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  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  Next

Comments 108151 to 108200:

  1. There's no empirical evidence
    The link to Law Dome Ice Core under Figure 1 points mistankingly to Taylor Dome Data. This is the correct link to Law Dome Ice Core data.
  2. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    JohnD, you have led yourself to a place you probably did not intend to go. Based on your latest remark, it's apparently your opinion that most people are fundamentally too unintelligent to be able to understand some first principles of physics and then be led through a process of exploration and elucidation by researchers to follow these principles to some conclusions that are beyond the realm of "opinion." That's a remarkably insulting opinion, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can you explain where the gulf of understanding arises here, follow the science back to the point where the average man in the street is too dull to follow the plot? On a side note, your apparent belief that you yourself are able to discern useful facts from pointless speculations suggests you believe you're in command of ground truth. Coming from a person who based an "alternative" hypothesis for energy transport to the top of the atmosphere on a failure to understand the difference between latent and sensible heat, I find this conceit quite remarkable. But again, perhaps I'm mistaken and you do not believe yourself to be uniquely intelligent.
  3. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    johnd wrote : "As for your comments about unspoken rules amongst contrarians, that may be how you see it, but that doesn't mean there is any such thing, I certainly don't think there is. Sceptics by nature are willing to consider alternative ideas. In fact if you think about it, the range of views held by sceptics precludes it, it would be more something held by those who are united in one belief, people such as yourself." I struggle to think of more than one or two times that I have seen any so-called skeptics on this site arguing against any of the wilder claims posted from time to time. Perhaps you don't think it's your job to do so ? As for sceptics naturally considering alternative ideas, that probably explains the acceptance by some that the greenhouse effect is false. That is certainly an 'alternative idea' ! How about the earth being flat; or the moon being made of cheese - alternative enough for you to consider ? Finally, "the range of views held by sceptics", especially when more than one are held by the same person at once, certainly precludes rational discussion. As is the case with the theory of evolution, if you have one theory accepted by the majority (especially in the scientific world) and many counter-theories (mainly involving religion), it is easy to determine where the rationality lies and where the blind belief is. Isn't it ?
  4. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    ...would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? Sort of like insisting that we all buy and use seatbelts, without explaining why we should.
  5. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    GC, the IPCC did at least bother to spend a few words exclusively dedicated to uncertainty. Not enough, clearly, or not effectively in any case. That said, always nice to see our opinions roughly in alignment, heh! Like some sort of infrequent astronomical conjunction...
  6. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    RSVP wrote : "Aside from all this, would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? If a chemistry investigation leads to knowing that a particular product or chemical causes cancer, that information is plenty for people to take action." I disagree. I think it would have been daft, and left the IPCC open to accusations of only doing half a job, if they had stated only what you think they should have stuck to. If they were only to mention what has happened and what is happening, the next question would be - 'What is going to happen ?'. It all follows, one after the other. Who do you think should be answering that question ? Also, how can you really judge if a product actually causes cancer unless you set up some sort of trial which can give some form of statistical significance to the question ? How can you judge whether people living in an area with Radon as a constant background radiation are rationally doing so because the risks are far outweighed by the benefits ? You start with what you know, determine what you need to know, make projections, carry on studying and act accordingly as and when deemed necessary. In the end, surely, most risks have to be judged as much on their potential for causing future harm, which is why I always have a little chuckle when a so-called skeptic (as evidenced on another of these threads) reckons that the danger from an extraterrestrial object is more immediate and therefore should have more money pumped into a solution than is being presently 'wasted' on the projected AGW dangers. But just how are either of those dangers determined if not by future projections based on known facts; and surely a scientific consensus among many disciplines determines which is a more immediate threat ?
  7. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    archiesteel at 00:25 AM, I think you missed the point my earlier comment was making. It had nothing to do with whether NETDR was presenting valid arguments or not, it was all about the apparent opinion you hold in that other posters here, especially those who are on the same side of the debate as yourself, are simply incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not there is any merit in what NETDR was posting, and whether or not they should respond to his posts without having to be told by somebody who has appointed themselves as their apparent guardian. They are not as naive or as stupid as you seemed to allude to. As for your comments about unspoken rules amongst contrarians, that may be how you see it, but that doesn't mean there is any such thing, I certainly don't think there is. Sceptics by nature are willing to consider alternative ideas. In fact if you think about it, the range of views held by sceptics precludes it, it would be more something held by those who are united in one belief, people such as yourself.
  8. We're heading into an ice age
    Perhaps SkS should start a separate thread on noctilucent clouds, which apparently are predicted to be both more common as well as moving into lower latitudes w/warming of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, here's an intriguing article about a powerful laser being borrowed from Europe by the Australians and hauled to Antarctica with the objective of further investigations: Scientists use giant laser to measure cloud temperature
  9. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    #48:"The earth will be hit by a comet or asteroid large enough to destroy civilization. The question is not if but when. ... CAGW will have to get in line with all of mankind’s other problems. " This is utterly nonsensical non-reasoning. The case of comets or asteroids is a low probability event; the case of global warming is a high probability (if not already certain) event. Never mind that those 'trillions of dollars' might have beneficial results: development of more efficient, less carbon-intense alternative energy sources for one. Maybe that's the real reason for such fierce denialism: fear of losing one's carbon-based paycheck. As far as getting in line is concerned, in the US that line goes through Congress, where even such obvious things like relief for the Haitian earthquake refugees are blocked by obstructionists.
  10. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Yes, RSVP, you're right in your hypothetical. However, that hypothetical as an analogy for GW doesn't work. Here's a better one: my dad died of small/oat cell lung cancer last year. Ninety-seven percent of the people who have/had that type of cancer are smokers or were smokers. My dad was a smoker. He was warned thirty years ago. He didn't believe the science. He died a very painful death (I gave him morphine every hour for the last day). When the activity gives pleasure, and the consequences seem distant and unbelievable, it's tough to alter behavior. Even being confronted with facts can sometimes backfire. Even this analogy isn't good, because GW will have (is having) social, not simply personal, effects. The social mass is notoriously difficult to motivate, and particularly so when the core of that mass is (and will be) well-insulated against the worst of the change.
  11. We're heading into an ice age
    Thank you JMurphy for the heads up about the Rwanda gorillas. Robert Felix's web site slants news to suit his theory and I grabbed that off of there as a recent phenomenon. As far as noctilucent clouds, does the IPCC use them in their considerations? I know Robert Felix doesn't mention them at all in his ramblings. Here is an article that wonders why the thermosphere is shrinking more than expected from just the solar minimum alone. Carbon dioxide build up is blamed for that cooling but only partially. Something else in the make up of the thermosphere is leading it to shrink, to cool. Shrunken Thermosphere Appears the increase in noctilucent clouds comes from rising methane emissions and it is thought that the disturbances from rising carbon dioxide lead to weather extremes that push water itself up to the mesosphere. Here is an article talking about unusually low, split and faster jet stream leading to weather extremes: Wayward Jet Stream Possibly noctilucent clouds are a missing piece of the puzzle that cinches the Hamaker hypothesis which is detailed in a 1989 film you can get here: 1989 film "Stopping the Coming Ice Age" Incidentally, those ice crystals of the noctilucents, they apparently collect dust from micrometeorites as well as stuff maybe that gets blown up from the surface turning them into first surface mirrors. Seems increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its consequences are coating the planet with highly reflective mirrors far above the greenhouse gases: Why noctilucents are inordinately reflective.
  12. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    chriscanaris #39, You give Hegel a pass because of the "standards of a different era", then you used Newton's dabbling in alchemy to bolster your case, even though he lived 100 years before Hegel!! Shouldn't we judge Newton by the standards of his religion-obsessed era, also? To return to the present, the "weightings" to give to climate feedbacks should be determined scientifically. I think you are confusing those with the political weightings that will guide action in the real world. As we all know, some groups are "more equal than others" in the political sense. Thanks, I will watch Schneider and Julian Simon. Simon was an economist (or at least a professor of business management), who is usually identified with "Cornucopianism", the theory that the Earth can support humanity foreven in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Simon was the ultimate anti-Malthusian, in fact. I doubt if climate feedbacks form part of the discussion. I (and I think any scientist) would be wary of "synthesizing" scientific theories and ending up with a plastic fuzzy. The fact that Newton's theories arise as a limiting case of General Relativity is not a synthesis. Political synthesis is to be expected, yes, but on conditions of justice and fairness. "Social Democracy", for example, is often presented as a synthesis of Communism and Classical Liberalism, retaining the best features of both.
  13. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @KL: "that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore." That flattening isn't statistically significant. It is not very different from the dip in the mid-80s, or other slight "corrections" of the temp increase (to use a financial term). Cherry-picking time frames in the historical record, one can find many examples of flattening, dips and the like - yet, temperatures have kept going up. About SLRs, it seems you are wrong as well. From the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "More accurate satellite measurements indicate that global sea level has risen by 1.2 inches over the past decade, about 70% faster than the 20th century average." As far as OHC goes, the Purkey and Johnson study gives a good hint as to where the "missing heat" is hiding (with troubling implications).
  14. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @NETDR: you failed to address a *single* of The Ville's counter-arguments.
  15. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @johnd: "So whilst you may consider that science is not about opinions, how different contributors select and present supporting arguments on this site is most definitely all about opinions." You're stretching the meaning of "opinion," here. There's a difference between citing scientific work because you have the opinion that it addresses a certain point, and basically stating your opinion that (for example) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas without providing actual evidence to support that opinion. For example, you objected to my earlier post where I gave my opinion that NETDR is a troll. That is an example of an opinion that, according to you, has no place on Skeptical Science, and to a degree I do agree with that evaluation - I wish I didn't have to make those kind of posts, but when trolls start to take over comment sections you have to act. I'm curious, though: can you explain how NETDR has helped move the scientific discussion forward? Do you agree with the arguments he's posted? If not, why didn't you say so? Could it be because of the unspoken rule among contrarians that you never argue with someone on "your side," even if they say thing that are clearly false? I would expect serious skeptics like you, BP and others to be the first to correct erroneous claims from posters like NETDR - after all, their unsupported attacks reflect badly on *all* skeptics.
  16. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken #116 You'd be better off admitting you got it wrong. If you like you can look at it as an estimated baseline. Still nothing to do with equilibrium. It's a point estimate. By definition the rate of change of a point estimate is zero, because it has precisely 1 dimension. One could run a model to estimate what the climatic response to a constant CO2 concentration since 1750 would be. I would imagine that a reasonable answer would be forthcoming from such a model. You can probably dig around the literature to work out what value that would be if it's of interest to you. However this is still nothing to do with your illogical search for the mythological equilibrium. You have misunderstood how the system is modeled.
  17. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    To say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is as meaningful as stating that air acts as a heat or electrical insulator, or that salt water acts as an electrical conductor. While these words contain truth, the facts in themselves are insufficient for making system level determinations. Yet this is exactly how AGW was originally formulated and currently being defended. Aside from all this, would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? If a chemistry investigation leads to knowing that a particular product or chemical causes cancer, that information is plenty for people to take action. I suspect in the case of climate change, even though warming has already impacted our lives, these changes have not been dramatic enough relative to other negative stresses. Therefore in order to gain attention, pessimistic projections into the future are required.
  18. An underwater hockey stick
    Surprising how fast the oceans respond? I don't know about fast. But I am a bit concerned about our current inability to determine if or when another 1998 style el Nino could come roaring out of the oceans. Another jolt to remind us to get on with the job of measuring just how much energy can accumulate down there. I'm not terribly keen on seeing another spike like that.
  19. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    CBD #114 CBD - "A forcing of zero indicates no CHANGE in temperature... not no temperature." Strictly no CHANGE is energy added or removed. Who is claiming 'no temperature'?? CBD - "If we choose the total solar irradiance in 1750 as the baseline then the climate forcing for solar irradiance in 1750 is zero... by definition." The TSI is AD1750 is not accurately known - so the problem is twofold - what was it then, and what value of TSI was required to get no heating or cooling of the Earth system in the absence of any AG forcings. Or put it this way - if the industrial revolution never happened and the CO2 was still at 280ppmv today with other GHG unchanged - would the Earth have warmed or cooled since AD1750?
  20. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    John T Here's a side by side picture of Arctic sea ice for 20 August 1980 & 2010. Notice anything different over the 30 years on say the east of Greenland or in the Canadian archipelago? Or perhaps the amount of ice cover itself?
  21. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    "The Arctic ice result isn't what you claim. The Antarctic is not either." JohnT, The post's claim is that "Overall, Arctic sea ice is getting thinner." Presumably, you believe it is not. Evidence? Here is sea ice concentration (30% or more) and extent for two dates 20 years apart. Spot the difference?
  22. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned #108 We have done this extensively elsewhere - but that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore. Oh I know that you need 14 years to be 'statistically significant' or whatever, but Jason SLR is also flattening over the last 8 years, and linear temperature trends are probably approximations of a non-linear system in any case. OHC since Argo is certainly not confirming anything but flattening.
  23. gallopingcamel at 23:47 PM on 2 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Ned (#34 etc.), "I know that "skeptics" like to claim that the only choices are burning fossil fuels or de-industrializing." I think you are making an unjustified generalization about "skeptics". Some of us advocate a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions without destroying our energy based civilization. This blog is not into "solutions" so I won't elaborate other than to say that the solution is to "build a Nuke a day". For those interested check out a typical thread on "Brave New Climate": http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/28/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p1 Here is a link to a paper by George Sanford et al. that contains some amazing speculations: http://tinyurl.com/jtop6
  24. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken #113: "Well Ned, if there was zero forcing for GHG's in AD1750, is not the conclusion that the Earth was neither heating or cooling from GHG's?" No. A forcing of zero indicates no CHANGE in temperature... not no temperature. "My point is that since the Earth has warmed a claimed 0.8 degC since 1850, a finite amount of energy has already been absorbed to effect that warming and the proportion of that energy attributable to Solar forcing is underestimated if such forcing was above zero in AD 1750." If we choose the total solar irradiance in 1750 as the baseline then the climate forcing for solar irradiance in 1750 is zero... by definition.
  25. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned #104, CBD #105 "You're right, the forcing for GHGs in 1750 is 0 ... because we've chosen 1750 as a baseline! It's not because there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1750, nor because they were at "equilibrium" in 1750." Well Ned, if there was zero forcing for GHG's in AD1750, is not the conclusion that the Earth was neither heating or cooling from GHG's? For sure - GHG's are in the AD1750 atmosphere at aro 280ppmv for CO2 etc. but at that long term level the Earth has reached an 'equilibrium'. If there were GHG forcing above or below zero, then the curve for GHG forcings would start at that positive or negative offset above or below the 'equilibrium' baseline. This is unlikely as most of what I have read assumes zero or negligible forcing from GHG in AD1750. Ned #107 CBD #105 NP #111 I am following the methodology of IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 in looking at each AG radiative forcing. My point is that Solar is not necessarily baselined to zero where the other AG forcings are - and the time integral of these various forcings will sum the total radiative energy applied to the system since AD1750. Climate responses - (1) IR radiative cooling and (2) WV and ice albedo feedback, will have their own curves and the time integral of these will add or subtract energy from the AG and Solar energy applied. At the present (Dr Trenberth's Aug09 paper) these sum to a forcing of minus 0.7W/sq.m (IR: -2.8 and WV & Ice Albedo +2.1). Since the IR cooling is exponential with T^4, this cooling term will rise rapidly so the Earth system will tend to reach an equilibrium as the forcing gap closes. WV and Ice Albedo are not defined by an equation I can find. My point is that since the Earth has warmed a claimed 0.8 degC since 1850, a finite amount of energy has already been absorbed to effect that warming and the proportion of that energy attributable to Solar forcing is underestimated if such forcing was above zero in AD 1750. In that case the energy attributable to CO2GHG forcing must be less, and CO2GHG warming also less than claimed.
  26. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    The Ville 46 Wrote You are NETDR fooling yourself if you believe uncertainties are a reason to pull back. Such thinking does not occur in modern engineering and if it does you get oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and other similar accidents. ******* Here we have the famous precautionary principal which is primarily used to justify massive expense that the science is too weak to support. The earth will be hit by a comet or asteroid large enough to destroy civilization. The question is not if but when. We should be practicing moving rocks in space right now to avoid this, in my opinion, far more likely catastrophe. The damage done to society in the form of diverted resources is far less and the benefit is greater, so where are the space ships? CAGW will have to get in line with all of mankind’s other problems. If we divert the tens of trillions of dollars from mankind’s real problems for an unlikely alternative you get starvation and even death for some. Since the subject of this article is "uncertainties" how to deal with them is in my opinion on topic.
  27. gallopingcamel at 23:22 PM on 2 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    I read the RS report and can't see what all the fuss is about. I can't improve on what doug_bostrom said (#43): "Disagreement over communicating uncertainty was the impetus for an update to the RS report yet the report entirely fails to address uncertainty as a key topic." Even with the changes, the RS position is still almost indistinguishable from that of the IPCC.
  28. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    #40: "Do you have a Climate Science 101 answer or reference for why small changes in average temperature have such a large effect on the climate? " I thought Ned made that point in #38: "a small temperature change averaged over the entire globe is actually a huge change in the climate", ie, the heat energy equivalent of 2-3C throughout the volume of the atmosphere is quite large. We're already seeing big-time changes in a mere 1C. As far as #39 "muoncounter's house destroyed by a volcano?" is concerned, I'm riding happily on the margin between stable craton and gently subsiding miogeosyncline. I'm far more likely to go due to a late-season hurricane.
  29. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    Cryptic? No. Clearly JohnT is saying that the claims about the Antarctic in the article are not true. Of course... the article doesn't mention the Antarctic at all, but that doesn't make JohnT's post 'cryptic'.
  30. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    @Albatross #8. Yep, probably was. Well found. But my point remains: I'm surprised that I haven't seen more of this sort of demo and discussion. To my mind it more-or-less bypasses any discussion of historical temp records.
  31. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    NETDR: "Ok if you want to say 3 ° C so be it but when the scientists want to scare the public they use the higher number." Who is 'the scientists'? But in any case, the higher number is possible. It's like any engineering project, a component will have a range of tolerances within which it will work. The upper tolerance may result in a failure, but only 1 in say 10,000 components may be in the upper tolerence. So you can expect 1 in 10,000 products to fail due to that component. eg. the low probability of failure due to some components being in that upper tolerance band, doesn't stop some failures happening. In the case of climate temperature tolerances, we have the one range. If we use the climate 'component' we don't know if it is in the low or high range of temperature. Hence the issue isn't that 6c won't happen, it is the case that we are uncertain, but it could. Given that it could, however unlikely, we have to assess just what the damage would be for that scenario and weigh that up against it being less probable. Given it is likely to be seriously worse, that has to bring it into the more probable tolerance band as a risk to be considered. So is it 'alarmist' to consider the higher temperature ranges? No, because if we applied the same logic to say a nuclear power station, we would remove a lot of the safety mechanisms because the probability of a serious accident happening would be even smaller than a 6c temp rise. You are NETDR fooling yourself if you believe uncertainties are a reason to pull back. Such thinking does not occur in modern engineering and if it does you get oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and other similar accidents.
  32. An underwater hockey stick
    This a thought coming directly out of my mind which I can't support in any sound way. We are used to think of the oceans as a slow responding system but more and more studies report relatively fast responses. It looks like we're missing something important on ocean dynamic. Is it just me or is it really surprising how fast the oceans appear to respond?
  33. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    The reason for the existence of this site is primarily economic, JohnD, and that is why discussions here have a tendency to swerve away from science and into unfounded personal opinions, such as that thousands of petawatt-hours per year of additional energy retained on the planet will somehow result in no disruption to the accustomed behavior of our climate (your opinion, based on your many comments here). Ask yourself, where is the website frequented by members of the lay public where models of Earth mantle convection are hotly debated? The "energy flux" powering this site and the myriad other locations where discussions of climate science involve the general public is the future course of several trillion dollars per year, now concentrated in the hands of fossil fuel concerns but possibly to be redirected to other means of energy manipulation. That same energy is what has driven the Royal Society to revisit their statement on climate change.
  34. There is no consensus
    Oh dear, BP's comments were possibly not satirical - I missed the sensible comment among all the extremism ("And no IPR tricks, papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain."). This is tending to be a requirement in NIH and EU funded research these days. I think we're a bit behind the times here in Australia, although I have an article going into a (free to publish in, and free to retrieve) open access journal sometime soon. But that's an industry-academic partnership body who are trying to raise their profile, so it's a bit different.
  35. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    The Ville at 17:55 PM, if all the contributors to this site were climate scientists, then perhaps the discussion here would be more about the science behind the research they are presenting and less about opinions. However almost exclusively all the work being referred to here by the contributors is the work of others, and the reason it is presented to support a particular argument is because, in the contributors OPINION, it is relevant and carries some authority for a number of various reasons. Often it is because they are of the opinion that the author of the study has credibility, and so all work he produces carries the same credibility even though the detailed science is beyond those who present it here, but that may not be the opinion of everyone. At other times the work may be, in their opinion, relevant to the argument, but again as we often see here, in the opinion of others, it is at times rejected as being of little relevance. At other times when the research is unable to determine with any certainty whether the nett result points to one outcome or another opposing outcome, and different scientists are able to make cases for both scenarios, the case selected by a contributor here will be based on their own opinion as to which scenario seems most likely or is most consistent with their own position, and so on. So whilst you may consider that science is not about opinions, how different contributors select and present supporting arguments on this site is most definitely all about opinions.
  36. There is no consensus
    Doug, I tried to work with your analogy but was defeated by the straight face requirement. Perhaps it's more like roads, tunnels and bridges. The authority or other developer's costs are met out of taxes paid by everyone, as are the maintenance costs. There is no restriction on how many kms are driven on those roads by any particular driver or vehicle, taxpayer or otherwise. The current system acts more like a toll road. Not a very wonderful analogy, but you get the idea.
  37. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Given the general level of treatment of this RS report, it seems geared to a lay audience. In light of that, what surprises me is how it commits an all-too-common error of omission by repeatedly referring to "uncertainty" without carefully explaining the meaning of the term when it is employed in scientific communications. This a pretty astounding oversight given that confusion over the meaning of the term "uncertainty" is a hurdle for the public when it comes to understanding science. Uncertainty is a didactic challenge we've known of for decades, has a particularly high profile when it comes to discussing climate change and in fact has been manipulated and exploited for rhetorical purposes by various entities interested in policy outcomes related to climate change. Disagreement over communicating uncertainty was the impetus for an update to the RS report yet the report entirely fails to address uncertainty as a key topic. Motivation for a redo hinged essentially on a perceived process problem with the first report, namely that the first report conveyed an exaggerated sense of risk. Beyond causative mechanisms, risk is about probability. Our ability to judge the probability of risk from climate change is rooted in the uncertainty of scientific findings having to do with climate change. Conveying a useful understanding of the risk we're exposed to by climate change thus absolutely requires a proper explanation of what uncertainty means in the scientific sense. By failing to accomplish this first and arguably most important task, the RS report fails to improve on the first attempt. Regardless of one's stance on climate change, as a communications tool this report is a failure right out of the gate when it comes to helping readers from the general public understand the significance of the scientific findings it covers.
  38. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    NETDR: "If this is a site dedicated to teaching neophyte true believers their beliefs I will leave you to your beliefs. If it is a site willing to debate the opinions of others I an willing to oblige." Surely science isn't about peoples opinions, if that were true then it people would be discussing whether humans landed on the moon or if UFOs exist. Anyone can have an opinion, the fact they do doesn't make it true.
  39. An underwater hockey stick
    Fascinating find, John. Full text of this paper is available here (pdf). Joe, be sure to check out section 2, "Regional Context," which suggests your intuitions about inhomogeneity seem to have some factual underpinning.
  40. There is no consensus
    BP: ...papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain. There's broad agreement on that, at least. I'm no expert (on anything) but it looks as though the emerging model going forward is for research budgets to include boosted publication fees, those fees to cover the costs of making publications permanently accessible on a freely available basis. Trying to think of an analogy, the only one coming to mind is unfortunately that of purchasing a plot in a cemetery, where money for the plot pays for upkeep of the cemetery grounds, with no gate fee for those wishing to visit and pay their respects. Stretching the analogy past the snapping point, perhaps we may think of citations as being the equivalent of visitors leaving flowers...
  41. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Re: chriscanaris (40) A more direct article link for interested people to follow can be found here (see page 5). The Yooper
  42. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    One of the 'interesting' facets of the so-called sceptic argument is that there seems to be an insistence on trying to take the discussion back to first principles whenever it's expedient for them to do so. This itself is a form of 'Spin' and appears to be what Noel is up to, consciously or otherwise.
  43. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Re: My comment at 41 above Upon re-read, my 2nd paragraph seems a bit obtuse. Sorry for that. Here's a re-try for clarity: Humans have whacked the carbon cycle with a mountain of carbon. This bolus, or "slug", has upset the natural balance between forcings and has driven the current upward "spike" in temperatures. Temperatures will continue to rise, due to the physics of radiative gases, until a new equilibrium is reached. Note: as long as the CO2 concentration continues to rise, achievement of temperature equilibrium will be delayed and temps will continue to rise. Thus, any further continued release of fossil fuel derived CO2 makes things worse. Even if CO2 emissions are immediately reduced to zero and maintained at zero for 30 years, temperatures would continue to rise due to the immense thermal inertia of the oceans, where 93% of the warming of the system has currently gone. This warming of the oceans is driving a reorganization of the climate system, which will continue to change as long as the CO2 emissions and temperatures rise. It is that lag in response wherein lies the danger. By the time incontrovertible evidence (to the layman) exists, it will be too late to avoid or even mitigate the worst of the changes still in the pipeline. And that only takes into account the short-term forcings. Longer-term responses (century to millennial timescales) include forcings which will effectively double any warming we will see in our lifetimes. The warming already in the pipeline may be sufficient to obliterate our ability to feed the world's current population. Thus, for some of those alive today, it may already be too late. Hence the calls for action and the existence of this and similar websites. That sounds a bit more clear, I think. The Yooper
  44. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    A general comment on the above appreciated discussion on my posts in this section IPCC Reports: Science or Spin? It would seem that the above are the types of comments skeptical science can come up concerning that most basic of requests - why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Those who are skeptical about the whole of the CO2/global warming debate are going to smile broadly and know their belief in the fallacy of the basic science is entirely supported. The respondents have missed the point and can't come up with a few simple step by step points that show that CO2 has the necessary absorption frequencies to be a greenhouse gas. This type of information has never been made available to the general public who are only fed the line "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". They can understand a reasoned and well presented case that doesn't depend upon complex mathematics. Why not give one?
    Moderator Response: You were already pointed to the Skeptical Science post How Do We Know CO2 Is Causing Warming?, whose second paragraph has links to abundant laboratory evidence stretching back 150 years. Also you were pointed to the Science of Doom home page. Perhaps you did not search through the posts there to find ones answering your specific questions, so I'll help: Click the "Roadmap" link at the top of that site. Then read the series of posts linked on that page, all of whose titles start "CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas?"
  45. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Re: mfripp (40)
    "Do you have a Climate Science 101 answer or reference for why small changes in average temperature have such a large effect on the climate?"
     You essentially are referring to the sensitivity of the climate to forcings, both negative and positive, the net effects of which can and have changed over time. It is the recent admixture of human-derived fossil-fuel CO2 concentration emissions (which depart from the paleo record of the balance between the forcings which has driven temperature and climate changes in the past) which now drive a rate of warming change (read: euphemism for the "Hockey Stick") for which there exists no comparative example in the paleo record. I plugged "climate sensitivity" into the search box available at the upper left of every Skeptical Science page and got this. Of the resulting Skeptical Science posts available, this is the one probably most pertinent. If you would rather a source with a summary outside that of Skeptical Science, I plugged your quote into Google and found this site, which seems to offer a fair-balanced, relatively non-technical, summary as well. If you wish to further deepen your knowledge and understanding of Climate Science, I would refer you to Real Climate's Start Here page. Pay particular attention to Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming article; another virtually required viewing source is Richard Alley's talk on CO2: The Biggest Control Knob. Hope this helps, The Yooper
  46. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Sorry, I couldn’t get the link to work :-( . I’ll try again: Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon
  47. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    tobyjoyce @ 21 I don't want to go too far off topic but the thesis, antithesis, synthesis meme applies across a range of fields and especially in politics and policy which is where the AGW debate must play itself out. In science, we see it in terms of competing paradigms jostling for their place in the sun. Saying Hegel was a lousy scientist because he published a tract stating that there could not be more than seven planets on philosophic grounds is to apply to him the standards of a different era. Newton was said to dabble in alchemy and astrology (the latter is a matter of some dispute) yet none would deny him his greatness. Moreover, Einstein's physics are perfectly compatible with those of Newton. When dealing with velocities on a human scale, the distortions of time and space emanating from relativity become so negligible that Newtonian physics apply. Coming back on topic, I note that this has yet to happen in climate science not because of a dispute about the laws of physics but because of the complexities of the systems involved create uncertainties about the weighting to give to a plethora of feedbacks. This creates a tension between those who desire urgent action and those who see the uncertainties. The former fear that the latter undermine their cause. The latter include those who may honestly feel that the uncertainties are too great to warrant drastic steps and at the more extreme end some who would go so far as to accuse scientists of being prepared to lie or stretch the truth to advance their agenda. The issues are well captured by the controversy between Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon. For what little it’s worth, I am much more sympathetic to Stephen Schneider's take on the dilemma even though philosophically I would be closer to Julian Simon. (HERE)
  48. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Noel Edwards, I have replied to your Mars comments on the more appropriate thread, Mars Is Warming. That thread is not a perfect match for your comments, but it is far better than this thread is. If you want to continue the Mars portions of this conversation, you should do so on that thread, not this one.
  49. Mars is warming
    This comment is a response to a comment by Noel Edwards on a different, less appropriate, thread. Noel wrote
    Moderator I have read most of your references. They indicate that CO2 is capable of absorbing radiation at different frequencies. Already known. But there is nothing in those references that indicate why Mars is cooler than it should be when it has lots more CO2 than Earth. There are no other issues associated with Mars, other than it has some 14 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet earth. Its maximum temperature is the approximately the same as Earth's average temperature and its average temperature is the approximately the same as Earth's minimum temperature. The physics is similar.
    Noel, you are very, very incorrect, as dsleaton and Matthew pointed out to you. There is no basis for your claim that Mars "is several degrees C cooler than it otherwise should be." More details on why the water vapor feedback is so much smaller on Mars than on Earth are in David Archer's book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast", pages 71-72. If you don't want to buy the book or borrow it from your library, you can watch his class lectures for free. If you insist on details, here is just one of several examples of calculations that Mars should in fact be the temperature it is: Forget, et al. (1999). A general-reader-comprehensible overview of modeling the Martian atmosphere purportedly is provided by Stephen R. Lewis's article "Modelling the Martian Atmosphere, though all but the first page is behind a paywall. If you really, really, want to understand the difference between Mars and Earth, get ahold of this book when it comes out (probably December 2010); it will have a workbook and computer models you can run: "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Ray Pierrehumbert.
  50. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    @Noel: the greenhouse effect is a well-known physics phenomenon. Anyone who tells you CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is misinformed - for example, that web site you posted is full of poor and inexact science. Check here for more info.

Prev  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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