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  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  1935  1936  Next

Comments 96401 to 96450:

  1. CO2 lags temperature
    The second quotation in my previous post is from Stephenwv, not from his link. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
  2. CO2 lags temperature
    @ stephenwv (262) Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level. Only the anthropogenic contribution (which did not exist in the paleo record) completes the picture, explaining the warming we can empirically see and measure in the absence of other forcings. Else we would be measuring a decades-long cooling trend. Which we aren't: Forcings, except for CO2, have been flat for nearly 40 years. Temperatures continue to climb, and that rate of climb is still increasing (as are CO2 levels). Hope that helps, The Yooper
  3. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Second, I'm sorry, but I think it's just way too early for this argument to be made. It's 100% true, but we are at vastly different points in the two debates. For smoking, we've accumulated decades of statistics, with millions of test subjects. The statistical correlation is irrefutable. "Statistical confidence" is an understatement with smoking, and your chances of suffering from it are so proportionally large that no one can refute it. Climate change is different. Climate change is relentless, but slow. We are barely into the first fraction of the journey, and we can't even tell what the effects will be, to what degree, and in what regions. The amount of energy we've actually added to the oceans and atmospheres is relatively small. It's like arguing with smoking statistics in the first five years the tobacco was introduced to the population. Gary Thompson's graph in comment #3 is a perfect example. It demonstrates how much noise there is in the system, how weak some of our observational capabilities are (which is a sin we should rectify), but most importantly how early it is in the game. I'm pretty sure that if you look at that graph 50 years from now, the trend will be obvious. We've only warmed the planet by about 0.5˚C so far, even though we've turned the thermostat up by 1.5˚C. You're just not going to see attributable changes of many sorts yet. Give it time, and you will, but it's too early. So this piece, while it makes a valid point, is too easily dismissed. The people you're trying to convince are going to say "yeah, but we know smoking causes cancer, but we don't know that CO2 causes warming" (false, but they'll say it). They'll also say "there aren't enough strange happenings, and what is happening isn't that extreme" (which is true, for now). If you do go ahead with this, I'd adjust your conclusion. You said:
    What is certain, however, is that the increasing frequency of all those extreme events was predicted by climate scientists long ago [Don't go there... there are just as many false predictions as correct ones in this area.]. And what is almost equally certain is that they would not have happened at all, or would have been more benign, if we hadn’t been emitting all that CO2 for the last 100 years. [This is patently unproveable. Probably true, but far too easily denied.]
    I would instead say:
    What is certain, however, is that things are going to get worse. The frequency and severity of events are going to increase. As the globe warms, the climate is going to change. As the earth picks up energy, and reorganizes the wind and the water, in an angry, unpredictable way, the statistics are going to mount. There will be few specific events that we'll be able to attribute to climate change, but the day will come when you'll wonder which events weren't caused by climate change, rather than which ones were.
    I'd also change the final line. As good as it is, its better to stay with your original analogy.
    As a planet, we're chain smoking eight packs a day, and hoping that all those rumblings from the scientists about the dangers of smoking CO2 turn out to be wrong, because darn it, smoking eight packs a day is so much fun, and it's just so hard to make ourselves stop. But we don't have a neighboring planet who never took up smoking who'll be able to tsk-tsk at our own bad luck as we're laid to rest. The planet can't smoke eight packs a day without expecting severe consequences down the road... without becoming another statistic.
  4. CO2 lags temperature
    Stephenwv, From your link: "As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions." That would mean the CO2 you believe is due to natural cycles is, in fact, anthropogenic. " Additionally as the oceans warm, significant amounts of CO2 are absorbed starting the glacial cycle" As oceans warm CO2 is released, not absorbed. Furthermore we're not at the beginning of an interglacial, we're roughly in the middle, so natural forcings are for the most part on the cooling side. But we aren't seeing cooling are we? We're seeing an abrupt spike that just happens to perfectly coincide with the industrial revolution. You need to calm down and try to understand the terminology involved. Of course authoritative sources say anthropogenic CO2 contributes (contribute in this context means 50-90% by the way). Land use changes also contribute, and that is also anthropogenic. No scientist is going to say CO2 is entirely at fault without including uncertainty in the mix. Science is inherently conservative, not alarmist. This is why data over the last two years indicates climatologists have been understating the problem.
  5. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    The cancer/tobacco and climate change analogy is excellent because it is one I regularly use when discussing climate change with deniers because it personalizes the debate. In one case, I used that analogy and a denier friend of mine ended up arguing that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer. I challenged him to become a smoker. I pointed out the wonderful taste and how much it helps at keeping weight off. He declined and went on to argue that the scientists are all in it for the money. I think it's a good tactic to try on the right person. Offer to purchase a pack of cigarettes each day for the next ten years for a non-smoker denier and pay him to smoke them, provided he can verify that he smoked them. Get together with your friends to reduce the cost if you like. It is a very revealing way to see deniers squirm. If you're lucky, they might even reconsider their position. But the most likely outcome will be a shift in the argument to something else.
  6. CO2 lags temperature
    @263 stephenwv Do you realize that neither of those links support your claims. In fact they show the opposite of what you are claiming. Must be the Monckton effect.
  7. CO2 lags temperature
    THIS IS the science. From the US Government National Academies of Science. NOAA Paleoclimatology is a branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center click here Temperature/CO2/Solar chart. And the truth of the ridiculous notion of man caused. There are no longer ANY authoritative sources that state that man caused global warming is significant. ALL state it contributes. DUH. As one tree rots it contributes too. Additionally as the oceans warm, significant amounts of CO2 are absorbed starting the glacial cycle. click here Earth has its equivalent to the human immune system. It has healed itself for billions of years. At some point, the powers that are getting us to beg them to spend trillions to stop the earth's natural inter-glacial cycle, will be getting us to beg them to spend trillions to stop the glacial cycle.
  8. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    First, on CC and GW... the term CC has been around for almost 100 years. CC first shows up in the literature in 1937. Global Warming didn't really show up until the 80s. It became more popular after Hansen's testimony before Congress in 88. Neither term was ever chosen or used by any party in science, or in the debate, for some subliminal hypnotic power. Accusations of such far foolish. That's all hogwash, including the denial paranoid fantasy that the evil scientific socialist cabal that is trying to form one world government switched from GW to CC to trick people. To scientists, it made sense to say climate change in some contexts, and global warming in others, depending on the point under discussion. But scientists understand the difference, and in all areas of science, various terms have specific meanings and are understood in the appropriate way within that field and context. There's always a sort of code spoken in science, even if it's not entirely intentional, or even conscious to the code-talkers. For the layman, GW became more common, I suspect, because it emphasized the direction and key forcing behind climate change. Over time it became overused and misused, and as the population (or at least those that love to follow the blogs and post comments on the subject) became more educated, climate change crept back in, and people started arguing about what was right. The point is... all of these discussions about one term or the other being right or meaningful or whatever are cover the spectrum from paranoid to over-controlling. GW refers to the overall and initial impact of excessive CO2 generation, with more focus on the primary forcing (temperature) and its direction (up). CC refers to anything that swings the planet from one equilibrium climate to another, and encompasses many regional factors beyond temperature (precipitation and storms being the factors under discussion here). Neither one is right or wrong. They're just words, and getting caught up in the whole discussion of the right term is just giving in to more denial track-derailment (i.e. arguing about word choices instead of what the words mean, and arguing about presentation, style and intent instead of facts and substance).
  9. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    Ricccardo #40 Quite right. But we are not talking about the point when equilibrium is reached - we are talking about the current purported imbalance and the pathway to equilibriun - particularly the surface temperare rise which will occur to increase the Earth's IR radiating temprature sufficiently to close the forcing gap.
  10. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    1) CC was substituted for GW when it became apparent that many areas were not experiencing warming but rather no change or cooling. You should make that clear or people will think they are being scammed. 2) The science relating deaths due to cancer among smokers is far stronger than the science relating carbon to extreme weather events. I can take just about any population of smokers and compare it to just about any population of non smokers and find deaths due to cancer 10 times higher among the smokers, and everyone I know who has died of lung or throat cancer smoked. It is this certainty that you are trying to tap into to support your thesis, but no similar correlation exists or can exist with respect to carbon and global warming. People accept the science concerning smoking because they see smokers getting sick and dying of certain diseases all around them. People don't learn the science of smoking and then notice that smokers are getting sick all around them. Since there are no low carbon earths with witch to compare our higher carbon earth there is no effective tocacco comparison. 3) The quantifiable, observable effects of smoking have been used politically to: create draconian, regressive taxes; enrichen trial lawyers; propagandize our children; and spread the reach of government into our lives and even into our homes. Most people think this is what the anti carbon crowd want to do (they are right). The tobacco analogy will forcefully strengthen this thought.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! As a new user to SkS, I must point out the Comments Policy. I must ask you to refrain from accusations of deception or making ideological statements. Open dialogue is encouraged here; unsupported personal opinions in violation of the Comments Policy tend to get deleted. Thanks!
  11. Dikran Marsupial at 23:21 PM on 10 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP@30 It may have to do with combustion, but your point is irrelevant as it would only be true in circumstances that have no chance of actually happening. The effect fossil fuel use has had on atmospheric oxygen concentrations is measurable but not sufficient to have any noticable effect on anything as far as I am aware. Yes if you are being pedantic if we had unlimited fossil carbon to burn and we burnt it at a sufficient rate there would be a point at which there would be insufficient oxygen to allow further combustion. However there is not an infinite supply of fossil carbon, so the point is completely irrelevant. Now *please* give the word-play a rest, it impresses nobody.
  12. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    ...and as far a this thing about oxygen running out... it had to do with the effects on combustion. You do need a certain percentage to get this to happen, although this could lead to more jobs for adjusting carburetors, so maybe its not a problem.
  13. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    adelady #28 "...relevant only because of current circumstances" Just imagine if Galileo said that to the Inquisition.
  14. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    James Hansen suggests we ask "Would this have happened without AGW". The answer for the Queensland floods is almost certainly not. This flips the question of proof onto the deniers. If we ask do you have certain proof this was caused by AGW the asnwer, as you show, is no. Would 100,000 people have died of lung cancer if they did not smoke? No. Would one person have died of lung cancer if they did not smoke? Not certain.
  15. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    #26, not just "slightly" off topic, very off topic.
  16. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I agree with the term Climate Change as it fits what we observe. Not everyone will experience "warming" (ie Northern Europe) but everyone will see change. Furthermore, it leaves room for healthy scientific testing of the theory of causes. remember science without debate becomes dogma. Slightly off topic, but related. I wonder why we have not seen a global consensus to limit global population as as well as emissions. The two are surely linked and attempts to limit emissions globally will surely fail without population curbs...
  17. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    If Climate Change is good enough for the IPCC, then it should be acceptable as a term, especially as it encompasses Global Warming - which some people get confused by when they see snow outside their homes ! PS Hear, hear to Stephan Lewandowsky's 'Moderator Response' above, and mactheknife's comment - I would add to the list the belief that so-called skeptics think that it won't happen to or affect them or their families, but will only happen to people in far-off countries whose governments are not looking after them properly anyway (supposedly). As for Australia, is there any extreme that they won't be experiencing there (or haven't experienced yet) during the current season ?!
    Response: [John Cook] Well, here in Australia, there's no record snowfall at the moment :-)
  18. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    When has climate not changed? Well, there were several million years of unchanging 'snowball earth' - which only just managed to drag itself out, eventually, by the agency of you-guessed-it carbon dioxide and its GHG friends released from volcanoes. This idea that 'climate always changes' has the flavour of confusing weather with climate. Weather changes with sunrise and sunset, the tides, the seasons. Climate never changes until and unless something forces it to change. As for the theory, remember that CC or AGW is "not" the theory. The theory is the science of climate, CC (AGW) is a mere subset of that theory, relevant only because of current circumstances.
  19. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:32 PM on 10 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Forgot to mention the record heat wave in Sydney and the umpteenth record downpour/floods in Melbourne - for local city-based listeners (who might not know where Mildura is) :)
  20. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:10 PM on 10 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    The analogy works for me. I'd suggest giving it more 'oomph' by giving more examples of the past few weeks/months; such as landslides in Brazil, record floods in Sri Lanka, record floods in Pakistan, record rain in the Philippines, coast to coast snow the USA, drought in Africa, floods in Egypt, floods in Europe, drought in China, drought and fires in Russia, temps off the scale for a month in Canada; record heat at Casey in Antarctica preventing planes from landing; almost simultaneous 'inland sea' flooding of Victoria, northern South Australia, southern NT, most of Queensland, parts of northern NSW, north west WA and eastern Tasmania - picking just a few examples off the top of my head :)
  21. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    @13 "I think we all need to consistently use AGW or "Human caused Global Warming" rather than CC. Lets call it what it is. None of the arguments for using CC have convinced me." As a layman I might be missing something, but I always view these two concepts as interlinked. AGW brings about CC. Is this too simple?
  22. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    It is broadly accepted nowadays that smoking is a health hazard and tobacco companies have been forced to put warning messages on packets. Smoking is banned inside public places. However for years misinformation was peddled by vested interests. Below are common strawman arguments peddled by climate change deniers and vested intgerests but phrased in terms of smoking. Drawing comparisons between smoking and climate in this way may be helpful in getting people to see how misguided some of these arguments are. I have included just a few of the associated global warming strawman arguments. There are many more. 1. I know someone who is 90, has smoked heavily all his life and he is as healthy as anyone I know. So if smoking is as dangerous as they say it is why is he alright? There cannot be a direct link. There must be other factors leading to cancer so till we are 100% sure we should not ban anything. This is similar to the argument that how can it be that CO2 increases but some years temps are lower. You cant prove there is warming. 2. Anyway smoke is a naturally occurring substance in the environment. It has been around for thousands of years. Actually fire and smoke is necessary for some plants and seeds to grow in parts of Australia. It is vital for them.- This is similar to the argument that climate has been changing for thousands of years so don’t worry and as CO2 is natural it cant be bad. 3. Waterborne diseases are the largest culprit of death and morbidity in the third world. This puts the whole thing in perspective. There are far more influential factors in causes of death than smoking. Actually old age appears to be correlated with death more so than smoking so what is this nonsense about banning smoking! This similar to saying that there are other greenhouse gases so it is not just CO2! So CO2 is not a problem. 4. They reckon the poisonous chemicals in cigarettes can cause emphysema and bronchitis, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke and cancer. Hearing and vision loss, Arthritis, Diarrhoea, Wrinkles, Peptic ulcers, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney and liver damage, oesophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, and throat cancers, sudden infant death syndrome. Counter argument: Yes but these conditions have many other causes and people who never smoke get these as well. So there is a failure to prove actual causation. Prove that CO2 causes warming because so many other things influence weather events. 5. By current estimates, tobacco use causes 440,000 deaths per year and costs about $157 billion in health–related losses. An estimated 46,000 adults smoked in 2001. On average, men who smoke cut their lives short by 13.2 years, and female smokers lose 14.5 years. Counter argument: Where is the hard empirical evidence for this? No one knows when they are going to die so how can anyone say their life is shortened by this or that amount? What about the guy who lived over 100? Was his life shortened by 13.2 years? Not likely. This is like saying the models cannot predict detailed scenarios for small regions so how can we take them seriously. And of course these storms could have happened anyway.
  23. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Three points: 1 (Pedantic - sorry!) "The guy down the street who’s now dying of lung cancer before he had a chance to quit, did he get killed by tobacco?" He has yet to die, so it should be "WILL he get killed by tobacco?" 2 You cannot use this line of reasoning to demonstrate that the warming being experienced is anthropogenic in origin, only that the extreme events are caused by warming, whatever the cause. 3 Related to 2 above, we need to draw people's attention to the fact that, whatever the cause, we can reduce the greenhouse effect, and thus its contribution to the current warming, by reducing the production of greenhouse gases. You could add two final questions: Regardless of the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change, doesn't it make sense to do whatever we can to combat it? Or does the risk of countless deaths from food and water shortages with wars over what little there will be, mass migrations with the collapse of current geopolitical structures, not to mention several meters of sea level rise etc. etc. seem like a good thing for future members of your family?
  24. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Marcus 24 You refer to this grand old theory, Climate Change, with capital letters, which in the most simplest terms means that all things being equal, the Earth's climate is modulated by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, it does this with or without mankind's help, as it has for eons and eons, given that in reality it is a natural process...ironically. (exception being in that of course there was a time much earlier when things were driven by other factors, because of other unknowns, but these conveniently fall into "all things were not equal bucket"). You may notice that, so far, I havent said anything relevant, and if so, it is because I have simply paraphrased the entire Climate Change theory, which on the surface is an ambiguous platform upon with only "experts" are allowed to stand. For instance, when has climate not been changing in some way locally or otherwise, etc.??
  25. Dikran Marsupial at 20:29 PM on 10 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP@25 You were not put on trial for the standard of your English. Daniel was asking a valid question as it appeared that you did not realise that what you had actually written was inconsistent with your subsequent explanation. If your English is poor, that is no problem, but I would suggest in that case you avoid word games, and stick to explaining your position clearly.
  26. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    A series of arctic ice coverage http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (and ice volume: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php) would have been great.
  27. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Re: Daniel Bailey #23 After what you said here, please note post 14 "Dikran Marsupial #14 RSVP@13 Ah I see, word games" On the one hand, I get accused for word games, and on the other, must stand trial for my English.
  28. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    Great work. This will making climate communication easier. On comment on normalisation: From past experience with the temperaturedatasets: As far as I know do they use different normal period as reference. I cannot see any part of your text above commenting on this. My question is: Do you use the agencies normal period, og do you adjust the series to a common period?
  29. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    "Your comments are how you say them are why you will not convince the public because they have learnt through thousands of years of human proganda just how to smell it." Can someone translate this please.
  30. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Climate change wasn't invented by conservatives. It was *adopted* by them as the preferable terminology. 'Global Warming' was first publicised by Wally Broecker. I much prefer climate change because it encompasses unexpected regional effects - like WACCy weather.
  31. A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
    And where is the temperature differential? Where is the lag? You don't seem to capture the dynamic changes between the ocean and the atmosphere that you describe in #63. The ocean seems just to become a very big extension of the atmosphere.
  32. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    There is another angry beast-human exageration. And you are certainly stocking this fire. Your comments are how you say them are why you will not convince the public because they have learnt through thousands of years of human proganda just how to smell it. "And what is almost equally certain is that they would not have happened at all, or would have been more benign, if we hadn’t been emitting all that CO2 for the last 100 years. Floods have been happening in Queensland for millions/thousands of years so how can you say first up 'they wouldn have happened at all' and then qualify it by 'would have been more benign? This is typical propaganda writing. Floods in 1800s in Queensland were worse. It would be more correct to say "floods and frequency in Queensland are much as they were in the last few hundred years of human records, however there is the possiblity that recent warmth, whether natural or humna caused, has excerbated the degree of recent flooding" Th same goes for cyclones. Strong ones occurred in Queensland in the 1910s and 1930s, so it is incorrect, like the Premier to say it is unprecedented. It is also true that the devestating bushfires in Victoria were almost certainyl made worse by academic-backed green policies, such as not allowing residents to clear vegetation adjacent to their land, and the usual incompetence of government warnings and propaganda about how to deal with nature. I could go on, but as I said, you need to frame your words more carefully to convince the public, they aren't stupid and dont like being subjected to an endless stream of propaganda.
    Moderator Response: Thank you for attacking that straw man because it means I should add something along the following lines: "Bush fires have been part of natural Australia for millennia. But just because they were always caused by lightning for 10000 years doesn't mean arsonists don't exist now. Likewise, just because there have always been floods and cyclones doesn't mean their frequency or severity hasn't been increased by climate change." By the way, the peer reviewed literature is about as different from propaganda as a Shakespearean love sonnet is from internet pornography. The pornography of propaganda is instead practiced mainly by those who reject science that doesn't suit their ideological or commercial needs: This fact renders my analogy with tobacco doubly apt, as a quick glance at Naomi Oreskes' "Merchants of doubt" will clarify. [SL]
  33. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    AGW can get you away from talking about weather completely as the issue is much bigger than just climate. We need to talk about adding heat to the whole biosphere including oceans. CC is just one of the effects of AGW. I think human beings need to own the problem hence the A in AGW rather than externalize it CC. CC also allows anyone to put a positive spin on the problem, as "change" can be "good". AGW is confronting for an audience while CC is just interesting....
  34. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Steve Some thoughts. Who is your audience? When this podcast goes out, who do you think will listen/read/respond? A phrase like 'the heart of probabilistic causation'! Is this aimed at your undergrad audience or post grads? or at the guys down at the Pub? How you use language massively determines how and whether people will assimilate what you are saying. My take on your piece is that you are trying to highlight the need for a 'probabilistic causation' mindset when assessing Tobaco, Clinate Change etc. The need to not use black & white thinking, is/isn't, will/won't thinking. Rather that we need to look at questions like this in terms of 'what are the odds', 'is this likely enough to act on'. Humans use probability thinking in a wide range of daily activities - will it rain? But we still don't handle probability well because we still want to come to a black/white conclusion. How likely is it to rain? Will I bing the washing in? Rather than 'does the probability of rain justify bringing the washing in. Or should I just bring in 2 pairs of socks?' So what is the purpose of the podcast? To try and cut through the 'probabilistic causation' jumble to provide people with conclusion about a subject. Or to provide a meta-discussion about 'how should we go about thinking about a topic like this?'. Are you advocating for Climate Change. Or advocating for shades-of-grey thinking?
  35. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I like the way the articles teaches its point. It's a general point being presented, but the references to Australia, though timely, are not so general. Perhaps examples from elsewhere in time and geography to point out that the logic in question is universal - not only applicable to the Australian tragedies. I also closed this post with a suggestion of how the references might be made more universal. Another thing to reconsider might be the close. The beast-poking metaphor does not reinforce the point made; it comes out of nowhere. It's tidy, but unrelated. It could belong anywhere in any rational discussion of climate change. I wouldn't be cute or trite there. I think it might work to just think of a brief statement that very simply makes the point your analogy spoke to. Something like, "Any piece of evidence taken out of context can be argued with. It's the momentous weight of thousands of related and repeatable pieces of evidence that amass into definitive proof: We now know definitely that smoking strongly increases the risk of cancer. We now know definitively that climate change strongly increases the risk of severe storms and other disasters." If you keep the Australian references only, I think the close could provide general relevance. For example, one could refer to "....storms and other disasters; disasters such as we've just seen in Austalia."
  36. A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
    Ok Glenn in #69 were does thermal inertia come into play?
  37. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Stephan - I think the lung cancer example is useful just for the reason you use it, namely a statistical analogy with some emotion attached. I'm also with Peter in Post 5. I think we all need to consistently use AGW or "Human caused Global Warming" rather than CC. Lets call it what it is. None of the arguments for using CC have convinced me. Furthermore it is not just the atmosphere which is immediately important to humans that is warming, but also the oceans that are impacted, soaking up most of the heat and changing ecologically. We are talking about much more than just climate change.
    Moderator Response: I am in two minds about AGW vs CC. The W means that every blizzard is automatically categorized as negative evidence. It isn't, but that's what people do. The C is a bit better in that regard because it subsumes a broader range of outcomes. On the other hand, CC was invented by Republicans because it sounds warm and fuzzy. Hence I like neither much. [SL]
  38. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Here are the findings from a new paper which speaks to severe events over Australia by Gallant and Karoly (2010, Journal of Climate): "Australian extremes are examined starting from 1911, which is the first time a broad-scale assessment of Australian temperature extremes has been performed prior to 1957. Over the whole country, the results show an increase in the extent of hot and wet extremes and a decrease in the extent of cold and dry extremes annually and during all seasons from 1911 to 2008 at a rate of between 1% and 2% per decade. These trends mostly stem from changes in tropical regions during summer and spring. There are relationships between the extent of extreme maximum temperatures, precipitation, and soil moisture on interannual and decadal time scales that are similar to the relationships exhibited by variations of the means. However, the trends from 1911 to 2008 and from 1957 to 2008 are not consistent with these relationships, providing evidence that the processes causing the interannual variations and those causing the longer-term trends are different." A similar extreme weather index in the USA has also found a positive trend in extreme weather events since the early seventies. See here.
  39. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Another way to say much the same thing is this: While smoking cannot be directly linked to any particular early death, the frequency of such deaths will be increased by smoking and: while none of the world wide extreme weather in the last twelve months can be directly linked to global warming, we can say that the frequency of such events will be increased by global warming.
  40. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Gary @3, How tropical storms will respond to warmer ocean temperatures is complex and a field of much attention. The latest, and probably best research suggests that there will probably be fewer storms, but stronger storms. How this will accumulate metrics such as storm count (which you showed) and as the ACE index is unclear. The literature does find an discernible increase in extreme precipitation events and extreme highs and droughts. I can provide references if you wish-- SKs is also a great resource of course. There is, unfortunately, not going to be a Pearl Harbour moment which shocks even the most ardent denialist or 'skeptic' into reality-- AGW is very much like a slowly progressing cancer. The concern is that the cancer (AGW) might metastasize. We all need to constantly remind ourselves that many of the scenarios predicted by the IPCC are often for say 2080-2100-- we are a very long way of from that obviously, so do not expect the worst to be obvious now. In fact, some features have only become discernible relatively recently, in the last 10 years or so. Look at it this way, you are currently smoking two packs a day and feel pretty good (so you do not really care about the fellow who has just been diagnosed with lung cancer a continent away and who cannot afford suitable treatment), but there are worrying signs-- a hacking cough (Arctic ice loss), shortness of breath when exercising (pH decline and loss of plankton) etc.. Your doctor is telling us that we need to steadily cut down the number of cigarettes you smoke to say one pack a day and then half a pack etc. But your mom is saying it is all a hoax and that the doctor is being "alarmist", she has smoked for 50 years and she is just fine.... Now what is the responsible, prudent and sensible approach...listening to your mum (who has been incredibly lucky and is an outlier) or your doctor? Or do you defer taking action until there is a tumour or you have a heart attack? Oh, and do not forget that you smoking two packs a day affects others too via second-hand smoke. Anyhow, I understand that it is not a perfect analogy, but I hope that it resonates with you. i for one do not wish for AGW to be a real issue, but I am not going to ignore the evidence and science, no matter how scary or inconvenient.
  41. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    How about adding that 150,000 annual figure from #6 to the statement. SL, your post is very well done, point made. We need more "gotcha" type statements!
  42. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    @3 garythompson: Not quite. The frequency of more intense storms is predicted to increase. Different models disagree on the overall frequency: some say up, some say down; see: What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?
    Moderator Response: Indeed. Hence my use of the word stronger in connection with the cyclone. I am not suggesting it could not have occurred on its own (it most definitely could have), just that its strength--and it was strong--might have been lower in the absence of climate change. [SL]
  43. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    @ garythompson: With all due respect, he was talking about frequency of extreme events. That is not what is shown in your graph. @sgmuller: The analogy is valid - the increased death rate from extreme weather events is also pretty gruesome.
  44. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Sorry, but I really don't think this kind of analysis is helpful. You are grasping at straws to suggest that extreme weather and AGW are in the same league as smoking and lung-cancer. Walk into any public hospital and you can see people dying from cigarettes and a tar filled lung makes for a great anti-smoking ad. I think that we are all tempted to draw those kind of conclusions prematurely because the established proofs of AGW are just so boring. I mean, who really gives a rodents rectum that winters are warming faster than summers, that nights are warming faster than days, that the poles are warming faster than the tropics? Certainly not the editors of our daily newspapers or the producers of our current affairs shows. They are all looking for big, exciting, life-threatening proofs. And cyclone Yasi and the Grantham floods were certainly all of those things. So we are tempted to oversell the case that Global Warming causes more severe cyclones, floods and droughts. I think we're setting ourselves up for a fall here. We just have to try a bit harder to explain the established, if boring, proofs.
    Moderator Response: Walk into the peer-reviewed literature and you will see that the WHO estimates 150,000 fatalities annually now from climate change. So the analogy is apt on that basis. It is also true that increasing extreme events were predicted long ago, so I don't think it is grasping at straws to link their increased frequency--in the aggregate but not individual instances--to climate change. This is a straightforward application of a counterfactual notion of causality which is widely accepted among philosophers and cognitive scientists. [SL]
  45. Peter Offenhartz at 16:50 PM on 10 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I have an intense dislike of the phrase "climate change," but I have no trouble with the phrase "global warming." "Climate change" is vague to the point of meaninglessness, while "global warming" is real and quantifiable. Please substitute! And you should also provide the age at which each of your smoking exemplars died. That will help show that these are what the medical establishments call "premature deaths." Sorry about the testiness. But "climate change" was a phrase invented by the deniers to avoid having to say the planet is warming. They substituted something vague for something that can be measured. And they seem to have won the public relations battle for the way the public thinks. All of us should avoid the vagueness of "climate change" and try to stick to the facts.
  46. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I do not agree with the sentence "They all died prematurely because of tobacco". If we cannot link each single event with a cause, how can we say that every single one was caused by it? Statistically, it's clear that tobacco causes cancer and GW causes more extreme weather events. But as suggested in the text, Nat King Cole could be one of those rare cases of lung cancer that are not related to smoking. Or am I missing something?
    Moderator Response: Yes, I may have to clarify that. It is clear that on average all smokers die younger (that's the point of having an average; viz. to describe the entire distribution, and the mean for smokers is lower). I'll find some suitable wording, stay tuned. [SL]
  47. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    All due respect to the victims of the recent floods and cyclones in Australia, I thought the frequency of this type of activity has reduced. here is a graph from that web site
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please use the img width="450" src tag when posting images. Thanks!
  48. Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
    Michael Sweet (8 & 25): I can now hear that my "anecdotal [data]...suggests the height of the ‘record lows’ bar will increase" is a claim of sorts, and I acknowledge that trolls are frequently requiring "more data please" (actually, "more data or I'll take my toys home"). Because I work with (regulate) about 400 clients' financial instruments that range from a few thousand dollars to a hundred million dollars (totaling about $500,000,000), adding 2 or 3 percent more clients would make me clueless as to whether ratios would stay put or change noticeably, even drastically. (The "right" 10 new clients could triple the total.) Being minimally familiar with actual counts of record highs and lows, but understanding (from reading Weather Underground Tropical Weather blog after Dr. Masters writes an AGW/ACC article) there can be hundreds of records set in a few weeks, I'm not convinced that the three months don't matter. After looking at the NCDC month average temperature anomaly maps which show vaguely 1.5 months worth of potentially record setting cold and 1 month of potentially record setting hot, I suspect the 2.04:1 ratio (hi:lo records) won't change much, but I still don't know. It would be much much better for the graph to actually cover the full decade to dispel my concerns. In November 2009, it made sense for the graph to cover a spot less than 60 years; today it does not make sense. It cannot possibly be too much work for the originators of the graph to add in the "missing" data. The maps are useful for making an hypothesis (the ratio won't change much); they are not reliable in and of themselves to determine if or how much the 2.04:1 ration will change. John Cook apparently cares about USA data sets, for he posted the two graphs above, and I am concerned about how the one graph might be perceived by Climate Ostriches and curious what the full decade ratio is. I don't know where to find the data and I'm not confident I would utilize it appropriately if I did. It doesn't mean I don't care. I'm deeply concerned about Arctic sea ice loss (among other climate science concerns), and when naysaying co-workers respond with "Antarctica ..." or "Snow on the ground in 49 states," I see them as ignoring reality. So when I heard you say (paraphrased in my head) "It cannot be cold in the US because on average it's hot everywhere, you SOB" well, you can see the parallel. In the DeepClimate blog on Lisbon, a small piece of the discussion centered on how we get so used to warding off pseudo-sceptics that we assume the worst in others and begin to behave in ways we're not proud of. I can succumb to it too. My apologies. And thanks for yours.
  49. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I liked this. But my question is, how about a different extreme event? Will it be meaningless to ask for certainty regarding the ice free Arctic summer when it comes? I think when it happens, it will be certainly* because of AGW, and saying so won't be meaningless. (*Though perhaps not 'absolutely certain'.)
    Moderator Response: Interesting thought. The ice free arctic is indeed something that could not occur on its own (i.e., without a strong forcing, however caused), so yes, this is a good example. Of course, delaying action by waiting for that absolute proof will just heighten the burden (financial and otherwise) to be carried by people then. [SL]
  50. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I suppose it would be too depressing to mention Yul Brynner urging other people to not smoke when it was too late for him. Not quite the message you want to get across. But I do like using smoking as a demonstration of probability that everyone understands.

Prev  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  1935  1936  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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