption dominates in the lower trophosphere, because that is not where the Earth's energy balance is determined. Had you written that, I would believe you had read the article, but not understood it. As for the ocean uptake, Le Quere is taking about the saturation of the oceanic reservoir, which (thankfully) hasn't happened yet, note the tense of "will reduce oceanic uptake of CO2". Try this paper (which is an anlysis of what has happened, rather than what is likely to happen), look at Fig 2d, which shows the oceans to be a sink, and that the sink has been deepening over the last 50 years.
  38. If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    Eric, Australia's cool, wet autumn. Apart from the dry and fire blackened West, yes, the last gasp of the now defunct La Nina has made it pretty cool and wet here. Nuclear annihilation a fear concocted by governments? Seems you weren't around for the Cuban missile crisis - now there's real fear. The "anti-state movement" was mostly a reaction against stifling socialconformity. The civil rights movement for instance was not anti-state, it was anti-particular-policies. It was revolutionary - in favour of replacing governments or policies - rather than anarchistic favouring no government activity at all. I see current circumstances in much the same light. Only now we're arguing for the rights of the too young to vote, the not-yet-born, and the never-voting animals and plants of the bio-sphere.
  39. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "6. Therefore, humans are partially responsible for the increase in global surface temperature." And what science are you citing in support of your implied assertion that some other natural forcing that is currently also causing change? The natural forcings that changed climate in the past are going negative.
  40. Rob Painting at 07:04 AM on 1 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    CW -
    "when will the next El Nino and La Nina occur?"
    El Nino later this year.
    "why would one believe we could predict "changes in Earth's atmospheric circulation, under rising CO2"
    The changes supporting the climate models are already observed. Not ironclad by any means, but consistent with model projections. And if, as predicted,. El Nino occurs later this year then another major Amazonian drought will be likely. Temperatures in the equatorial Atlantic are already well above normal, if that continues then the drought will once again be exceptional. Lots of 'ifs', but should that scenario unfold, the mechanics of why will be loud and clear to readers of this series.
  41. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke@70 Would you care to share you work with? I am sure all here would be interested in reading it. Perhaps it is on your blog. I took a quick look and lost interest when the first article was a complaint about censorship on this blog. SkS is the most evenhanded blog I have ever seen. You are allowed to have your say as long as you remain civil and on topic. Pretty simple for those actually interested in civil discourse.
  42. kampmannpeine at 06:52 AM on 1 June 2011
    Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    Thank you John, this helps a lot in clearing up the Hansen-mechanisms ... Did you know about the activities of Gistemp (http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/)?
  43. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    58 - les As, in fact, I am a real scientist with a fondness for best practice; I felt compelled to follow up on my prediction. 100% on the money. Twice if you slow post 69 - although it follows automatically by recursion.
  44. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric the Red wrote : "I am not sure about your difference between #2 and #3, but I would classify them on the high side and low side of climate sensitivity, due to the rather large range of scientific opinions on the issue." You seem to be suggesting that the minority view on low climate sensitivity should be accorded the same weight as the majority view on the higher figures, or as the average view (c. 3C for a doubling of CO2). Is that right ? If so, how would you advise someone wanting to take a scientific opinion, with regard to the history of life on earth, between, say, the 10,000 years of creation 'science' and the 4 billion years of evolution science ?
  45. Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    barry at 01:24 AM on 1 June, 2011 It's a good idea, and Barton Paul Levenson has a very interesting list in those lines, including sensitivity estimates from Arrhenius 1896 until 2006. It even includes the statistical distribution:
  46. Bob Lacatena at 05:29 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    75, Utahn, At this point, sensitivity is very, very, very unlikely to be as low as 2 per doubling. Anyone clinging to that as a hope is absolutely in denial, because if you'll admit to everything as far as a 2 per doubling, then how can you simultaneously ignore all of the evidence for 3+? How can you not be concerned about that? At the same time, our current warming is almost certainly being held down by anthropogenic aerosols. Lord help us when we clean up the air, or otherwise slow our emissions, and see what the real effects of CO2 are without the negative forcing from aerosols. And that day has to come. Some day fossil fuels will run out, with CO2 left in the air for centuries or millenia, while the aerosols fall out in years or decades. I feel sorry for anyone who is alive when that happens, and it sadly may well be my own daughter.
  47. Bob Lacatena at 05:25 AM on 1 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    The deniers on this thread seem to be recasting the argument, as if the "proper" position is whatever lies between the two extremes. They then cast the extremes as "deniers" (people who simply claim nothing at all is happening) and "alarmists" (people who think the current situation is dangerous). By positioning alarmists in this way, the middle of the road becomes "well, it may be human, but it may not, and it may be dangerous, but maybe climate sensitivity is low, and anyway maybe it will all work out for the best and maybe warming will be good, but we really don't know all that much right now anyway, so let's all just wait and see." This is typical, core denial, in concern troll clothing. Admit to something, but always with pause and reason to hesitate. Gotta be careful here. Can't be hasty. I term an alarmist as anyone who exaggerates the science. There are very, very few of those (although I did see an obnoxious WWF commercial last night that claimed polar bears could be extinct in 50 years, and I treat that as unnecessarily alarmist, and a harmful advert.). I term a denier as anyone who thinks we don't know enough, or climate sensitivity is at all likely to be low, or that there is any reason not to take the real science very, very seriously. The middle of the road is not "skeptics." They are deniers trying to pretend to have a substantive position. The middle of the road is not "lukewarmers." They are deniers, trying to have it both ways (i.e. the science is right or partially right, but only to a small degree so we don't have to worry). The real middle of the road is the people on this site, the people who understand the science, and look further than this site for information, and actually understand what they read. On another vein, people who suggest that one should look at multiple sources for information are certainly correct, but if those multiple sources include inflammatory, politically oriented, and grossly unbalanced and misinforming sites like ClimateAudit, WUWT, and others... well, you're kidding yourselves. They're fooling you, and you're happily fooling yourselves.
  48. Can we trust climate models?
    Eric the Red, #80 "It appears to be a somewhat arbitrary approximation. I am not sure that it should be tied to the GHG forcings at all, .." Obviously it is arbitrary to move from instrumental observations and reconstructions for the 1880-1990 period and then for the more recent 1990-2003 period change to a fixed level of aerosol forcings for the AR4 and Hansen 2007 paper. It is even more striking that four years later, Hansen changes again and decides to use the -1/2 of GHG forcing for the simulations of Hansen 2011, rather than using instrumental data. I don't know the reason for either of the changes in methodology. Do we really believe that our measurement accuracy pre-1990 was better than we have in 2011? The thread topic is "Can we trust the models?" Perhaps the real question is "can we trust the data fed into the models?" or "can we trust the data used to tune the models?" Obviously different types of emission sources have different ratios between aerosol emissions and GHG emissions. There is a lot of difference between a dirty coal plant without scrubber and burning high sulfur coal than one with scrubbers and/or using low sulfur coal. OTOH, Willis Eschenbachs simulation of the CCSM3 model resulted in 0.995 correlation with just a simple 1 box model and using only the solar, volcano, and GHG forcings. If aerosol forcings were large and uncorrelated, he could not have gotten those results. Hansen's 2001 senate testimony shows yet another version of forcings used by GISS. Note how the GHG and aerosols seem to be close to linearly related. Also of interest is the relatively low levels of aerosol forcings compared to GHG forcings. It is much less than the -0.5 factor now being used. Caption: Fig. 3: Climate forcings in the past 50 years, relative to 1950, due to six mechanisms (6). The first five forcings are based mainly on observations, with stratospheric H2O including only the source due to CH4 oxidation. GHGs include the wellmixed greenhouse gases, but not O3 and H2O. The tropospheric aerosol forcing is uncertain in both its magnitude and time dependence.
  49. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Sorry Eric, more directly to sensitivity, it could be less than 2 per doubling...
  50. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Maybe # 2 could be "in the likely range" for whatever emissions scenario one is talking about? Whereas #3 could be "below the likely range"? That way we the cutoff would be when someone feels warming will be lower than the lowest bound of what consensus scientific opinion projects it to be...

Prev  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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