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  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  Next

Comments 104751 to 104800:

  1. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    14.Riccardo "I can't see any reason why we should split in two sides, skeptics and supporters of AGW. We simply can't close the budget" I agree with the second statement. And if this was purely a scienctific issue I'd agree with the first but unfortunately it isn't. There is uncertainty introduced by statements such as "We simply can't close the budget". The translation from science to comment and policy seeks to reduce that uncertainty. At times I think the scientists seek to reduce that uncertainty in a way that goes beyond the science. It's clear in the many recent articles and comments by Trenberth that he is only willing to publicly concede one way in which this problem is likely to be resolved (by improved ARGO data). That is I think where the two sides have to split. Not in the the scientific problem, we simply can't close the budget, but in the interpretation of what the problem means. (Maybe I've been reading too much about uncertainty at Judith Curry's)
  2. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    Response to #13 I take your point, maybe I should have been a little more clear, Trenberth is interpreting the data as to best maintain strength in the overall theory of AGW. Everything you say is fine the problem is there are several conclusions that can be drawn from that predictament. My argument is that Trenberth, possibly Riccardo and possibly John Cook in this article all prefer to focus on the conclusion that maintains the theory, in this case by critising the data set. The fact that as you suggest things remain unresolved seem to necessitate the possibility that this issue may resolve in multiple ways. My suggestion is that criticism is specifically aimed only at the data that no longer fits with the overall theory (the resumption being the pre-2005 data is fine because it fits with preconceived notions). There's no real harm in either Riccardo or John holding this position on the blogosphere, there is great harm in Trenberth doing it is the scientific literature. I like the uncertainty expressed in the "long wait for resolution" it's just a pity it doesn't seem to be expressed well in the original article.
  3. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    HumanityRules it's not my habit to dismiss any data untill they're proved wrong, which is not the case here. Hence I don't dismiss neither pre- nor post- 2005 data. We are talking about a few years of disagreement between different different parts of the energy balance. As you may recognize in my comment #8, I did not split the time scale in two. I simply said that yes, the budget isn't closed yet but that it's not by that much; and I expressed hope that a better tracking of the energy flows will do the job. I'd like to point out that this issue is not about anthropogenic global warming, I can't see any reason why we should split in two sides, skeptics and supporters of AGW. We simply can't close the budget. There must be something missing or measured not accurately enough to track energy on short time scales to account for natural variability. This is the famous Trenberth's travesty.
  4. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    BP: Just a free market with no subsidies whatsoever and proper regulations (to ensure for example no high tech poison is left behind). So that means no more subsidies for nuclear power or fossil fuels, right? None whatsoever, in any form?
  5. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    8.Riccardo I think it's more than just an issue of poor data set. The energy imbalance/ocean heat content was summed up by trenberth himself in the following image, the missing heat is the orange section of A. What Trenberth (and you) seem to be concerned with is only 5 years of data in a 15 year data set. If we follow your logic, that the data set is poor, we should possibly doubt all the data including the previous 10+ years when OHC and net radiation matched well. Few people seem to be concerned with doing that. That suggests to me that actually what is going on here is that Trenberth (and possibly you) are trying to fit the data to the theory, when that doesn't happen (after 2005) then you blame the data. What really backs this up for me is that the post 2005 data should actually be the more robust/accurate/believable data set given that it is based on a technology that was specifcally designed to answer this question. I just wonder whether you are willing to dismiss the pre-2005 data in the same way you dismiss the post-2005 data. I know this argument is going to breakdown into which data is better in an unresolved way, it would be nice if we could avoid that. What I'd really like to be convinced of is that the quality of the OHC data isn't questioned at this point because it no longer fits the greater theory. My guess is pre-2005 little time would be taken in wondering about the OHC data because it seemed to fit so well with net radiation.
    Response: "what is going on here is that Trenberth (and possibly you) are trying to fit the data to the theory"

    What Trenberth is trying to do is fit data to data, not theory to data. Eg - he has two metrics of the same phenomenon - the planetary energy imbalance. One is measured by satellites which measures energy coming in and out, the other by the accumulation of ocean heat. Satellites find that the planet's energy imbalance has gradually been increasing. So had ocean heat until around 2005. Note that ocean heat measurements still find a positive energy imbalance - the planet is still accumulating heat - just not as much as the satellite data at the moment.

    Scientists are scrutinising both the satellite and ocean data even as more data comes in and I expect the discrepancy will be resolved over the next few years. Here on the blogosphere where we breathlessly monitor monthly updates to every climate metric imaginable (guilty as charged), the long wait for resolution is a little painful.
  6. The science isn't settled
    Norman, the fact that all of scientific judgment is probabilistic is easy to discover. You don't have to take my word for it. Here is just one of many places you might start learning about that.
  7. Ice-Free Arctic
    #63: "actual amount of ice melt and refreeze it would be a straight line between the two for all the years." No. The September seasonal min anomalies are dropping much more rapidly than the March seasonal max. That's been discussed a number of times in prior articles. This requires more intense melt seasons, followed by a widespread refreeze forming 'new ice'. New ice melts more rapidly than old ice.
  8. Real experts don't know everything
    #82: "the difference between facts arrived at by actual experimentation and direct observatin and facts arrived at by mathematical application of various theories." Yep, you gotta watch those theories, they sneak in everywhere: The application of quantum field theory (QFT) to chemical systems and theories has become increasingly common in the modern physical sciences. ... of interest in many fields of chemistry, including: nuclear chemistry, astrochemistry, sonochemistry, and quantum hydrodynamics. Makes climate science seem real in comparison. "Conditions have never become so bad in billions of years and vastly different climates that life did not manage to survive" I guess that's a question of the point of view you get when you study Earth Science.
  9. Real experts don't know everything
    "But nothing has happened at Earth that totally broke the chain of life so it had to start all over from scratch." Sounds like you are arguing against yet another strawman. Care to show me a paper that suggests warming would do such thing? Certainly nothing in the IPCC WG2. However, we arent just protecting ourselves from extinction, we also want to protect our way of life, maintain our mortality rate etc. I am sure our species would survive, just not as many of them.
  10. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman, I have responded on chaos over on here as requested. Now climate, geology, etc are not like chemistry in that you cant just take an earth and try your experiment in a lab with different conditions. However, the basic philosophy of model-predict-observe still applies. Look at all the successful "experiments" so far? And obviously paleoclimate consists of another set of past experiments though we cant read the measurements as accurately. "The only certain conclusion I could establish from Global warming is that the average temperatures will go up." No it doesnt. It says that stratosphere will cool, nights warming than days etc. I gave you a long list of prediction/confirmation - how can you assert that in face of them? As to your eyeballs on rate (I hope you dont do chemistry with such eyeballing), note where that graph came from? Icecore. "zero" is 1905. Even if you add the instrumental data to it, on that x-scale you cant easily differentiate rates. Current rate 0.08/decade. Glacial-interglacial is 0.007/decade.
  11. Real experts don't know everything
    I have replied on the thread The science isn’t settled, to Norman's comment on this thread "In the fuzzy world the reality of statement is a probability. In the empirical world of actual tests, it is a fact."
  12. The science isn't settled
    This comment of mine is a response to comments by Norman on the thread Real Experts Don't Know Everything. Norman, you are incorrect that there is a sharp distinction between "empirical" science that reveals "facts" versus "fuzzy" science that yields only probabilistic statements. All sciences yield probabilistic statements. "Facts" simply have very high probabilities of being true--so high that it is downright silly to constantly refer to them as "maybes." That is why consensus among scientists is important. I suggest you watch Naomi Oreskes's "Consensus in Science: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?" I suggest you also read my comments 195 and 197 on the consensus thread. If you want to learn more, check out this paper by Duffy Hutcheon just as a start.
  13. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Responding to Norman from another thread. Read the above. WHAT have you read that says climate is chaotic? This is an open research question with likelihood that it is not.
  14. Ice-Free Arctic
    #62 DSL I did go to your link. I like the actual ice measurement extent Actual ice extent. If you look at the actual amount of ice melt and refreeze it would be a straight line between the two for all the years. In the early mid 2000 decade there was less summer melt but less winter refreeze, after 2007 the summer melt is greater but so is the refreeze in the winter. Did you look at Figure 3 of my second link? Yes the 1970's were cool but figure 3 shows the 1930-1940 decades were as warm in the Arctica as they currently are.
  15. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    #9: "Temperature is only one indicator of energy within a system. " Granted. But as AD points out, there is more interannual variability in the ocean system. We also saw this in a prior discussion on ENSO, particularly in the Timmerman paper I cited there. The tropical Pacific climate system is thus predicted to undergo strong changes if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase. The climatic effects will be threefold. First, the mean climate in the tropical Pacific region will change towards a state corresponding to present-day El Nino conditions. It is therefore likely that events typical of El Nino will also become more frequent. Second, a stronger interannual variability will be superimposed on the changes in the mean state, so year-to-year variations may become more extreme under enhanced greenhouse conditions. Third, the interannual variability will be more strongly skewed, with strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent. And that was written in 1999.
  16. Real experts don't know everything
    #80 muoncounter My main objection is when people take a item from "fuzzy" science and make it as solid as the empirical tested science. In the fuzzy world the reality of statement is a probability. In the empirical world of actual tests, it is a fact. This is a difference I am trying to emphasize. I am not against research in the fuzzy world, it's great. Here is a case of point. Based upon models of stellar dynamics and different stars it is probable that the Sun was 70% as bright billions of years ago. It is not a proven fact, (tested and verified...hard science) but on numerous web sites people use it as a verified fact and it just isn't. Maybe the average does not understand the difference between facts arrived at by actual experimentation and direct observatin and facts arrived at by mathematical application of various theories. Fuzzy science will forever remain in the realm of probability mentality. Hope that clears my point up for you. Another point from you: "Unbroken chain of life for billions of years." Well, no. Look harder: Climate change has had tremendous effects on life throughout the geologic record" I did not state that life has gone through trials and tribulations and had massive extinctions. But nothing has happened at Earth that totally broke the chain of life so it had to start all over from scratch. Conditions have never become so bad in billions of years and vastly different climates that life did not manage to survive.
    Moderator Response: Further conversation on how certain the science is, really is more appropriate for other threads such as The science isn’t settled. Further conversation on how bad this change is, is more appropriate for other threads such as It's Not Bad.
  17. Ice-Free Arctic
    "It is true the last decade of sea ice is much less than in the 1970's, but the 1970's were much cooler." hrmmm . . . I wonder why that could be . . . "But the last nine years do not show a downward trend." Wha? Whatchu smokin? Go here and then repeat that with a straight face. You might also note the wide swings in the last couple of years. Theory: decreasing summer ice means a rapid increase in new winter ice, but since the ice is new and not so thick, it melts quickly with the onset of summer. Each year, for the last decade, the multi-year ice volume has decreased. "They are sitting in a pattern determined by a current warming phase of the Arctic." Yes, a current warming phase--lasting at least 30 years. October temps were 4-6C above the 1979-2000 average. When was the last 30 year period that saw such a steady decrease? "Will it continue to warm up? The next few years should let us know." That's right. Keep watching the global temps. When you think it's time to do something about it, do it. I imagine others feel the same way (and are currently trying to do something about it).
  18. Ice-Free Arctic
    #60: "the last decade of sea ice is much less than in the 1970's, but the 1970's were much cooler. " Yes, now you're getting it. "the last nine years do not show a downward trend." No legitimate prediction says that there is a monotonically decreasing ice extent. Individual years fluctuate; always have, always will. But look at the AMSR graph objectively: lowest mins, in order are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2009, 2005. Get the pattern? "a pattern determined by a current warming phase of the Arctic." Yes, one that's been around since the mid 70s.
  19. Ice-Free Arctic
    This one. Warm Arctic in 1922. And this: If you don't want to read this at least look at Figure 3 of Arctic temps. Now this in conjunction to the above link: Last nine years of Arctic sea ice extent. It is true the last decade of sea ice is much less than in the 1970's, but the 1970's were much cooler. But the last nine years do not show a downward trend. They are sitting in a pattern determined by a current warming phase of the Arctic. Will it continue to warm up? The next few years should let us know. 2007 was the lowest summer extent but 2009 was in the middle. I can't see a continued downward trend from the linked data unless the temps continue to rise.
  20. Real experts don't know everything
    #57: "where in my post did I say I reject fuzzy science?" I thought you made a clear distinction between your 'Classic and solid science', provable by experiment rather than reliant on 'a series of math equations' vs. the fuzzy side, which lacks a 'way to verify the proxy with an actual test or measurement'. Fuzzy as in 'assumptions, you have to trust some unknown'. To me, that read that the former is good science, the latter not. If that wasn't your intent, I misread. "I was just making a point between a hard tested science and the other that you can only logically infer but can never actually test" That's where I think you and a lot of so-called skeptics are wrong. Climate science predictions were tested last summer; look to heat waves and accelerating ice melt as verification. "models of complex systems are inherently unpredictable. " That's why there are such things as statistics. In my spare time, I count muons (cosmic rays). There is ample physical theory regarding cosmic rays, but there is no way to predict any specific arrival or event. And yet anyone working in the field can tell you to a reasonable level of accuracy the number of muons that just passed through your head while you were reading this. We can know the 'cosmic ray climate' without any ability to predict the 'cosmic ray weather.' "this arcticle points out that another forcing factor is better" Or not. Chylek was reviewed here some time back and found wanting. Why is climate science held to the impossible standard that there must only be one interpretation or its all wrong? No other science has to meet that test. "Unbroken chain of life for billions of years." Well, no. Look harder: Climate change has had tremendous effects on life throughout the geologic record. One thing for you to read: How warm was summer 2010? I've quoted this before, but it continues to be relevant here: Weather in a given region occurs in such a complex and unstable environment, driven by such a multitude of factors, that no single weather event can be pinned solely on climate change. In that sense, it's correct to say that the Moscow heat wave was not caused by climate change. However, if one frames the question slightly differently: "Would an event like the Moscow heat wave have occurred if carbon dioxide levels had remained at pre-industrial levels," the answer, Hansen asserts, is clear: "Almost certainly not."
  21. Real experts don't know everything
    #77 scaddenp "Also, by the way when looking at past conditions and past forcings, remember that issue here is RATE of change. A warmer world might be a whole lot better - provided we got there slowly. Global temperature changed at rates an order of magnitude or more slowly than current rate of change for normal glacial cycle. Have there been times of rapid temperature change in past? yes, and evidence too from species loss that these were highly stressful times to live in." From my eyeballs all the past warming slopes look about the same including the one we are on.
  22. Real experts don't know everything
    #75 scaddenp I think this might go on awhile to find some sort of understanding of conceptual material. Your quote: "A test or experiment can DISPROVE but there is no way it can prove - another experiment might invalidate it. You will search in vain for proof" Consider this. I am an early chemical researcher. I have bottles of oxygen and hydrogen. No one has reacted them so far so I am not sure what will happen. I have some ideas based upon some other reactions I have performed but I am not certain. My ideas before the test are what I will prove or disprove. I mix them, nothing happens. I heat it and I get flame and water. By actually running the test I establish that mixing hydrogen and oxygen will produce heat and water. It will either confirm my previous ideas or cause them to be rejected. Another case. I am Newton and want to learn about gravity. How do I do it? I start dropping things and seeing what happens. I find it seems to pull all types of materials. I can see the objects accelerate by observation. Now I get a time piece and measure the time it takes to fall a certain distance. I start doing a series of measurements and find the gravity attraction causes an acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2. By doing experiments and tests I find the accleration of gravity. I prove it. Doing a series of experiments finds relationships among variables. Your other comment: "As for chaos - well see links - but remember everything in a chaotic system is obeying physical laws all the time. Weather is chaotic but it is far from clear whether climate is." I agree that chaotic systems obey physical laws. They are just hard to predict. Like the IPCC predictions about increasing severe weather events caused by Global warming. Maybe but chaos theory may invalidate these predictions. The only certain conclusion I could establish from Global warming is that the average temperatures will go up. The rest is speculation to me. Kind of like using fear to illicit a response or action. From what I have read Climate would definately be classed as a chaotic system. A warming globe can increase ice melting that can alter albedo, but a warming globe can increase water vapor that condenses into clouds and blocks solar energy. From the large and rapid global temp changes in the past, it would be a very strong indication of a chaotic system.
    Moderator Response: Further discussion of chaos must be done on the thread Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. Comments elsewhere will be deleted.
  23. Real experts don't know everything
    Also, by the way when looking at past conditions and past forcings, remember that issue here is RATE of change. A warmer world might be a whole lot better - provided we got there slowly. Global temperature changed at rates an order of magnitude or more slowly than current rate of change for normal glacial cycle. Have there been times of rapid temperature change in past? yes, and evidence too from species loss that these were highly stressful times to live in.
  24. Real experts don't know everything
    Moderator John deleted my reply (11NOV) to multiple critics so I will engage in a careful tippy toe to avoid anything remotely controversial. Good to see a bit of passion in the old gang - CBD, JM, DB (Yooper), PC. PC: "Models based on physics should always be trusted over measurements made with sensititve equipment subject to many potential errors. It's funny how skeptics are also eager to cast suspicion on obseved data if it does not show what they want." There are three possibilities for error, and only one possibility for 'getting it right'. The Model could be wrong, the measurement could be wrong or both could be wrong. To get it right - both the measurement and the Model must be right to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Climate Models are much more than robust extension of basic laws. Constants are assumed, and unsettled science like feedback mechanisms and cloud albedo etc *estimated* in order to cycle models. Let me give you a simple example: the portion of Solar radiation assumed to be reflected from the atmosphere and surface is quoted as about 30%. ie. 0.7 of about 340 W/sq.m gets through to play in the biosphere. That means that about 240 gets through and 100 is reflected out. How accurately do we measure this 30% or 100W/sq.m? One percent?? So if the actual number is 29.7% or 30.3%, then the amount reflected could be 99W/sq.m or 101W/sq.m. The amount getting through could be 241W/sq.m or 239W/sq.m. The TOA imbalance is supposed to be 0.9W/sq.m. So varying just one assumption by 1 percent means that my warming imbalance could be 0.9 +/-1.0W/sq.m - more than a 100% error margin. We could have twice as much warming imbalance or no warming imbalance by varying one important factor by one percent. Cycle a 1 percent error through a Model yearly for 50 years and what do you predict? (1.01)^50 = 1.65. 1 percent becomes 65 percent. Are we measuring any of these climate variables to an accuracy of 1 percent? I don't think so.
  25. Real experts don't know everything
    "Scientific proof is empirical evidence. An experiment or test that either confirms or rejects an idea about how something behaves." A test or experiment can DISPROVE but there is no way it can prove - another experiment might invalidate it. You will search in vain for proof. However, if you want empirical evidence of climate theory, then John compiled this and this. Also this from another source. All referenced to published papers. Nature is doing the experiment all the time - models are checked against it. As to paleoclimate - well I'm geologist/geophysicist of sorts. How I prefer to think of geological evidence is in terms of constraints of what could or could not have happened. Its useful for checking models (if they couldnt account for glacial cycle or PETM hyperthermal then no good) but climate theory comes from physics not geology. I can appreciate your feelings given parents past but nothing distorts reality like looking at it through a political lens. You dont want One World Government? Good, neither do I. Lets find solutions that dont need One World Government or fit any other agenda other than fixing the problem. Adapt politics to reality, not the other way round. As for chaos - well see links - but remember everything in a chaotic system is obeying physical laws all the time. Weather is chaotic but it is far from clear whether climate is.
  26. Real experts don't know everything
    Re: Norman (55 - "clouds are hard to model") Hmmm, you really should read this then, from the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas, which says otherwise. The Yooper
  27. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    ESNO is dynamical coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomena and what you mean by "cause" isnt a straightforward question. You are aware that "ESNO-like" features emerge in GCMs? The tough question is "how will ESNO change as the world warms?".
  28. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman at 09:49 AM re "I think my communication skills are very lacking and I am sorry for this." Norman, you have nothing to apologise for, the presentation of your arguments are very lucid, IMO.
  29. Real experts don't know everything
    Thanks Phila, JMurphy, and Yooper. Need a little time to digest.
  30. Real experts don't know everything
    Re: PaulPS (65) Excellent question, Paul. At what point do we deem we have enough information to make an informed decision on anything? ow do we know the "experts" know what they're talking about? As I see it, we have two choices: 1. We can go learn the topic ourselves & then decide. This works for things like changing lightbulbs or putting in a new toilet float. Really complex stuff, like pacemakers, I leave to experts. 2. We can solicit the help, aid, opinion of someone who knows the subject. Better yet, several. This has the advantage of being quicker and involving strenuous effort on the part of ones gray matter. But on a certain level it involves trust. Trust that you can decide whom to believe. For home repairs, I do stuff myself. Cardiac stuff, I trust a cardiologist (auto repairs, I solicit referrals from trusted friends). For science consensus statements, I trust credentialed scientific bodies. In this regard we are fortunate: in May, the National Academy of Science release a consensus statement, "Advancing the Science of Climate Change", wherein was found this statement:
    "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
     (here's the page with the specific quote). That comes from highly educated professionals who have spent their lives devoted to the study of science. So, if warming is an established fact, and that we are the likely cause, should we do something about it? Consider this: the last time the atmospheric concentration reached current levels was about 15 or so million years ago. Thick forests grew north of the Arctic circle. Global temps were at least 3 degrees C higher. Sea levels were much higher. A completely different world, climatically, then the one present for much of civilization: So, to avoid having to add an arrow on the right side of the chart with the caption "agriculture ends here", should we try to avoid the worst of the effects of climate change while we still have some say in the matter? If soldiers waited until seeing the sniper picking them off one by one before taking evasive action, that would be kinda nutso, wouldn't it? So maybe a better question is this: Since we're performing an experiment that can be run once (with no reset button), shouldn't we take action to err on the side of caution? The Yooper
  31. Real experts don't know everything
    PaulPS wrote : "At which point the question is asked; Is there enough certainty? If yes, then move forward. If not, wait and continue to collect the data." Can you define the level of certainty you are looking for ?
  32. Real experts don't know everything
    PaulPS @ #65 With that in mind, can we proceed with policy decisions that will drastically affect so many? To me, the basic problem with this question is the (seeming) assumption that business as usual is not a policy decision that will "drastically affect so many." The amount of warming generally agreed to be inevitable will drastically affect people all over the world. Inaction, according to the best peer-reviewed science available to us, is a policy decision that will lead to an even worse outcome. And I'd argue that this outcome logically includes greater political and economic instability, more drastic government action, and less freedom overall. More, in short, of everything the people who counsel inaction so often say they wish to avoid. The cancer analogy is probably overused, but if five doctors told you you needed chemotherapy, and one doctor told you that chemo would do more harm than good, and thinking positive thoughts would induce spontaneous remission, who would you believe? Many of us, I think, would go with the five doctors. But if we chose not to, we couldn't pretend that we hadn't made a "policy decision," for better or worse (statistically speaking, probably worse). The choice isn't between acting and not acting; it's between different actions that involve risks and consequences, as all actions always have. The main reason the cancer analogy breaks down, of course, is that it's about gambling only with one's own life.
  33. Real experts don't know everything
    Phila at 10:13 AM on 12 November, 2010 Phila, You have hit on exactly what is required to determine action/inaction. Model refinement should continue, and additional emperical data included until we reach the low levels of uncertainty that give confidence to the decision making process. At which point the question is asked; Is there enough certainty? If yes, then move forward. If not, wait and continue to collect the data.
  34. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    Berényi Péter wrote : "The toxic waste from used batteries is much worse than nuclear stuff, as it is supposed to be generated in a distributed manner in residential areas. Under these circumstances proper handling and enforcement is next to impossible. Well, I seem to find it easy enough to dispose of batteries safely by taking them to recycling centres which (I have to assume) are able to transport them in some safety to their ultimate destination for reprocessing. Can't imagine how I would be able to do that with nuclear waste.
  35. CO2 effect is saturated
    Tom Dayton #67 there's no need to dig into the well known difference between brightness temperature and temperature. I can't tell if Berényi Péter didn't actually read the paper, deliberately ignored what the authors say or has well founded reasons to believe they're wrong. A few relevant quotes from the paper. "the difference in the 800-1,000 cm-1 region is positive, and lies between about 1 and 2K. It is important not to over-interpret the observations to an accuracy that is not justifed by the errors (see below), nor to lose sight of our principal result, which is the observation of the sharp spectral features discussed in the preceding paragraph." "we do conclude that the observed window difference spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data." "we must also take into account inter-annual variability as a possible cause of the observed difference spectra. In the window region, the brightness temperature difference is strongly modulated by short-term fluctuations, such as inter-annual variability (specific concern involves the 1997 warm El Nino/Southern Oscillation, ENSO, event)."
  36. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman @ #60 I hope you take the time to read the link I posted for muoncounter about Chaos theory. Thanks, but (like most people here, I suspect) I'm actually familiar with the basic concepts of chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics. Putting aside the question of why climatologists stubbornly persist in modeling and prediction, despite the easy online availability of pop-science articles on chaos theory, I'd like to ask again why you seem to feel that uncertainty is grounds for inaction or complacency.
  37. CO2 effect is saturated
    #70 Riccardo Climate4you is a work in progress as are most climate sites. There is a vast amount of information concerning Global Warming and new information growing daily. I believe he leaves an email address on his site. I can send him the link you posted and see if he does anything with it.
  38. Real experts don't know everything
    I realize many are satisfied to some extent there is enough proof that CO2 is the primary agent of global warming. However, to Norman's point there are other variables we do not totally understand, or cannot have a high level of confidence in them at this point in time. With that in mind, can we proceed with policy decisions that will drastically affect so many? That is my dilemma, and what I am looking to answer. Has the science come to a point where additional discovery will only be minor, is the best solution confirmed?
  39. Real experts don't know everything
    Here is an example article of why, in a complex system, no easy answer is the "Be All" of understanding the situation. Climate models predicted a warming Arctic and the current warming found in the region may seem to verify the model is accurately predicting what is going on (CO2 increase by man is heating the Arctic region and causing increased summer ice melting). However this arcticle points out that another forcing factor is better at explaining what is going on in the Arctic then the AGW theory. A possible alternative explanation of Arctic warming than AGW.
  40. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman wrote : "#48 JMurphy, Check out Post 21 by Poptech." Sorry, but the question I asked was : Do you have more details of these "many", and what scientific evidence they are using for their "valid counter points" ? Your response fails on both counts, I'm afraid.
  41. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman "Scientific proof is not achieved by a series of math equations even if they add up. Scientific proof is empirical evidence. An experiment or test that either confirms or rejects an idea about how something behaves." And yet if someone suggested a chemical reaction that did not obey the law of conservation of mass, or thermodynamic contraints on kinetics, you would hesitate to believe it, no? The moles and energy need to add up. If they don't you are throwing away centuries of science and opening up the range of possibilities to a degree that makes progress impossible. "You don't have a way to verify the proxy with an actual test or measurement." One calibrates (and validates) proxies against known instrumental records. Different proxies are compared to ensure consistency when back casting. As the proxies act by independent means, agreement means something. Are they perfect..no? Temporal resolution is course and varies among proxies, and other factors can affect them. But when independent proxies agree that gives us more confidence that what they see is correct. To throw that information away simply it seems fuzzy compared to a chemical reaction under controlled conditions in the laboratory seems disingenuous to me. "Climate is a similar complex system. The fundamental science behind climate is well established and tested (radiation properties, thermodynamics etc) but the overall system is complex and chaotic and even models with the largest computers will not be able to contain all the interactions." Should we not believe reaction kinetics because it does not explicitly consider all the shifts in quantum state that constantly occur at the atomic and molecular level? No, because we can generalize about the average behavior of compounds in solutions without that specific knowledge. We also cannot predict when an individual atom of a radioactive isotope will decay, but I can predict with amazing exactness the half life of a mole of C14. Likewise, we cannot predict what the winds will do in Sumatra next week, but we can be darn sure that as CO2 increases the radiative balance of the earth will change and that this must be reflected in a changing heat balance, which has predictable consequences for average conditions on earth, based on long standing physical principles. That we do not know everything does not mean that we know nothing and that generalization is not possible in any science. I long ago learned not to dismiss too quickly how another science goes about its business. Smart people find ways of dealing with the problems thrown up by the systems they study, and it takes a lot of experience to understand why experts in the field have taken the approach they have.
  42. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman wrote : "The comment "...prior to 1970 all warming was natural, according to the IPCC" was based upon the visual analysis of the Model runs from IPCC. Look at the graph. He did not put a quote around the statement as it did not come from any text. Before 1970 the natural and anthropogenic CO2 produced the same effect." He did not put a quote around the text because then it would be too obvious that he is pushing his luck. It is always best to read the original words that came with the graphs; words like these : There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. (i.e. prior to 1970 all warming was NOT natural, according to the IPCC) During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. (i.e. that is why the bands diverge from that period onwards) Norman also wrote : "So did you take the time to look at any of his graphs and conclusions? Or did you stop at this statement and conclude he was incorrect and the rest of the site was useless?" By the time I had gotten to the graphs, I had also come across the non-scientific and emotive term "warm-mongers", and a reference to claims made by Steve McIntyre. He has his agenda and he intends to fit his case around that. If that is what you prefer to read too, I'll leave you to it.
  43. Real experts don't know everything
    %58 Phila I think my communication skills are very lacking and I am sorry for this. My points are that models of complex systems are inherently unpredictable. You can tweek them forever and have them mimic past events, but it does not make them able to accurately predict the future of a chaotic system. I hope you take the time to read the link I posted for muoncounter about Chaos theory.
    Moderator Response: Norman, type "chaos" into the Search field at the top left of this page.
  44. Real experts don't know everything
    muoncounter, Here is a quick look at chaos theory. Chaos theory.
    Moderator Response: Norman, the topic of chaos in climate change is well known. Type "chaos" into the Search field at the top left of this page.
  45. Real experts don't know everything
    Norman #55 You have to make assumptions, you have to trust some unknown that you did not think of is effectin a proxy. You also have to make assumptions when you claim that climate models based on basic physical laws are wrong, or much more likely to be wrong than right, or much more likely to err on the side of "alarmism" than complacency. You seem to worry about trusting "some unknown" not to falsify climate models, but you also seem to be implying that we should trust that some unknown will falsify climate models. And as I see it, the grounds for assuming that some unknown process will result in a much happier outcome than the best available science predicts are actually much "fuzzier," in terms of their evidentiary basis, than the models you're trying to critique.
  46. Real experts don't know everything
    #56 muoncounter Now where in my post did I say I reject fuzzy science? If something works you can still use it and build technology based upon it. Scientists are not sure what gravity or or how it is produced or if it can be manipulated. But they can certainly test an experiment with it to learn how it works and behaves and develop technology with this in mind (even if they do not grasp how it works at a deeper level). Fuzzy is a place where you can not empirically test your ideas. In Chemistry they had many models and ideas of what atoms where and how they behaved. They started running tests and found out their assumptions were not correct...Quantum theory came from empirical tests. They thought atoms were little hard balls, but when they shot radiation at it the radiation went on through except small amounts that bounced off the nucleus. I was just making a point between a hard tested science and the other that you can only logically infer but can never actually test. See the difference? I think my solar system analogy of complex systems did not convince you. It is not the scale of the climate system that is the problem, it is he complexity. Once a system is chaotic the ability to predict it will become increasingly difficult. It is why local weather is so very hard to predict. It is a chaotic system where small changes can have large outcomes in the future and the best models and calculating machines cannot overcome this fact. "One doesn't need to include all the interactions to understand a system governed by what you describe as 'well-established and tested' science. If the fundamental science is well-established and tested, then the predictions made by that science are no different than those from any other science." Maybe if you looked into chaos theory and predictability. The laws of gravity are very well established but predicting orbital motions of a multistar solar system may not even be possible.
    Moderator Response: Search for "chaos" in the field at the top left.
  47. CO2 effect is saturated
    Norman indeed. It's exactly what wanted to say, we have no evidence of a significant change in cloud cover, let alone take it as an alternative explanation of current warming trend. This is one more reason why the site you link is unreliable.
  48. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    Eric (skeptic) I'm too lazy to check your numbers, but the data shows that it is indeed possible to measure the change in ocean heat content. Adding natural variability and it sure takes several years to confidently assess the trend.
  49. Real experts don't know everything
    55: "Fuzzy science is the realm where you stretch back in time or go smaller than you can test. " So you reject as fuzzy sciences: Earth science, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. If so, you must reject the benefits of said sciences: But you drive a car which runs on petroleum found by earth scientists, use a TV or computer which runs on electronics described by quantum behavior and most likely use a GPS device which requires general relativity to work correctly. Are there no model equations in Chemistry? No statistical behavior? Nothing 'fuzzy'? "Climate is a similar complex system. The fundamental science behind climate is well established and tested ... but the overall system is complex and chaotic and even models with the largest computers will not be able to contain all the interactions." So you object to the scale of the problem? How many molecules of a gas do you measure to determine its properties? Certainly not all of them. One doesn't need to include all the interactions to understand a system governed by what you describe as 'well-established and tested' science. If the fundamental science is well-established and tested, then the predictions made by that science are no different than those from any other science. Where's the real fuzzy stuff coming from? The cherry-pickers and denialists who discount the expert analysis and repeat whatever the meme du jour happens to be.
  50. Berényi Péter at 08:51 AM on 12 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    #111 KR at 08:35 AM on 12 November, 2010 the damage to the water table from rubble percolation is unaffected by top contours. [...] I'm (personal opinion warning) a big fan of carbon taxes If you are worried over water table contamination, go for a tax on it, not on something else. Makes more sense, IMHO.

Prev  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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