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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

See also CO2 lags temperature

Moderator Response: Cruzn, in addition to that link, see CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

Eric (skeptic) at 22:53 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
CBDunkerson, it would still be nice to see a model output that didn't have temperature rising indefinitely using capped CO2. The argument that CO2 will increase forever is probably discussed in another thread which I will have to look up. skywatcher, running out of ice with high albedo to melt is great example of a physically limited positive feedback. Unfortunately it is negligible since, according to the albedo page here, cloud albedo dominates. But I would like to see that type of physical limit demonstrated for water vapor. It won't come from GCMs which lack the resolution to model small scale convection and that impact on latent heat transfer (negative), clouds (positive and negative), subsidence (negative), or lack of convection (positive). The amount of positive water feedback depends on the distribution of water vapor, not the amount. So formulas using amounts of increase in water vapor based on warming from CO2 won't work. The answer lies in how the weather changes in a world slightly warmed by CO2. I have read theories here that the amount of extreme climate (concentrated heat and rainfall) is increasing. Climate extremes are negative feedbacks but need to be quantified (and I'm not convinced that they exist). Thanks for the link James. First, in the lapse rate discussion, low latitudes show negative feedback (as I implied above). In the middle and higher latitudes, the feedback is positive. What they don't mention is that the coverage of negative feedback will expand during global warming. Second, in the cloud discussion they mention increases in storm intensity and poleward shifts in storm tracks and other negative feedbacks without seeming to recognize them. Otherwise that section is just muddled and inconclusive. It is actually very simple to use climate models to determine the sign and strength of feedbacks. Concentrated convection is warming, diffuse is cooling. High clouds are warming, low are cooling, mid are ambiguous. Tropical cyclones cool (mainly from subsidence surrounding them). None of this is difficult to understand. One interesting question is how much current measurements match up to the positive and negative feedbacks. A much harder problem is determining the overall evenness of water vapor in world warmed by CO2. Uneven water vapor is cooling, a negative feedback. Evenly distributed water vapor, especially at high altitudes is a positive feedback. Models will not help much until they figure out better ways to integrate small scale weather models into the coarser climate models or computer power increases enough to model small scale weather in climate models. That should not take more than 10 or 20 years IMO.

cruzn246 at 22:40 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
One thing most folks don't realize is that we are heading to a place most of us are not going to be comfortable with without any help from CO2. If we don't head back into an ice age we will keep melting. there is no static perfection here. It goes one way or the other and it usually goes till things are quite a bit different than now. The coast of FL will go under water again (along with many other places). It is just part of the cycle we have been in for close to 1,000,000 years. Plants and animals will extend their ranges N. It is simply the way it is. Then the ice will come again. That happens when sea currents get so screwed up that warm waters do not make it far enough N anymore. The N hemisphere really controls all of this. Weather is not constant. Get used to it.

Moderator Response: The rapidity of the current warming does not give us enough time to "get used to it." See "We’re heading into an ice age."

cruzn246 at 22:29 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
OK if CO2 is such a strong positive feedback, as claimed, how does the earth dramatically cool when it is about 250? It has before. In fact before we slipped into our last ice age CO2 hung on rather stubbornly as temperatures fell dramatically. Seems it isn't quite the force some may think. Let's put it logically. If CO2 is the big dog we should be warmer now than we were at any time in glacial history. We are not even close. What gives?

Marcus at 22:23 PM on 20 August 2010

The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
cruzn246, if you believe that, then it merely proves that you haven't bothered to look at all the evidence. All the evidence shows a roughly +0.16 degree per decade warming at a time when the inputs from the sun have been largely trending downwards. This temperature rise has an almost 80% correlation with the rise in CO2 over that same period. If you or any of your denialist mates can point to strong scientific proof that this would have occurred naturally, then I'd be interested to hear it-because such proof has been greatly lacking up to now. Instead, the Denialist Industry has chosen to focus its energies on ludicrous publicity stunts like the one described above!

JMurphy at 22:21 PM on 20 August 2010

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
(I am still waiting for you to explain the Texas/Mexico case in terms of climate.) Well, you have completely lost me now. Perhaps you have been arguing with yourself all along. As long as you recognise that you are correct, you should be able to finish the discussion with yourself amicably.

Marcus at 22:18 PM on 20 August 2010

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Wow, GC, that post is ludicrous even for you! No one is talking about the next million or so years-we're all simply talking about humanity's obvious ability to greatly impact his environment within the course of our society's history. The fact is that human ingenuity has allowed us to alter our environment in ways no other animal could even dream. From destruction of forests to the alteration of our rivers to the alteration of the the building blocks of life itself-via genetic engineering. By burning material that was absorbing CO2 back when Earth's atmosphere contained more than 10 times the CO2 of today's atmosphere-& when temperatures were a good 6 degrees warmer than today-it doesn't take a Brainiac to figure out that such actions might well be detrimental to our environment in the medium term!

JMurphy at 22:11 PM on 20 August 2010

Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
As for Energy & Environment, well : On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in. Pielke Jr Looks like he needs telling again, doesn't it, Poptech ? But this is what E & E is really for : "The focus is on energy policy debates in relation to the numerous environmental 'concerns' that have surfaced in recent decades." Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen More from her : (Remember acid rain, the death of Europ'es forests in a few deacdes? Or the death of the global ocean from pollution in the 1970s, the subject of my PhD? Environmental threats have long serves many other agendas, and natural scientists may at least be aware of this.) Hm, familiar so-called skeptical conspiracy-theory nonsense, eh ? But at least she admits to a certain degree of reality : The negative attitudes of the IPCC/CRU people to my often sceptical journal have harmed it. Its impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it, and even sales may have been affected. Shame about the conspiracy-theory again, though. But her real admission : "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?" That's what being outside the consensus means - political posturing has no part to play in science, so E & E fails as a pertinent, relevant, reliable source of any sort of legitimate science.

Marcus at 22:11 PM on 20 August 2010

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Wow, RSVP, you're truly beyond pathetic-aren't you? Having absolutely *no* real come-back to the evidence I've prevented, you stoop to your usual contemptuous drivel. Pretty much SOP for the Denialists I'd say. The fact is that I don't own a clothes dryer or a car. I walk distances of less than 6km & use public transport for distances of greater than 6km-& yes I source the bulk of my food from local producers. I use energy efficient light-globes, a continuous flow gas hot water system & am on a 50% renewable energy scheme. Yet, contrary to the claims of your fossil fuel industry mates, I'm not "doing it tough"-indeed, because my energy & fuel bills are so low, I probably have more money in my pocket every fortnight than people in otherwise identical circumstances to myself. Which is my point-reducing our CO2 footprint actually isn't "insurmountable", it is only as difficult as it is because your fossil fuel mates-desperate to defend their mega-profits-have convinced the less intelligent amongst us that reducing our CO2 footprint will "Ruin us all". Of course, none of this alters my point from post # 12, which highlights that *all* the available evidence points clearly to how humans are impacting on climate over the last 50-100 years. That you chose not to deal directly with that post, & instead chose to engage in a rather weak ad hominem attack merely reveals the fundamental WEAKNESS of your original position!

cruzn246 at 22:00 PM on 20 August 2010

The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
"The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research." You could say the same for people who are predicting catastrophic change. There is no scientific proof we are in the process of anything that is not natural at this time.

Response: There are actually many lines of empirical evidence that we are in the process of "unnatural global warming".

JMurphy at 21:59 PM on 20 August 2010

Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech wrote : "I told them they were wrong about why their papers were included in the list." Yes, you certainly told them, didn't you, but they still didn't get it, did they ? Maybe you didn't tell them forcefully enough, or is it just that they gave up on you and moved away rather sharpish ? The latter, I think, as can be seen at Pielke's site (the page called, funnily enough : 'better-recheck-that-list' - but you knew better, in your own mind), where you tell Pielke that he is not even aware of what he is talking about ("The fact that you said "assuming" means you are not even aware of why they were listed." - yes, you told him good). Harold Brooks was mystified too : I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming. And you keep getting pulled-up on the preposterous nature of your little list (e.g. here and here, the latter showing your inability to apologise for your shameful bullying. This site also shows you in your true, nasty colours, and your inability to acknowledge mistakes again. But this comment from you has got to be another classic : I believe a guy with an M.S. in veterinary medicine is competent to review the material concerning AGW and give a scientific opinion on it, yes I do. All the above should be a warning to everyone as to how you work and your willingness to post personal details online about those who get the better of you. Spam away but you will only make yourself look more ridiculous...if that is at all possible !

cruzn246 at 21:55 PM on 20 August 2010

The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
What methodology do you speak of that is in question in this document? Is the anything wrong with charts or graphs in this? http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php Did they fudge anything? Is there any false data? Also, the statement you made in the end, that 97% of climatologists support this statement. Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. The use of could here gives a lot of wiggle room. If you change the word of will or is you get a drastically different number. There is barely a majority, if that, that says they know a significant change is taking place.

skywatcher at 21:53 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
It is a crucial point to make - positive feedbacks are required to reconstruct past climatic change, and as mentioned that leads to sensitivities similar to those calculated for future warming. Otherwise, you cannot account for glacial-interglacial climate shifts. Also important is that a positive feedback does not equal a runaway positive feedback - if the 'gain' is less than 1, then the feedback is necessarily self-limiting. e.g CO2 rise of X leads to a temperature rise of Y and a feeback of 0.5*X, leading to a temperature rise of Y', feedback of 0.25*X, rise Y'', feedback 0.125X etc etc in a geometric series, which is self-limiting. Our best estimate is that the doubling CO2 leads to a temperature rise of ~1C with the feedbacks summed adding another ~2C. In the short term, warming will cost us a lot in albedo, as we have lots of sea ice and snowfileds that can be melted quickly, and so that feedback will operate substantially at first, but eventually that feedback will slow down as there simply won't be as much snowfields/sea ice per unit temperature rise to drive the feedback. The large ice sheets also have the albedo feedback, but changes in their areas will likely take rather longer to become apparent (still a bad thing as like a heavy runaway train their changes are harder to stop).

CBDunkerson at 21:49 PM on 20 August 2010

Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
The latest PIOMAS update puts the mid August ice volume anomaly at about -9,700 cubic kilometers. Given that the baseline for mid August is ~14,500 cubic kilometers that puts the current volume at less than 5,000 km^3... well below the previous record low of 5,800 last September - and with a month yet to go on the melt season. It doesn't look likely that a new minimum EXTENT will be hit this year as the ice is very widely dispersed (though it has started bunching up more the past few days), but the volume has fallen off the bottom of the chart. The way things are going, minimum volume this year will likely be below 4,000 km^3... and if the current trend continues for a few more years the September minimum will have dropped from the 13,400 km^3 long term average down to 0... at which point the extent would also perforce be zero - regardless of how the currents are flowing. Hopefully the extreme melt the past two years has just been a fluctuation and the rate of volume loss will slow down.

James Wight at 21:41 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
I suppose “highly sensitive” is a somewhat subjective way of putting it. I’ll consider rewording that part. gallopingcamel, estimates of climate sensitivity from paleoclimate studies have roughly the same range as estimates based on models. This is discussed elsewhere on Skeptical Science – see here and here. Eric, you’ll find the IPCC chapter “Climate Models and Their Evaluation” here.

CBDunkerson at 21:25 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Third paragraph, last sentence, 4th word from the end should be "an" rather than "a". Eric, positive feedbacks 'end' when the factors driving them do... which obviously means that it varies by feedback. For instance, increased atmospheric temperatures allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor... thus, as CO2 (or anything else) drives up the atmospheric temperature the amount of water vapor in the air increases. Water vapor is itself a very powerful greenhouse gas... which means that the increased water vapor causes MORE warming. In short, a positive feedback. This feedback would thus continue until the underlying cause of temperature rise (in this case rising CO2 levels) ended OR the planet ran out of surface water... which we'd pretty much have to be TRYING to kill ourselves off to achieve. One of the other major positive feedbacks is ice albedo... as the temperature rises ice melts, which exposes more dark land and water, which raises temperatures more. Again... the positive feedback continues until the external warming factor (rising CO2) ends or the planet runs out of ice... which couldn't happen for a long time and then only if we burned all available fossil fuels. Thus, the reason models show feedbacks 'continuing upwards indefinitely' is that the planet isn't going to run out of water or ice any time soon. The limiting factor is really fossil fuels. When we run out of or stop using those then positive feedbacks will continue playing out for a few more decades and then temperatures would level off. However, if you assume we go after deepwater oil (check), tar sands (check), oil shale (not yet, though Bush tried), methane clathrates (Russia is starting to), and other 'unconventional sources' we could theoretically be burning fossil fuels for another two hundred years or more. With just conventional sources we'd run out completely by around 2100.

Argus at 21:12 PM on 20 August 2010

NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Rain (from Wikipedia): Most in one minute: 38 millimetres (1.5 in); Barst, Guadeloupe, 1970-11-26. Most in 42 minutes: 300 millimetres (12 in) in 42 minutes. Holt, Missouri, USA. June 22, 1947 Most in 12 hours: 1,144 millimetres (45.0 in); Foc-Foc, La Réunion, January 8, 1966, during tropical cyclone Denise. Most in 24 hours: 1,825 millimetres (71.9 in); Foc-Foc, La Réunion, January 8, 1966 during tropical cyclone Denise. Most in 48 hours: 2,466 millimetres (97.1 in); Aurère, La Réunion, April 10, 1958. Most in 72 hours: 3,929 millimetres (154.7 in); Commerson, La Réunion, April 10, 1958 during Cyclone Gamede. Most in 15 days: 6,083 millimetres (239.5 in); Commerson, La Réunion, January 1980 during tropical cyclone Hyacinthe. Most in one year: 25.4 meters (1000 in); Cherrapunji, India. Highest average annual total: 13.3 meters (523.6 in); Lloro, Colombia. In the last 100+ years, U.K. has experienced 19 rainfalls with more than 200 mm of rain pouring down in 24 hours (also Wikipedia). The devastating effect of 300 mm in 36 hours in Pakistan comes because too many people live too close to a big and changing river. Also, man has made violent rains more dangerous all over the world, by deforestation.

Paul D at 20:35 PM on 20 August 2010

Is the sun causing global warming?
It might be worth distinguishing in the article between direct and indirect solar influences. The article implies solar activity being direct insolation or sunlight. In that respect Eric is 'off topic', however from what I can make out Kirkby suggests an indirect solar influence which is not insolation related. Maybe the article should cross reference the cosmic ray article?

Rob Painting at 20:26 PM on 20 August 2010

Climate's changed before
Svettypoo - I'm afraid your analysis is rather simplistic, for instance you fail to account for reduced solar luminosity further back in time, and also new analysis is casting some doubt on the extremely high CO2 levels once thought to have existed. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 Furthermore, how exactly do you think the estimates for climate sensitivity came about, if not from the study of Earth's previous climates?

Eric (skeptic) at 20:04 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
scaddenp, do you have a link to ECS/AR4 (I don't know what those are)? Also do you know of a specific physical mechanism that limits the feedback in the models? Is that physical mechanism weather? Doug, what I was looking for is a model output that stops some time in the future at some temperature. The model outputs I have looked at all continue upwards indefinitely. If the models never have an upper limit to temperature, it's hard to take them seriously.

Eric (skeptic) at 19:58 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
KR, those are fascinating posts. Do you have any physical explanation of how the feedback mechanism always knows to add 0.5 of the anomaly? For example, how does the tropical feedback limit itself to 0.5 of a worldwide anomaly if the tropics expand due to warming? Or are tropical, subtropical, temperate, desert, etc all the same feedback amount? All based on the anomaly and not the absolute temperature? Is this only long term feedback that ignores short term fluctuations? (e.g. worldwide average albedo changes, short term solar fluctuations, etc) see UAH for example: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_10.gif

RSVP at 19:51 PM on 20 August 2010

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Marcus Since you dont believe its hubris, I suggest as an individual you not wait for the entire planet get on board. An easy one might be using a clothes line to dry your clothes (if you arent already doing that). If you have room for a garden, start planting vegetables. Sell your car, and when you ride your bike to the store, make sure you buy local products only. I am still not convinced that using solar panels doesnt trap heat that would otherwise reflect back into space, but you can still do your share by reducing energy consumption, turning off lights at night, etc, but the hardest one I imagine is going to be computer down time.

scaddenp at 19:18 PM on 20 August 2010

Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech - impact factor is not about popularity - its a measure of the extent of which papers in those journals influence science. And while it can be abused it as close as you can get as an objective measure for the impact of a journal on science. E&E exists as a "tobacco science" journal so that suspect stuff can be published and claimed as "peer reviewed". If you have something of significance to say in science that will pass the real review of your peers then you would be a complete idiot to publish it in E&E. It won't be read, and wont be cited. It exists for another kind of publication altogether.

svettypoo at 19:15 PM on 20 August 2010

Climate's changed before
Firstly I would like to thank you and your website for generating valuable discussion on AGW. Secondly, I would like to say that I don't think it is impossible for humans to change the climate, but that the change we bring about through AGW will be less significant than claimed by your article. In other words, my research has shown that our climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as most AGW proponents claim. In your article, you claim that "we" can calculate that a doubling of CO2 will result in approximately 3 degrees centigrade. I hope you can enlighten me on the methodology of this calculation. The empirical evidence does not support your conclusions. You can take any era from history, but I will take the Jurassic and Triassic to make my point. The raw data is taken from encyclopedia Britannica 11'th edition. During the Jurassic Period CO2 concentration was 1950ppm (7 times greater than preindustrial levels of 250 ppm). You claim that for every doubling of CO2 temp increases by 3 degrees centigrade. With that logic, the Jurassic period should have been warmer by 9 degrees. It was only warmer by 3 degrees. Triassic period had CO2 concentrations of 1750ppm and was also only hotter by 3 degrees. I understand that other variables were different during that period as well. But, if you look anywhere on the geological timescale you will have a hard time proving that a doubling of CO2 directly results in a 3 degrees increase in temp. Thank you for the article!

Response: Thanks for the kind comments. Climate sensitivity is essentially the change in temperature in response to a change in the planet's energy balance. So to calculate climate sensitivity, you need to work out how much global temperature has changed in the past and the changes in the planet's energy balance at the time. So if we can obtain records that give temperature (eg - from ice cores) and couple that with records that give changes in solar activity, atmospheric composition and volcanic activity, it's possible to calculate climate sensitivity empirically.

Climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. A more technically correct definition is 3 degrees warming for a radiative forcing of 2.7 watts per square metre (which is the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2). So if you want to look at the planet's energy imbalance over past periods, you need to include other variables which affect the planet's energy balance. Specifically, we find that as you go further in the past, the sun is less bright. So you need to consider the combined effect of a dimmer sun with higher CO2 in past periods. When we do that, we find a close correlation between the net radiative forcing and climate.

John Russell at 19:10 PM on 20 August 2010

Plain English climate science - now live at Skeptical Science
Thanks for the comment, villabalo. I'll add it to my list of source material and bring it to the attention of any of the authors who could find it useful. You might find it appearing somewhere.

batsvensson at 19:09 PM on 20 August 2010

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
JMurphy, To continue repeating the same mantra borderline me to again reply with "So what?". Nobody have ever denied that ecology is strongly affected by climate as this is a well established observation, not even the quote you refer to denies this - on the contrary they confirm it. However, to claim climate to be an important factor for the spread of malaria is a completely other issue (called nonsense) and it is a great oversimplify of the problem. To take one(1) oversimplified example (since we now play the game of simplification) to show the absurdity it the claim that higher temperature will lead to a greater spread of malaria: it is known that higher temperature can shorten the life time of insects. If the life span of the vector is shorter than the development time of the pathogen, then trivially the pathogen can not spread. In other words, higher temperature can lead to a reduced spread of malaria, contrary to the claim. (I am still waiting for you to explain the Texas/Mexico case in terms of climate.)

Paul D at 19:02 PM on 20 August 2010

Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144: "Kirkby's work shows that the science is not settled. I am conflating scientists and environmentalists because that is how the NASA/Hansen/Schmidt/Mann axis behaves." I think your language is riddled with politicisation. I hope you are open to a possible conclusion that you may be wrong as well as your current belief that you think you are correct. If you are really interested in the science, then an 'axis' is irrelevant.

Argus at 19:01 PM on 20 August 2010

The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
How is "catastrophic heating" defined, and what is meant by "disruption of the Earth's climate"? These are strong words, and if the meaning of the second statement really is "in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change", I am surprised. Not only do most climate scientists agree about increasing global warming, they also must agree that we are heading towards a total catastrophe. ('Catastrophe = an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event'.)

Paul D at 18:56 PM on 20 August 2010

Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144: Kirkby's work counters the perspective that the sun has no part to play in global warming as put forward in this blog. Wrong! The issue isn't whether the Sun has an influence or not, it is the extent or percentage that is under scrutiny. Isn't it a bit ironic that many skeptics et al, claim the system is to complex, yet often have a need for a simple answer that just eliminates CO2??

John Russell at 18:54 PM on 20 August 2010

Is the sun causing global warming?
MattJ at 04:38 AM on 20 August, 2010 Matt; thanks. You make some good points which I'll consider soon when I come to updating this basic argument. Valid criticism is always welcome -- particularly when it results in an even more effective rebuttal.

Paul D at 18:49 PM on 20 August 2010

Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144: "There is always a queue of environmentalist / scientists ready to debunk anything that contradicts their agenda." Hardly. Skeptical Science page on the subject isn't much different to what Kirkby has presented: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm In fact the Krivova graph on the skeptical science page was used by Kirkby in his presentation. It shows that there are GHG influences on the modern climate that greatly change the climate. Kirkby may have personal opinions that are weighted in favour of his his specialism, however on a wider scale the scientific community are only interested whether cosmic particles have an influence and to what degree, that will be incorporated into current knowledge. Hence the funding for the CLOUD project is justified on the grounds of clarify an unknown. Ultimately Kirkby's opinion will not override the results, what ever they are. I think you need to keep some objectivity.

Paul D at 18:37 PM on 20 August 2010

Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric 144: >CERN would not be spending huge amounts of money funding Kirkby unless they believed the research potentially highly fruitful. I think that you are imposing your own belief on what they do. It also has tinges of 'science has to be beneficial to humans' about it. CERN have spent huge amounts of money on the LHC without any certainty about what it will find. So it is hardly unusual to spend money on something that has a lot of uncertainties. In fact science would be dead if projects were only funded if their were guaranteed 'fruits' to be harvested. The CLOUD experiment is about clarifying the issue of how much influence, if at all, cosmic particles have on cloud formation.

Rob Painting at 18:31 PM on 20 August 2010

How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change

I'm not so sure GC, note how the cooling effects from major volcanic eruptions show up in the model runs?.

batsvensson at 18:15 PM on 20 August 2010

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Errata to #77: the decease should be dengue, not malaria, however they are both spread to humans by mosquitoes.

JMurphy at 18:04 PM on 20 August 2010

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
batsvensson wrote : "Hopefully it should not be "stunning" to you anymore that your quoted reference says: "we ... argue that ... the importance of climate is misleading ... to understand ... emerging malaria patterns."" Well, now I'm stunned by how you think you can show so little and hide so much. To provide the full quote : However, we also argue that over-emphasizing the importance of climate is misleading for setting a research agenda, even one which attempts to understand climate change impacts on emerging malaria patterns. However ? Also ? That must relate to the previous sentence : We assessed the conclusions from both sides of the argument and found that evidence for the role of climate in these dynamics is robust. Stunning.

JMurphy at 17:51 PM on 20 August 2010

Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech spammed : "The authors don't think anything except the two who incorrectly assumed their papers were listed to deny AGW, which was explained to them repeatedly that they do not." I love it every time you admit to telling the original authors how they are wrong about their own papers; and how you love to link back to arguments from yourself. Living in denial must be wonderful - I just wish I could indulge like you do. Anyway, unfortunately for you, the consensus is against you and your little list, no matter how you interpret it for yourself. Sorry.

cbp at 17:50 PM on 20 August 2010

The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
There's also no indication how many of the signatories actually work in a field related to their degree. As anyone who actually has a job doing anything at all will tell you - just because you're 22 years old and have a degree, doesn't mean you aren't still a complete novice.

tobyjoyce at 17:50 PM on 20 August 2010

The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
The Oregon Petition, when it was originally mailed, had an attached scandal. As I understand it, the petition was accompanied by a document masquerading as a "scientific paper", in the style of the US PNAS with a volume number and publication date. In fact, the "facts" of the article had been published only in the Wall Street Journal. Leading denier and Marshall Institute Director Fred Seitz supplied a covering letter, which emphasized his former connections with the NAS. In short, the people who received the petition, or who read it online, were duped into believing that it was backed by the US National Academy of Science. The NAS held a press conference to disavow the petition, but on the same day Seitz had an article lauding it in the Washington Times The petition is described briefly on page 244 & 245 of Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt, and on this Wikipedia page. Oregon Petition

JMurphy at 17:32 PM on 20 August 2010

The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Saying that the case was brought by a 'school governor', makes it seem far more innocent than this case actually was. See Wikipedia for details about the right-wing New Party, secret funding and the involvement of our favourite so-called skeptic...the merry Monckton ! And it was a judicial review in the Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, which thought it not fit to go forward to a full judicial review hearing with one or more judges.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments