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  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  Next

Comments 11201 to 11250:

  1. There's no empirical evidence

    Firstly, let me apologise for the insult, which it was. I still find the statement extraordinary but my response was over the line.

    Your comment about logging might be true but utterly irrelevant. What the science does is study what has been done, good or bad, and then log what its effect on climate parameters are. My point is that climatalogical effects from human land-use activity was accounted for and plainly visible in the reports.

    In my experience of working in science in for 40 year, is that scientists are most skeptical people I know. On this site, we dont swear by some predicate on global warming, we swear by whereever the evidence takes it. Much of my working life has been in coal then oil, and I can assure that evidence disproving a risk from CO2 emissions would be most welcome. My government has effectively cancelled funding of fossil fuels and so my colleagues and I have been reassigned.

    What we do scoff at is garbage pulmagated by disinformation which distort or malign science for generally political and/or ideological goals.  For more detail on what Michaels has said, Try here. Remember too that the IPCC only summarizes what the published science has stated. If you think it has got it wrong, then where is your evidence for that? If it doesnt come from an area where you have specialist domain knowledge, then it had better be peer-reviewed. Science commentary from institutions created to push a political ideology has to be especially suspect.  As I wrote here, liberatians in particular seem have a problem with climate mitigation solutions. The correct response however isnt "I cant see a solution that is compatiable with my ideology, ergo problem cant exist".

  2. There's no empirical evidence

    Good forest mgt. is NOT deforestation. Deforestation is the destruction of the forest for some other purpose, like a huge solar farm- which causes that landscape to no longer sequester carbon nor produce oxygen. Without good forest mgt. which means some timber cutting based on proper silviculture- you can't live in wood houses with wood furniture and with paper products. And there are "environmentalists" in Massachusetts (who strongly influence others around the USA) who really do want to stop all forest mgt. since they can't grasp the consequences and they can't grasp that good forest  mgt. will NOT have to result in less carbon stored in forests.  Most forests are in poor condition from past bad logging practices. The way to improve them so they can do a better job of carbon sequestering and oxygen production is through silviculture. Look it up. As for peer reviews papers- I've been a professional forester since Nixon was in the White House so they have nothing on me. I find it ironic that this site is supposed to be about having a skeptical attitude but I find that those who swear by the idea that humans are the cause of global warming, while enjoying criticizing anyone who doesn't believe that, have no sense of skepticism of the the IPCC. I'd suggest a true skeptic will be skeptical of just about everyone including scientists, all religeons, all governments, all organizations. I certainly am. So, I'm not a "deniar" but I don't think the IPCC has all the answers either. As for Patrick Michaels, all I see so far is that he is a lobbyist- I see little commentary on what he has actually said. Since he was once the national president of the associaton of state climatologists- I find it odd that some people consider him not to be qualified to offer his thoughts. Instead, you use an "ad hominem" with your "This is an astonishing statement and does not give me confidence about your discernment skills." Personal insults aren't convincing.

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] I gave you two links to specific factual rebuttals to Michaels’s claims. Your ignoring of them while repeating your claims qualifies as sloganeering, which is prohibited on this site.

  3. There's no empirical evidence

    Thanks.

  4. Global warming theory isn't falsifiable

    The myth has been stated in various forms by deniers. Usually when something they thought would be inconsistant with theory (like more snow) turns out to be a prediction or understanding that model skill is not a test for underlying theory. Some examples from the usual suspects:

    WUWT LINK


    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chimera-global-warming


    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Shortened URLs

  5. Global warming theory isn't falsifiable

    Thanks Tom @ 84.!

  6. There's no empirical evidence

    Oh and glance at that same IPCC report would show you that scientists do indeed consider effects of deforestation etc. It is discussed in forcing as "landuse change", when you can find the peer-reviewed papers that quantify the effects.

  7. Global warming theory isn't falsifiable

    Hi Skeptical Science,

    I enjoy reading the myth rebuttals however this myth page is not like the other myth pages where the myth is debunked with what science says. Is there another theard where this myth is debunked like the other myths?

  8. There's no empirical evidence

    " I sense that few people have more qualifications to discuss the subject than Dr. Michaels."

    This is an astonishing statement and does not give me confidence about your discernment skills. What informs this opinion? Michaels is disinformer who has done no climate science at all. His career has been paid work to try and support the idea that tobacco smoke isnt harmful and climate isnt a problem. Science asks open-ended questions. Michaels is only doing motivated reasoning - ie starting with a conclusion and trying to manipulate the public to believe it. If you are looking for how to find truth, then perhaps brush up on some critical thinking skills.

    As to idea that CO2 isnt from humans. 3 main lines of evidence. 1/ we know how much we have emitted. 2/ Burning carbon reduces oxygen and observed oxygen drops fit. 3/ changing isotopic signature in atmosphere is consistant with fossil origin.

    All this in the summary of peer-reviewed science, known the IPCC WG1 report. Try reading that instead of misinformers.

    Additional question. if you found a source of information was duping you, would you continue to read from that source because you like their conclusions, or would you reject and look for more trustworthy sources?

    Humans are terribly prone to motivated reasoning and very intelligent people are extremely good at doing it. That is the reason why science values peer-review so much. It easy to fool yourself. Your peers, especially those who dont like your conclusions, are more likely to spot your problems. If your sources dont quote peer-reviewed research, then maybe you should ask why. (And watch out, because certain websites quote peer-reviewed research but say that its conclusions are diametrically opposite to what the paper really says, safe in knowledge that their audience of pseudo-skeptics are not going to check).

  9. There's no empirical evidence

    '"Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals," the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.
    They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.'
    https://www.voanews.com/a/scientists-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard/4803955.html

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link button in the comment editor.

  10. Global warming theory isn't falsifiable

    TVC15: See this postfor just one list of falsifiable claims of AGW.

  11. Climate's changed before

    TVC15, please comment in the threads of the posts you are commenting about. I will respond to your comment there.

  12. Climate's changed before

    I searched this site and came across this page.

    Global warming theory isn't falsifiable

    However it's not like the other myth pages as it does not explain the myth.

  13. There's no empirical evidence

    JoeZ, I already linked you to detailed, point by point factual rebuttals of Michaels’s claims. Regarding percent of warming caused by humans, enter “attribution” in the Search field at the top left of this page. Among the results you will find this one. For a recent summary see chapter 3 of the CSSR’s report.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] The links you provided were for Moore not Michaels.

  14. There's no empirical evidence

    I know people criticize Micahaels as a lobbyist - but that doesn't automatically make him a fraud. Maybe some people choose to be lobbyists for the firms they happen to agree with. All scientists must be looked at skeptically. Some are simply not  very good scientists- some are sold out. Some who work for academia and government also may have a selfish interest to support their employer. So, what counts is what Michaels says. But, getting  back to my question- I'd love to see a solid argument as to what percent of the GW problem is due to human causes, especially carbon emissions. Now, a subject seld raised regarding GW- is that humans have alterned much of the Earth. Vast areas once natural grasslands and forests have been destroyed- land that once sequestered carbon and produced oxygen. I should think that destruction must be a contributor to GW. And, if it's  true that carbon emissions is the dominant cause of GW- in addition to cutting way back on fossil fuel burning then we should also all convert to vegetarianism, right? And mass transportation. I have no problem with those requirements. But, as a "professional forester"- I'm now hearing some environmentalists saying we must lock up all the forests so they can sequester the maximum carbon- forgetting that wood products are highly desirable, don't need fossil fuel to grow, and that any replacement for wood as a faw material will require the likes of cement and steel and plastic which all have higher carbon footprints. So, in conclusion, it seems to be that we really haven't proven definitively that its humanity causing the problem and if it is the case that we need to lock up forests. There are bad ideas on both sides of this debate- which I think, as a life long skeptic, is a good way to watch this important debate.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Sloganeering snipped. 

  15. Climate's changed before

    Thanks MA Rodger and Electric,

    I've been watching Global Weirding with Katharine Hayhoe on YouTube.

    I've never heard of Potholer54 I will indeed check him out!

    MA Rodger and Electric I appreciate all the new things I'm learning from you both!

  16. There's no empirical evidence

    JoeZ @370: You opine:

    I sense that few people have more qualifications to discuss the subject than Dr. Michaels.

    Wrong! There are hundreds of legitimate climate scientist throughout the world who are eminently more qualified than Patrick Michaels to speak on the topic.

    Please read DeSmog's profile of Michaels:

    https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels 

  17. Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

    For the full picture it would be necessary to include opportunity costs if comparing feedlot to AMP like in Stanley et al (2018). The AMP system needed 120% more land than feetlot. This additional land could have been used to sequester carbon in other ways, if not used for AMP. This would lower the amount of sequestration relative to feedlot.

    I have not calculated this yet. Some estimates for such opportunity costs have been given in Searchinger et al (2018).

  18. There's no empirical evidence

    JoeZ, here is a detailed factual debunking of Moore’s claims.

    And here is Potholer54’s video debunking

  19. There's no empirical evidence

    I've read much of this thread. I'm sitting on the fence because I can see and appreciate ideas from both sides. Here's my question: what percentage of climate change is due to human causes, and that being mostly carbon emissions? Of course the climate is changing and of course CO2 is greenhouse gas. But I haven't yet seen any convincing argument that it's almost entirely due to carbon emissions. My skepticism of GW due primarely from human causes comes from the work of Dr. Patrck Michaels: https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels. He may be wrong but he's certainly not a "flake". His YouTube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ is very convincing- yet I'm not convinced- only keeping my mind open to all ideas. As to why I'm expecially interested in this subject- I may get into at some other time. I sense that few people have more qualifications to discuss the subject than Dr. Michaels.

  20. Climate's changed before

    TVC15 , if you have past experience in debunking creationists, then you may well have come across the [science journalist] you-tuber Potholer54 who has done many videos on the same subject area.

    Maybe you are not aware that Potholer54 has done 40+ videos on climate science denialism.  Most of them are around 10 minutes long; some more like 15 minutes.   But I heartily recommend them.   He is meticulous in shooting down the denialists' claims & in demonstrating their falsehoods.   He gives his references ~ and he is careful to base his comments on the evidence as determined by peer-reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals (in other words, he does does not act as a talking head spouting his own opinions . . . unlike most you-tubers).

    You will find Potholer54 very useful, because he is skilfully attacking many of the prominent "public denialists", and his videos will cover many of the points that you will wish to use in debating denialists.   He doesn't cover everything ~ but you will find him a very easygoing method of gaining climate scientific knowledge, both directly and indirectly.

    Yet there's more ~ his videos are done in a humorous style (which I find very entertaining).

  21. Climate's changed before

    Correction to #656,

    The ECS=3ºC of course includes feedbacks. Without them the CO2 forcing would be 1ºC per doubling. So it reduces to 1-in-30.

  22. Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @652,

    The usual response I would give to the various accusations using 'Global Warming has been converted into Climate Change because of <some cover-up>' is to point to the name of the UN IPCC which was formed in 1988. So any genuine reason for converting from the term Global Warming to Climate Change would have to pre-date 1988. Most do not.

    The 4% of CO2 attributable to anthropogenic sources has in the past been an account of gross annual emissions which annually were back-in-the-day 6Gt(C) anthro, 60Gt(C) ocean, 100Gt(C) biosphere. Of course, the net emissions yield a 100% anthro as the oceans & biosphere absrob as well as emit (& as they absorb 55% of the anthro emissions, you could say the anthro percentage is 220%).

    The pre-industrial CO2 levels wer 280ppm and they are now 409ppm. So an actual percentage of of today's atmospheric CO2 would be 46% anthro.

    The relative contribution of CO2 to Earth's greenhouse effect (New Scientist has a page on it as probably does SkS if we were to look) is somewhere between 26% (the effect with only CO2) and 15% (the drop in the effect if CO2 were removed). Call it 20% and with water vapour 50%.

    But the 1-in-1,500,000 quoted by the denialist troll is the anthro contribution from CO2 relative to water vapour. If the GHE is 33ºC and half is water vapour, while anthro CO2 forcing is roughly 2Wm^-2, with ECS=3ºC for 3.7Wm^-2. So CO2(anthro) equates to (3 x 2 / 3.7)/(33/2)=0.098 or 1-in-10.

  23. Climate's changed before

    Hi Electric!
    I am a bit perplexed as to how I responded to you in the wrong thread??? My apologies to the mods.

    Thank you for the feedback! It's much appreciated.

    I've cornered this denier in the past with respect to his flagrant ignorance sounding where the carbon in our bodies originated. He ran far away. I find it amusing he's back as if he's forgotten. LOL

    I did a search on the author of that open resource paper I linked in the wrong thread and came up with a few hits. Thus why I wanted to hear what others thought about the credibility of that paper.

    Thank you so much for your responses. I often debunk the denialists with the information I find on this site. I love this site and am spreading the knowledge I gain from it as well as from the comment section.

    I am muchb more skilled at debunking the creationists, however human caused climate change denialists are just as amusing. :)

  24. Climate's changed before

    TVC15 ,

    you have replied to me on the wrong thread.  Perhaps a moderator could move your post into slot #654 in this thread.

    TVC15 , you should be amused when your denier says he is an MD and Engineer.   There are quite a few denialists who claim to be (and possibly are) engineers ~ some of the worst crackpot climate ideas come from ostensible engineers.   ( I myself know a post-doctorate researcher in a biological field, who is a member-in-good-standing of his local Flat Earth Society.   In the end, it is only the real physical evidence which counts. )

    To misquote Alexander Pope : "A little learning is a dangerous thing . . . and many engineers know just enough science to be dangerous."

    If his "MD" you mention is some sort of Medical doctorate, then we are getting into deeper waters ~ and Medical researchers should know better than to apply the confounding-factor-laden biomedical field to the hard-science field of climatology.

    Simply, I don't think it's worth pursuing the instrumentation question.   He's trying to distract you down into a rabbit hole.   Myself, I'd point out to him (and the readers) that thousands of highly-expert scientists have spent decades assessing/ analysing/ cross-checking the various instrumentation aspects of temperatures.   If your denier friend has some definite evidence of gross error . . . then he should frankly point it out, and also publish his findings to the whole world, so that the enormous pyramid of mainstream science comes tumbling down.   But so far, there has been no sign of that happening !

     

    As for the "methodological note" you mention, it is to be found in a rather low-ranking journal, and (judging by the Extract**) it contains a considerable amount of taurine excrement [ usually abbreviated to: BS ].   Actually, I did skim through the body of the "note", and it wasn't nearly as bad as I had expected ~ but it was mostly to do with causation/correlation in a general way and really had little relevance to climate science.   However, the Extract itself mentioned "Popperian" and was largely an attack on the IPCC & mainstream science . . . and I suspect its raison d'etre was simply to be read by & cited by denialists [who wouldn't ever read the body of the note, and wouldn't care a jot for understanding Popper].

    ** The warning sign here is "Popperian".   With apologies for my mixed metaphor ~ but when Popper or Popperian occurs in a paragraph about climate, then your ears should prick up, and you become hyper-suspicious that you are being handed a plateful of BS.

    Popper's philosophy has its virtuous aspects within certain limited circumstances, but little of that is relevant to climate science.   "Popper" and "Popperian" are often these days quoted by denialists who have little real interest in (or knowledge of) the philosophy of science ~ all that these denialists want is a trendy-sounding cudgel to knock real scientists on the head with . . . however inappropriate it may be.   They just want "the optics of it" (if I may use a modern ugly phrase).

    All too easy (for the half-alert reader of Popper) to fall into a semantic jungle, instead of keeping focus on the physical realities of this universe.

    TVC15 , don't let the denialist lead the dance.   Aim for his weak points (which he has tried to conceal).

    Another apology ~ this time for my own long waffle: but there are some gems scattered through it !

  25. There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

    Hi Electric @ 653,

    Yes both deniers that I posted about are both male. This latest denier boasts that he's an MD and Engineer. LOL he displays a low level of emotional intelligence and the comments about the source of carbon in our bodies and how great CO2 is for the earth thus we need more of it, shows his lack of basic science understanding.

    I'm not certain how to debate anything he posted other his misinformed comments about CO2.

    I don’t know exactly what instruments are used in the graph that I posted, where can I find this information? I don’t know what is the relative accuracy and standard deviation of each temperature measurement method? How would I find this information?

    At first I thought it was cherry picking but it is important to know what quality checks are in place for any of the instruments or analyzers used to measure climate temperatures. I've been asked by 2 separate deniers to name the instrument used to measure climate temperatures. I would like to be able to provide an answer but I don't have access to climate lab instrument maintenance and quality assurance data.

    I found this open source paper and perhaps this is where he is getting his ideas from. Is this a credible source?

    A methodological note on the making of causal statements in the debate on anthropogenic global warming

  26. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

    says the world is about to see a major shift towards climate action

    That seems naively optimistic. NSW just re-elected the LNP. The only party who takes climate change seriously  The Greens, didn't get a look in. 

  27. Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @652 ,

    I am sure you are not really stunned by his* intellectual incompetence ~ but he has enough intelligence to display (via Motivated Reasoning) a barrage of Gish Gallop and rhetorical waffle.

    *almost certainly he is a male ~  since women usually have more sense than to lose themselves in the quagmire of climate denialism.   Prof. Curry excepted: she does a fine job of vagueness and "could-possibly-be" and unjustified sophistry and "confusionism" smoke&mirrors.  In person, I have only ever met one woman who was an extreme denialist ~ she was an elderly geologist (retired).   A few other women seemed to be of the "Yes Dear" type, just going along with their husband's delusions.   ;-)

    TVC15 , in replying to the "intelligent idiot" you mentioned, you have two reasons for engaging with him.   One is to present commonsense factual science to the observers/readers [of course he himself is impervious to reason]  . . .  and the second reason is that you find it intellectually stimulating and fun.

    Plck out and attack one or two of his weaknesses.   Exposing him there, will by association throw doubt on his other points.   Readers will be thinking: a falsehood in one area means he could be a liar in most areas.   But always it should be fun for you (though sometimes partly a chore also).

  28. Climate's changed before

    Hi I'm back to seek more debunking knowledge help from you guys.
    I posted the below graph to debunk a denier who was trying to claim that: Now the same frauds, sorry "experts," that were behind global warming have changed their rhetoric and branding to "climate change."
    Various Measurments of Global Temperature

    Next think you know a loud chest pounding denier jumps in with this wall of questions.


    1. Are you even aware as to what instruments were used to measure temperature in your "graph" and what locations were used?
    2. Do you know how "average" temperatures are statistically massaged?
    3. Do you know how "proxy temperatures" are determined?
    4. Why was there not cooling during the Depression, then warming in WW2?
    5. Is it valid to compare temps measured by digital instruments, compared to mercury thermometer instruments, vs "proxy" measurements?
    6. What is the relative accuracy and standard deviation of each temperature measurement method?
    7. Did you know that man accounts for only 4% of all atmospheric Co2, and that total Co2 is only .04 % of atmospheric gases?
    8. Did you know that the relative contribution of "man made" Co2 (that 4%), compared to water vapor , is 1/1,500,000th?
    9. Did you know that ALL of the carbon atoms in your body (as you are an organic organism) was once CO2? That is the carbon cycle; CO2 is as important to life on earth as water and oxygen, yet the left has labeled it a "pollutant".

    My response/question to each of this deniers claims.


    1. Where can I find this information?
    2. Define: "statistically massaged"
    3. Yes
    4. Not sure how to respond due to the wording of the question.
    5. Not sure if this is even worth addressing
    6. Don't know
    7. False - however I don't know where to find good numbers to debunk this myth.
    8. Show me your sources
    9. False


    This denier is a chest pounding denier who will criticize the instruments, claims the numbers are "massaged", make ridiculous claims about the source of the C in our bodies.

    Below are his favorite statements:

    It is odd indeed when the AGW crowd claims the high ground of "science", then immediately violates every basic premise of actual science:
    1. A hypothesis in not "proven" until the null hypothesis is refuted.
    2. real science welcomes further debate, experimentation, and examination of the hypothesis- cults do not.
    3. real science does not require falsification of data and statistical analysis
    4. real science is indifferent to the conclusions- cults have a very vested interest in outcomes
    5. in real science, those questioning a hypothesis are welcomed, rather than silenced or labeled "deniers".
    6. in real science, action is not taken to "remedy" a problem until a hypothesis is proven
    7. in real science, rarely is there one single cause of natural phenomenon. In the AGW cult, the "villain" or cause of all problems is CO2.

    I am stunned at the minds of people like this!

  29. New research, March 11-17, 2019

    OPOF @4, and the denialists will accuse any climate science website of being politically motivated, regardless of what it says. It's just part of their silly rhetoric.

  30. New research, March 11-17, 2019

    OPOF @4, 

    I did consider that, but we won't convince the hard core denialists whatever we do, especially by appeasing them and letting them set the terms of the discussion or website content. It's only the middle ground of people we can connect with, and they probably want an answer to the question about whether government has some ulterior motive like a money grab. Provided such a refutation is evidence based and doesn't make political value judgements.

    I agree with the second half of your comment.

  31. Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

    A further brief update: I'm still looking into this but there were multiple unplanned demands on my time next week, and I have a conference next week.

    The papers of Teague et al are central to this discussion, and following the downstream citations looks to be a productive way forward.

    A recent example is Stanley et al (2018), which also finds high rates of C sequestration over 4 years. They suggest that these rates may be sustained for several more years, but also imply that the rates will not be sustained indefinately - maintainability of sequestration rates (which in turn is closely coupled with permenance of the sequestered carbon) is one of the central issues with Savory's initial claim.

    The other problem is extrapolation from single or similar locations to a global scale. Abdalla et al (2017) and Sherry & Ritchie (2013) both highlight the fact that the impacts of grazing may change sign between locations based on the presence of C3 vs C4 grass species, with Abdalla also noting substantial variation between climatic zones.

    Extrapolation of local results to the globe and short term results to a 40 year period are therefore problematic. This may explain why even the large sequestration potential suggested by my extrapolation of Teague is much greater than the result of Lal who actually provides global and multidecadal estimates.

    Given that naive extrapolation of the work of Teague still leads to an estimate of the carbon sequestration potential 4 times lower than that claimed by Savory, it still looks as though Savory's claim is indefensible and requires a rebuttal. I think Seb and I could probably improve the tone and nuance of the rebuttal in the light of some of the newer papers on AMP/MP, but unless there are some global/long period results we have missed I don't see that the conclusions of the rebuttal on the sequestration claim are going to change very much.

    I'm very happy to look at more papers, but addition papers quoting the same local or short term results we have already seen don't really help. Non-naive global and/or long term sequestration projections are the most helpful information.

  32. One Planet Only Forever at 07:49 AM on 24 March 2019
    New research, March 11-17, 2019

    nigelj

    It may not be helpful to add a myth that "global warming is a scam to give governments more money and power". That may give the politically-motivated deniers (which is the vast majority of them) more oxygen to incorrectly accuse this site of being politically-motivated.

    And the wrong type of people 'winning power' can indeed abuse global warming in scams to give 'Themselves' more money and power.

    My most recently developed preference is that it would be more helpful to call people who incorrectly claim that 'information presented on this site should be strictly science based (no discussion of the climate science evaluations of the future consequences of a lack of correction of developed economic activity), 'politically motivated by an incorrect and harmful developed desire to continue to benefit as much as possible from the burning of fossil fuels (a harmful desire that can be changed/corrected by improved awareness and understanding)'.

    This is not an area of research to be pursued in climate science or sites like this one that help improve awareness and understanding of climate science and the related corrections of developed human activity to develop sustainable improvements for humanity. This is an Ethical and Moral matter that leaders (in business and politics), should be responsibly improving their awarenss and understanding of (rather than creating misleading claims and promoting misunderstanding in the general population regarding climate science that participants in sites like this one have to put effort into attempting to over-come and correct).

  33. New research, March 11-17, 2019

    Regarding comment @1 thankfully deleted. I didn't want to give it oxygen but one related comment might be appropriate. We sometimes hear the climate denialist claim that global warming is a scam to give governments more money and power. This is a myth of course, and might deserve a place in the list of myths with a suitable refutation (eg carbon fee and dividend obviously doesn't give them power and money). I had a look, but can't see it in the list. 

  34. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    I was looking for something completely unrelated in the list of sceptical myths, and I came across this skepticalscience.com myth buster on Scarfettas 60 year cycle. Hiding in plain sight!

  35. One Planet Only Forever at 04:44 AM on 24 March 2019
    New research, March 11-17, 2019

    Oriondestiny@1,

    Your comment appears to be a political attack on this site for its efforts to improve awareness and understanding in a way that is contrary to your developed personal interests.

  36. New research, March 11-17, 2019

    This whole web site is government funded propaganda.... Climate change is a scam...  There is nothing to argue and discuss. This is all leading to a big money and power grab. I can't see past the scam to even consider the fake climate change content.

    It's March. The snow has melted. The Crocus's are starting to pop us as they do every year at this time. Nothing has changed. Same ole, same ole. It got down to -25 F this year. Too bad it won't kill off the mosquitos. And.. and, if it gets up to 104 F as it did in 2013, that didn't kill the mosquitos either. 

    So the average temperature raised 0.5 C in the last 50 years? I laugh. That is NOT climate changing. It goes from -25 F to as high as 104 F where I live in 6 month, year in and year out.  Saying 0.5 C in 50 years is detrimental is a joke. I laugh you to scorn.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Multiple violations of comments policy, and not a jot of scientific evidence.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  37. One Planet Only Forever at 14:30 PM on 23 March 2019
    The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    Eclectic @32,

    When pointing out that the next glacial phase is due in about 20,000 to 30,000 years it could be helpful to add "Easy to get fossil fuels that have been discovered and left in the ground could be burned nearer that time to help human civilization get through that event".

    By then climate science may have developed understanding leading to better ways of dealing with that event. But it would still be 'helpful to future generations' if lots of easy to get fossil fuels were found and left in the ground for a future 'true emergency (energy warming, or other helpful puprose)' rather than harming the future generations by rapidly burning them up now.

  38. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    ThinkingMan , it's always worthwhile to step back occasionally and look at the bigger context.

    Global surface temperature had been at a fairly flat plateau for (roughly) 5,000 years of the Holocene Maximum ~ which has been followed by (roughly) 5 or 6,000 years of gradual decline (related to the Milankovitch cycle of insolation).   Owing to the present relatively-low ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, the next glacial phase is due in 20-30,000 years ~ and may be skipped altogether since the oceans are being unusually warmed by AGW.

    The Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period etcetera are only tiny wiggles in comparison to the multi-millennial decline in temperature.

    Against this long-term decline, you can see the last (roughly) 100 years demonstrates a temperature rise which is shooting upwards like a rocket.   And is now surpassing the Holocene Maximum.   IMO it is beyond ridiculous for denialists to assert that our modern-day global warming is the result of a 60-year oscillation in oceanic currents.

    Yet that is what some of the (more intelligent) denialists assert.   No need to waste your time reading Professor Curry's blog ~ she is still suggesting that "up to" 60% of modern warming could be caused by confluence of oceanic current cycles.   Quite marvellous it is, how a giant dose of "Motivated Reasoning" can so completely distort the rational thinking of an educated intelligent person.

    You see rather similar bizarre thinking coming from Lindzen & Spencer & others.   (And much of the remainder of denialists are still loudly proclaiming that CO2 has zero or negligible Greenhouse effect.)

  39. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    thinkingman - I appreciate your question. It is always good to clarify so we dont talk past each other. It is also worth clarifying "cooling".

    By "natural cooling forces" I understand you to mean things that would affect the temperature trend as opposed to year by year or even decadal average variation. On scale of 3-10 years, then the natural, chaotic, ENSO cycle is dominant. The upper ocean exchanges heat with atmosphere. A series of La Nina can look like cooling; a series of El Nino can look like warming. However on climatic scales (or even scales of decade), these do not affect the temperature trend. I mention this because you asked "since 1998" which immediately rings alarm bells. A lot of pseudo-skeptic arguments are based on cherry picking a big El nino event and then comparing trend after that. You can expect "since 2016" to become popular on certain websites.

    Assuming you mean temperature trend and actual forcing, I can be more definitive. You could say that AGW is countering some external forcings. The Milankovich cycle has been slowly cooling for some time, though the effect is so slow that its impact on climate even over a century would be hard to determine. You could also argue that total solar irradience trends since 1990s has been slightly negative. The change in forcing again is incredibly minor comparied to measured AGW-driven changes in surface radiation. I dont see volcanic aerosols having any particular trend.

    I do not see any convincing evidence for some magical 60 year/80 year cycles, especially when proponents struggle to identify a physical source.

  40. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    ThinkingMan @26,

    You point not to a "paper" but to a 2015 blog and its author is somebody called Vaughan Pratt. It is only posted by Judy Curry on her blog-site.

    Even so, it is full of enough nonsense to match that of Curry. The initial assertion (from Curry) that:-

    "About 40% of the warming since 1880 occurred prior to 1950, and is not attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions."

    and (from Pratt) that:-

    "The importance of this period (ie late 19th century to 1950) is that it contains by far the best data we have about natural variability in the absence of significant variation in CO2."

    This is pure nonsense. Examine IPCC AR5 Table AII.1.2 and you find that a third of the CO2 forcing to 2011 and almost the same proportion of 'GHG Other*' to 2011 were present by 1950. Curry's grand climate wobble is based solely on a dip and a peak in the global average temperature record. This is not insignificant & Curry is plainly wrong to suggest it is. Her grand wobble theory has no basis other than that. It is no more than curve-fitting and has no serious evidential support.

  41. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    scaddenp:  Do you accept or reject the possibility AGW offset natural cooling forces from 1998 to the present?  And, are those specific cooling forces adequately reflected in the CMIP5 ensemble mean?   Your position is not clear in your two recent posts.

  42. Climate's changed before

    I give much thanks to all that have helped me broaden my knowledge of global warming and especially how to deal with the denialist I've been debating for almost a year. I've not quite dealt with a denialist as the one I've presented. I agree with you MA Rodger! This denialist is as an exuberant fool relishing the chase. He is not worth a bean.

    Special thanks to Michael for the link to HHoffman et al 2017.

  43. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    The blog post happily assumes variation from the trendline is "natural variability". Huh?

    Above the climate forcing used by models. Volcanoes are of course natural variability but it would be a mistake to regard the variability as unforced change. Furthermore, the effect of man-made aerosols (ie pollution) 1940-1960 remain hard to tie down.

  44. Climate's changed before

    TVC - first thing to remember is the old saying that you cannot reason a person out of position that they were not reasoned into. Deniers will deny. You can however demonstrate to other bystanders that their position is not based on science. You could ask if they could consider that any evidence will change their mind. Chances are the answer is "nothing".

    The CO2 lags argument is already in Skpsci. See here.
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm and this is really where this discussion belongs. The argument relies on believing you can choose which bits of chemistry and physics apply at will.

    In short, CO2 is both a feedback AND a forcing. Anything that causes temperature to rise will eventually cause CO2 to rise as well (and vice versa) but on timescales of centuries to a thousand years (time for ocean mixing). Our adding CO2 from emissions will eventually cause CO2 to be releassed from natural sinks making matters worse. In ice age cycle, it acts to convert a local event (change in insolation in NH around 65N) into a global event. Locally the milankovich forcing is large. If you look at MA Rodgers graph, the Milankovich forcing changes insolation at 65N by 10+W/m2 between glacial and interglacial. The forcing from doubling CO2 is around 4W/m2. The difference is that change is local for milankovich (I note the deniers examples to "prove" it was global were all NH higher latitudes), but global for CO2. I should say ditto for water vapour but feedback is much faster. Your denier is pulling a strawman argument, claiming CO2 is supposed to explain all climate change. Climate science by comparison claims that all physical laws apply at all times and climate responds to net forcing, not one single factor.

  45. michael sweet at 06:48 AM on 22 March 2019
    Climate's changed before

    MA Rodger and others interested:

    I think the full text of HHoffman et al 2017 is here.

  46. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    "The important outcome is: Rising CO2 levels apparently (and may have indeed) offset natural cooling forces since 1998-2000. This possible outcome supports the AGW case."

    Yes it does.

    The pdo ocean cycle here correlates rather well (by eye) with the bumps and dips in the surface temperature record since 1900, including the so called recent pause. 

  47. Climate's changed before

    MA Rodger, thank you so much! I am not a climate scientist but I do hold 3 science degrees in the field of medical science. I love this site as it has helped me learn so much about areas of climate change that I was unaware of.

    This denier posts walls of misinformation and rants just as you have read and since most people in the world are not well versed in science, they think he sounds great and knowledgeable. It's astounding the things he's says. He tried arguing CO2 is a dissolved and released gas in seawater, and that it's based on Boyle's Law. I was astounded and knew immediately I was dealing with a layman attempting to come off as being knowledgeable in science.

    I often wonder where he gets his misinformation from.

    He is constantly trying to push these concepts:

    My position is that CO2 levels are irrelevant. CO2 levels are a lagging indicator. Temperatures increase, then CO2 levels rise. Temperatures decrease, then CO2 levels drop.

    There are many articles that all say the same thing.

    What were CO2 levels during the last Inter-Glacial?

    EPICA Ice Core data for the last Inter-Glacial period shows CO2 levels never rose above 286.8 ppm CO2 (peak at 128,609 years before present).

    Because CO2 levels peaked at 286.8 ppm CO2 and temperatures in Greenland were 14.4°F warmer than present and on the opposite side of Earth temperatures were 22.5°F warmer than present, you cannot claim CO2 drives the climate.

    In fact, that refutes global warming.

    Here we show that the south GIS was drastically smaller during MIS 11 than it is now, with only a small residual ice dome over southernmost Greenland.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13456

    If we go back to MIS 11, we find CO2 levels peaked at 283.5 ppm CO2 at 411,071 years before present.

    If you look through EPICA Ice Core Data, CO2 levels never peaked more than 292 ppm CO2 over the last 800,000 years.

    Prove, with absolute certainty, that if CO2 levels were back down to 287 ppm, temperatures in Greenland would not rise another 14.4°F and temperatures in Siberia would not rise another 22.5°F.

    If you are unwilling to do that or cannot do that, then you have proven global warming to be a fatally flawed theory.

    Given that CO2 levels are currently in excess of 400 ppm CO2, why haven't temperatures risen?

    You say they have? Yeah, 1.4°F over 140 years, but, I've already proven that temperature fluctuations of 20°F in a matter of years is not unprecedented.

    I think Skeptical Science should add this denier’s myth claims to the most used climate myths. This denier makes some of the strangest claims and draws odd conclusion’s based on what appears to be cherry picking and lack of basice science understanding.

  48. Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @645,

    Picking up on the denialist's assertion that his position would be supported by "any peer-reviewed paper," I have been unable to find the full text of Hoffman et al (2017) 'Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation'  (which is of course one such paper) but its abstract (below) doesn't give any room for the denialist's bold assertions about blindingly hot Eemian global average temperatures which @642 the denialist describes as "15.3°F warmer than now" or +8.5ºC relative to today.

    "The last interglaciation (LIG, 129 to 116 thousand years ago) was the most recent time in Earth’s history when global mean sea level was substantially higher than it is at present. However, reconstructions of LIG global temperature remain uncertain, with estimates ranging from no significant difference to nearly 2°C warmer than present-day temperatures. Here we use a network of sea-surface temperature (SST) records to reconstruct spatiotemporal variability in regional and global SSTs during the LIG. Our results indicate that peak LIG global mean annual SSTs were 0.5 ± 0.3°C warmer than the climatological mean from 1870 to 1889 and indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 mean. LIG warming in the extratropical latitudes occurred in response to boreal insolation and the bipolar seesaw, whereas tropical SSTs were slightly cooler than the 1870 to 1889 mean in response to reduced mean annual insolation." [My bold]

  49. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    Scaddenp:  Will reply at another time.

    All:  Parts of this article are relevant to the concept.  https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

    Yes, I know Judith Curry's name will cause some followers of this blog to recoil.  Pls read the paper, nevertheless.

    The 2nd & 4th graphs are pointed out because a picture is worth1000 words.  The 4th graph shows that since 1950, rising atmospheric CO2 levels explain well a long term temperature trend.  The 2nd graph shows the difference between recorded temperatures and temperatures consistent with contemporaneous CO2 levels.  The difference is attributed to "natural variability".  Pls note the downward trend in natural variability from 2000-2012.  Whether the downward trend is caused by a cycle or natural events with unpredictable timing is a side issue.  The important outcome is:  Rising CO2 levels apparently (and may have indeed) offset natural cooling forces since 1998-2000.  This possible outcome supports the AGW case.

  50. Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @645,

    The denialist appears to me as an exuberant fool relishing the chase. He is not worth a bean.

    On the source of his numbers - You could ask him if it is that he cannot remember where these numbers are allegedly lurking and thus he sets out so many possible sources. Or is he saying there are so many sources that he is spoilt for choice? All we need is one credible reference to be able to judge his preposterous claims on interglacial global average temperatures. Perhaps he should also set Wikipedia straight. They, despite using Antarctic EPICA ice core data unajusted, still have nothing like the temperature record alleged by this denier in their account of the Geological Temperature Record.

    The rest of his rant is basically saying there is interglacial warming yet to appear in the present Holocene interglacial, and this based on the level of deglaciation at the height of the Eemian deglaciation. Perhaps he can set out the mechanism he sees as providing this warming-yet-to-appear.

    In sensible speak, the reason for the Eemian being warmer than the Holocene is down to the reduced glaciation driven by high latitude Northern insolation. It is, of cource, a dynamic system so the timing of this insolation within the ice age cycle is critical. The denialist seems to fail to grasp that timing is everything and is bogged down by considering the duration of any particular swing in the Milankovitch cycles.

    Temperature & insolation through ice ages

Prev  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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