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  2253  2254  2255  2256  2257  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  Next

Comments 113001 to 113050:

  1. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Chris Similarly, with global warming, whether it is caused by men, women or nature, there will be no way to proove it, even if people take action and a detected warming trend goes away. I have tried here to help, but cannot afford to spend time writing things that get deleted. So this is my very last post. I salute you and wish you all the best.
  2. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Chris "I'd say they're knowledge an impulse to understand difficult phenomena and to apply this knowledge and understanding productively. " The application of science has its impact on products that in the end must work. In many cases, customer satisfaction is a reliable indicator that proves the science out. Global warming, the size of the ozone layer hole, whether they went to the Moon or not,... these are not "products" passing the scrutiny of society at large. It is applied science yes, but not the same. Going to the Moon could be a product, and the day it is, very little skepticism on this issue will remain. You could still however question whether Apollo was for real, but how relevant will it be? On the other hand, the more time that goes by and there is no commercial voyage to the moon, the more reason to question the science.
  3. Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
    Lewis, I can't reliably answer your questions but am inclined to believe the authors are speaking of reactive, interventionist techniques, possibly leading to failure to effectively deal with what spawns the intervention. One of the authors (Morris Judd) has a blog post mentioning the publication of the paper, Geoengineering Article, and seems responsive to folks stopping by with comments. For my part, if we can't avoid putting things in the atmosphere it seems to me most conservative to focus on directly removing what we've added, not exactly geoengineering in my book so much as tidying up as we go along. Which of course begs the question, how may we avoid adding what we must remove? If it's cheaper not to add at all that's better than going full circle.
  4. Confidence in climate forecasts
    Doug @ 108 - great graphic over at Jeff Masters' blog, very interesting to see how it compared with the 2003 European heat wave. I have one eyebrow raised.
  5. Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
    Doug - thanks for the synopsis above - sadly the text is "currently unavailable" so I'm hoping you can clarify some points. As one who'd still be opposing Geo-E if there were any credible argument that excess airborne GHG stocks could be removed by natural sinks before the feedbacks gain enough momentum to run amok, my interest is in effective sustainable Geo-E techniques. The meaning of "antecedent criterion" is unclear - does it refer to "a return to conditions prior to the problem" ? Or perhaps to "problem being insoluble without intervention" ? The "future state constraint" appears to generalize an assumption that all Geo-E options generate permanent change from the original condition. True in the sense that you can't step in the same river twice; untrue in that a gigahectare of forest carbon sink would both retore pre-industrial planetary tree cover and would help cleanse the atmosphere. Also untrue for albido restoration via 'cloud brightening,' where miniscule sea-salt particles, lofted in minute seawater droplets, would reliably be rained out within a few days, and would be generated to do so over the oceans. So is the paper generalizing unjustifyably, or is it just that the synopsis not able to express a more nuanced argument ? If the latter is the case, could you describe it ? Regards, Lewis
  6. Why I care about climate change
    ...Indeed its fair to say that today's establishment is ruled by the all powerful economic "realists". Once again science will triumph over the establishment's beliefs, but whereas it didn't happen within Galileo's lifetime, hopefully the establishment will see the error of its ways sooner than later.
  7. Pluto is warming
    Two questions: 1. Where are the scientific citations for "What the science says..." section? 2. The following statement has major logical flaws: "Any Plutonian warming cannot be caused by solar variations as the sun has showed little to no long term trend over the past 50 years and sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth." First off, why is it necessary for the sun to undergo long term variations over several decades for solar variations to affect Pluto? That is, why are short term variations completely irrelevant? For an extreme example, let's say the temperature of the sun doubled overnight and stayed that way for a year, only to fall back down to normal the next year. Does anyone seriously believe that such an extreme (but temporary) solar temperature jump wouldn't affect Pluto's temperature? Secondly why does the fact that the sunlight is 900 times weaker on Pluto necessitate that Pluto is not warming due to solar variations? Presumably the fact that Pluto is 500 times smaller in mass than the Earth with essentially no atmosphere plays a role, no?
  8. Why I care about climate change
    gallopingcamel @ 122 You fail to see the irony of your last post. Back in the day of Pope Urban VIII the establishment was based on theology. Galileo's theory of heliocentrism was based on science and the empirical observations that he could make. Who ended up being right? Galileo with his damnable science...
  9. Remember, we’re only human
    a most excellent post! the most insightful sentence is "What is needed is a radical change in how we see ourselves and our place on this planet." in my opinion, Cosmology should be a required course in high school and college. Not just evolution that has happened on earth with regard to our life forms but stellar evolution. the fact that the elements that make up life on earth were formed in stars billions of years ago is truly a tremendous revelation. if we all come to the realization that life on this planet is so rare and it took close to 15 billion years to get here causes one to pause. although i don't believe it, we might be the first fruits of that evolution and could be the only advanced civilization in the galaxy or universe. upon coming to that realization how frivalous are wars and religious/political squabbles? are we so ignorant and arrogant to destroy ourselves and snuff out the only life in the universe? sometimes i think it might be in our best interest to find life on another planet so that we put our existence in the proper perspective. and i agree with the first post by BP and all my beliefs in christianity are not nullified with my understanding of stellar evolution and the observations of our universe. the incredibly precise constants that are required to make life as we know it couldn't have happened by chance. the more i learn about the cosmos the more i realize that there must have been intelligent design and this cries out for a creator. i hope that our struggles now are just a turning point for our planet and only through education can we push through this to a new level of enlightenment and purpose. AGW is just one of the issues we are wrestling with and the good news is the cosmos has a funny way of exerting its influence no matter what we may 'beleive'. our only hope is to raise an educated public to discern which issues to focus on and which ones are real.
  10. gallopingcamel at 14:36 PM on 10 August 2010
    Why I care about climate change
    JMurphy (#121). Great work! You have listed the "learned fools" who know what they need to say to keep the gravy train rolling. All the experts in the establishment supported Urban VIII but history has forgotten who them.
  11. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Suppose you go to the Star City casino on Friday night and place a bet at roulette. I just fixed another point, now people in Sydney will know what you are talking about!
  12. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Who will win the NRL Grand Final in September? I have just fixed up your example for you.
  13. On Consensus
    #38: "The increase in the amount of new CO2 in the atmosphere each year is only about 45% of anthropogenic emissions (this is known as the "airborne fraction"). ... Ferdinand Engelbeen has an excellent webpage on this topic" My congratulations to Engelbeen for a strong bit of work. I've been playing with a slightly different way of showing this strong connection between atmospheric CO2 increase and CO2 emissions. The US EIA has a wealth of data on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by fuel type, by country, etc. These data can be turned into "annual world emissions of CO2 in Gtons". From MLO monthly CO2 concentrations, compute the annual high (Mar-Apr-May) and annual low (Sep-Oct-Nov) for each year. Form a delta CO2 (in ppm/yr) from these seasonal extrema; plot together with the world emissions: The right hand scale is emissions in Gtons; the left hand scale is ppm CO2/yr. A smoothed curve of the composite of the spring and fall extrema is shown; with the exception of the big dip in 1991, this graph is an extraordinary match to the emissions curve. What caused that drop in the rate of CO2 increase? Robock 2003 and others have established that the violent eruption of Mt. Pinatubo led to a short term cooling and diffusion of sunlight which in turn led to a profound increase in plant growth over the following few years. More plant growth, more CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. Note however, that the annual change in atmospheric CO2, even at the bottom of the dip, is still positive. Note also that the rate of CO2 increase quickly recovers its upward trend; as CO2 emissions continue to increase, we should be seeing 2.25-2.5 ppm/yr fairly soon.
  14. 10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
    #102: the stomata argument started wayyy back at #21. The geocraft website left out some critical bits from its source material (notably one of the Kouwenberg papers).
  15. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    Well before a disastrous 'upper limit' is reached, stress fractures occur: Search some variation of 'high electricity demand blackouts' in Google News and you find US electricity blackouts skyrocketing A hot month and a record power demand IEC, private producers pull out stops to avoid blackouts Electricity consumption reaching record highs Saudi Arabia needs $80B to spend on power by 2018 and so on. There was a popular saying in the late 70s-early 80s US oil patch: Let the bas_ards freeze in the dark (referring to folks in the northern US who complained about the high price of heating oil during those cold, cold winters). The times, they are a-changin'!
  16. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Hang on nhthinker. This is about a 3 minute spot on a radio station. A good opportunity to get thoughts in order and presented for people who don't normally consider scientific issues. A shopping list of thesis proposals is not what's required.
  17. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    #36: "Impact of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2 is generally accepted. So is it really 2, 3 or 4.5 C?" You're missing the point. The exact temperature change doesn't matter; the fact that temperature is increasing does. Or to use the analogy here, does it matter all that much whether you hit the brick wall at 70, 80 or 90 kph?
  18. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Shorter version of nhthinker's post: "Don't raise my taxes."
  19. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Bat, could you sort me out re your concept of map versus terrain? Earlier, if I understood you correctly, you remarked that the notion of energy being emitted by a magnetron and then being reabsorbed by the same magnetron is "gibberish" and cannot be supported by any experimental evidence. Yet we are confronted with the phenomenon of magnetrons prematurely failing when their RF emissions are not absorbed and converted to heat by something other than the magnetron that is also sympathetic to the magnetron operating frequency, w/the net effect of overheating the magnetron filament and thus prematurely shortening its normal useful lifespan as a thermionic emission source. If the same magnetron RF emissions are allowed to disperse in free space we do not see the phenomenon of shortened filament life we see in the case of their being confined to a fairly efficient reflective cavity having no exit but the magnetron waveguide itself. This result can reliably be reproduced in the case of having no observers. I think I understand something of what you're driving at w/regard to quantum mechanics yet here on the scale where we live we must explain failed magnetrons. What's the deal w/maps and terrain? How is it relevant to our scale?
  20. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Uncertainty: Impact of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2 is generally accepted. So is it really 2, 3 or 4.5 C? Our knowledge needed to tighten up this very wide range of estimates has not seriously improved since the first projections in the mid 70s. So much for certainty. And so much for the value of computer models to tighten up that estimate. How is the formation of high and low level clouds impacted by doubling of CO2 or a 2 C rise in temperature? (we don't know). How certain are we that ice core proxies are only inaccurate for the last 100 years and were never inaccurate before? (we don't know). What will be the response of deep water - (the real driver of long term climate trends be) to a 2 degree rise in surface temperatures? (we don't know). What will the solar activity be in the next hundred years? (we don't know). What will the volcanic activity be in the next 100 years? (we don't know). What will be the asteroid activity of the next hundred years? (we don't know). Who predicted the depth of the recent/current solar minima? (no one). Realistically, the global tax thing is doomed unless you expect to go to war with developing nations over it. When will be the creation a small low power source to replace 0.25 to 10,000 hp engines AND be lower cost than an internal combustion engine and burning carbon? In the next 50 years, how much improved will our scientific knowledge of CO2 be if CO2 continues to rise as opposed to stagnating? Fifty years from now, how much improved will our ability to create a create stationary and portable power sources that cost less than burning carbon from coal or oil or wood? How certain are we that the Earth would now be in the midst of an ice age were it not for the impact of humans? (we don't know) If you, by definition assume that every else that can impact climate averages out, we still are at 2 to 4.5 C. But it is only fools that ignore the uncertainty in their assumptions. So much for certainty.
  21. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    MattJ: Given the broadcast is going to be on RTR-FM, which is "a community radio station based in Perth, the capital city of Western Australia", then the references to Burswood Casino (in Perth) and AFL are probably much more appropriate than Monte Carlo & the World Cup. It could easily be modified for an international audience along the lines you suggest, though.
  22. The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    Nice interview with Dr. James Zwally on MSNBC's Countdown tonight. "Ice chunks 4x the size of Manhattan don't break off every day", etc. Video of the interview may be available here later tonight or tomorrow.
  23. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    This story about the current heat wave & forest fires in Russia perhaps gives an example of what a significant increase in global temperatures would bring. Long before we got to the point where areas became uninhabitable, we'd see these sorts of results in heatwaves become more and more frequent. The current problems in & around Moscow are likely due to the smog more than just the heat, but increasing temperatures brings an increasing risk of forest fires, too (and peat bog fires? That's a lot of carbon being released that was tied up for a few thousand years...)
  24. Confidence in climate forecasts
    JohnD "It is not enough to just focus on those warming processes that work to retain heat energy, those cooling processes that disperse and remove accumulated heat must also be quantified." Nothing 'removes' accumulated heat from the system except radiative transfer out to space I would have thought. The energy within the system concentrates in different places at different times. But the redistribution of heat between various parts of the land, ocean and atmosphere is exactly that. Redistribution. The more energetic the system, the more energetic the redistribution. Heat is only 'removed' from the system at large at the top of the atmosphere. The fact that the atmosphere and oceans within the system are over-excited and rocking and rolling all over the surface doesn't matter.
  25. Confidence in climate forecasts
    JohnD, clouds introduce uncertainty to GCMs in terms of radiative effects, not atmospheric heat transport. GCM functionality w/regard to redistribution of atmospheric heat appears quite good, not particularly controversial.
  26. Confidence in climate forecasts
    michael sweet at 10:22 AM, whilst it is a common cliche that climate is not weather, it is impossible to quantify climate without first understanding, and then quantifying the existing pattern of all the weather processes. Thus the GCM's that do understand, combine and quantify all weather processes provide the basis from which climate models are then able to articulate how the weather will (or should have) manifest(ed) itself at any point in time, both looking forward, and back. The main focus of the AGW theory is the role IR plays in the retention of heat energy. However IR only plays a small role in the movement of heat energy, about 25%(?), convection and conduction move and disperse the vast majority of heat energy, and of course these are weather processes, with clouds being an integral and dominating part of those processes. This then leads straight back to the inability of climate models in being able to successfully and adequately quantify such a dominating process. It is not enough to just focus on those warming processes that work to retain heat energy, those cooling processes that disperse and remove accumulated heat must also be quantified. Whilst the forecast of the next El-Nino/ La-Nina event may fall under the realm of weather forecasts, it is the frequency of such events and how they alternate that is relevant to the climate. A quick glance at the Quinn reconstruction of past El-Nino events over the last 500 years show clearly that such events are not regularly spaced but go through periods where they are more frequent and occur one upon another, and then times when they were infrequent. Given it is acknowledged that they are a result of redistributing heat energy then the obvious question is what caused such irregular patterns, patterns that seem to indicate as much, if not more regular occurrences in the past than at present. As an example, the extended drought that was responsible for the American dust bowl era, should it be weather forecasting, or climate forecasting, that can be used to forecast when such conditions might return? It is thought that another such pattern may be in the process of forming now. Which branch of the science does the responsibility for making predictions that may follow such longer term patterns, weather or climate modeling?
  27. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    batsvensson at 19:25 PM on 9 August, 2010 RSVP Category errors abounding here unfortunately. RSVP's sealed mirrored box with a lamp (an old chestnut that has sadly disappeared from the thread into the aether!) doesn't have the effect he supposes radiative theory should impose since in reality mirrors are only mostly reflective and in fact absorb a bit of energy at each of the millions of "bounces" of photons per second - if the box were to be opened, the opener might find it to have warmed a tiny amount; there certainly wouldn't be the expectation of a burst of photons of visible frequencies/energies/wavelengths. False premises don't advance arguments productively. Likewise bat's apparent negation of the possibility of knowledge of events involving electromagnetic radiation due to the "unknowability" inherent in quantum mechanics. We certainly don't know what a photon looks or smells like, or even whether one might have blue or brown eyes. However we have very functional models of photons (and electrons and atoms) and these manifest as macroscopic properties (absorption, emission, energy transfer, diffraction, excitation, relaxation and so on) that are extremely knowable. It is the macroscopic knowable elements of the electromagnetic spectrum that are of interest when we discuss rather basic (and also well understood) elements of radiative transfer in relation to the greenhouse effect. That's the bottom line, although one could develop this further. However it seems to me a very elemental indication of the knowability of macroscopic manifestations of microscopic quantum properties, that one can take very high energy photons (of X-ray energies; are these little chaps particles or waves or what??), blast them at crystallised proteins where they are diffracted by electrons (and the location of these chaps themselves can only be defined in probabilistic terms), to yield 3 dimensional atomic resolution structures that are sufficiently accurate that molecules can be designed by modelling, that bind to these proteins....and which themselves (the molecules) can be used to halt the progression of AIDS in fortunate recipients [*]. Clearly we know rather a lot about these supposedly unknowable manifestations of the EM radiation. What are the essential inputs to these advances? I'd say they're knowledge an impulse to understand difficult phenomena and to apply this knowledge and understanding productively. Even though we might not know whether a photon brushes it's teeth before going to bed at night, we can construct wonderfully effective models of its properties that have great explanatory power. [*] Of course if one was unfortunate enough to live in a country at a time when the scientific knowledge of HIV and AIDS was systematically misrepresented (e.g. South Africa under Mbeki), then the astonishing advances in antiretroviral therapies might have been of sadly little personal import. The misrepresentation of scientific knowledge tends to have victims, and one wonders at the impulse of those that go out of their way to do this, even at the lesser level...
  28. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    I have searched through all of my posts to this blog and can find nowhere that I have referred to AGW as a hypothesis. Pete, I think we're working through the hypothesis issue at your suggestion, or that is to say because of what implicitly appears to be a misunderstanding on your part judging by your own words. In your own words (many times): The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis It's not surprising some folks believe you're assigning AGW to the status of "hypothesis." On the other hand, the NAS says: Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. Comparing your words to the NAS it's reasonable to form the impression your assessment is at variance w/the scientific community. Now I suspect you're going to mention "significant" as the issue in play here. I suggest you turn to Part II of the NAS report and arm yourself with information before relying on significance of human contributions to climate change as a reason to dismiss concern over this issue. Overall Part II is an excellent summary of our understanding of this topic while beginning at page 158 you can read about the significance of human impacts on climate behavior. Be sure also to see figure 6.4.
  29. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    Pete, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your post. It seems to me that you are splitting hairs in your statements and complaining when others do not agree with your split. When I read the NAS statement it seems clear that they mean "The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis" has been measured as a fact. They clearly state that the scientific consensus is that severe consequences will result from BAU. They cite multiple lines of evidence. Where do you find room in the NAS statement to justify your claim that the measured changes are not significant? You did not respond to my list of predictions that have come to pass (theories predict things that come to pass). Sea level rise, sea ice loss and ice sheet loss exceed many of the model predictions. I think these are "significant human-made global climate change". Why do you think 2 meters of sea level rise (the current high end, raised from less than 1 meter only 3 years ago) will not be a problem for your grandchildren? The planning documents Doug quoted suggest that over 2 meters it will be too expensive to defend London. It will certainly be too expensive to defend Florida, where I live.
  30. Confidence in climate forecasts
    JMurphy at 06:42 AM, in response to your comment about the June model forecasts all being reasonably well aligned. Given that a La Nina pattern is now well established and is being predicted to be stronger and remain in place for over a year, then one would expect most credible models to be aligned. Where the models do differ is generally when patterns are changing with different models throwing up conflicting forecasts, and this is where the reputation of models is generally formed. A further refinement is considering how far out from such changes each of the models can begin forming reliable forecasts. Most will be able to forecast an event when it is imminent or already established, as BOM does, but being able to reliability predict a year ahead is beyond most, but not all, at present.
  31. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    I like it. It's short and clear. Another examples I like to enlighten about weather are the ball falling down a hill. You cannot predict short-term bounces, but you know it is going downwards. Or the river streams (weather) vs the course of the river (climate).
  32. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    Doug, may I start by apologising for accusing you of writing a diatribe. I was reacting to what actually thoughtfull said on the “Confidence in climate forecasts” thread. His comment was between two of yours and I associated the word with you – my mistake. Regarding what you call my “personal opinion of AGW being a hypothesis ”, I invite you to read my comment 56, 2nd paragraph. I cannot understand why you consider my opinion about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis conflicts with what you quoted from the NAS paper. I have searched through all of my posts to this blog and can find nowhere that I have referred to AGW as a hypothesis. I believe that I have used the term on only four occasions. That was thrice on “How reliable are the Climate models” (comments #207 on 26th July @ 19:52 & #217 on 28th July @ 02:34 – quoting Phil Scaddenthen, #219 on 28th July @ 06:46 – quoting JMurphy) then on the “Why I care “ thread on 8th August @18:18. None should give you the impression that you have. On the contrary the last two comments should make clear to anyone what I see as being The Hypothesis. I would appreciate you pointing out anywhere that I have said or suggested that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hypothesis. JMurphy, would it be unfair of me to accuse you of bias? I didn’t notice you huffing and puffing at actually thoughtfull on the “Confidence in climate forecasts” thread when he used the word “diatribe” in his comment to me on 9th August @ 07:00. Michael Sweet, it appears that you make the same mistaken interpretation of what I say as do others here. Could this be deliberate I ask myself. Best regard, Pete Ridley
  33. Confidence in climate forecasts
    More words to puzzle over: Belarus records its hottest temperature in history for the second day in a row The Russian heat wave has also affected the neighboring nations of Ukraine and Belarus. All three nations have recorded their hottest temperatures in history over the past few weeks. Belarus, on the western border of Russia, recorded its hottest temperature in history on Saturday, August 7, when the mercury hit 38.9°C (102°F) in Gomel. This broke the all-time record for extreme heat set just one day before, the 38.7°C (101.7°F) recorded in Gorky. Prior to 2010, the hottest temperature ever recorded in Belarus was the 38.0°C (100.4°F) in Vasiliyevichy on Aug. 20, 1946. As I described in detail in Saturday's post, Belarus' new all-time extreme heat record gives the year 2010 the most national extreme heat records for a single year--seventeen. These nations comprise 19% of the total land area of Earth. This is the largest area of Earth's surface to experience all-time record high temperatures in any single year in the historical record. Looking back at the past decade, which was the hottest decade in the historical record, seventy-five countries set extreme hottest temperature records (33% of all countries.) For comparison, fifteen countries set extreme coldest temperature records over the past ten years (6% of all countries). Earth has now seen four consecutive months with its warmest temperature on record, and the first half of 2010 was the warmest such 6-month period in the planet's history. It is not a surprise that many all-time extreme heat records are being shattered when the planet as a whole is so warm. Global warming "loads the dice" to favor extreme heat events unprecedented in recorded history. Dr. Jeff Masters' Wundergound Blog My eyebrows are up.
  34. Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
    Also wanted to share this review of the iPhone app in Apple's app store. Shows what kind of tactics the science based approach has to confront: ------ Superseded by Our Climate (3 out of 5 stars) by James Mann Schneider - Version 1.1.0 - Aug 6, 2010 It was a relatively good idea to bring the climate change arguments to an iPhone. But this particular app is extremely buggy, crashes all the time, and contains numerous mistakes. IT professionals and top climate scientists have now improved John Cook's project and developed a much better application called "Our Climate" which contains lots of quizzes, charts, polls, besides dozens of concise articles about all aspects of the climate and its drivers. -------- Simply incredible and deeply revealing about the ethics of denialism. For those not familiar with it, "Our Climate" is prominently featured on wattsupwiththat.com
  35. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    I like the post as written. I like to use an analogy trying to show the difference between weather and climate like this. If I had to forecast how much rain we will have the next 12 months I could do so but the odds of being correct are small. Because that's weather. If you ask me how much rain we will have over the next 30 years I would take the average yearly rainfall and multiply times 30. The odds of being correct for 30 years Are much better. The reason being 12 months is weather, or noise if you will, and 30 years is climate which filters out the noise.
  36. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    I have updated the chart with rolling 12 month values for the latest GISS data (to June 2010). It is of possible interest to those looking at "record" temperatures that the current 12 month average is the highest on record (both for station data and Land plus Ocean data).
  37. Confidence in climate forecasts
    JMurphy at 06:42 AM, if you go to the site indicated below as a starting point, you will be able to go back through the archives to the 2007 forecasts and follow how the predictions evolved. Also go to the email discussion link within the page that provides some background as to how the implications of coming up with a strongly negative forecast were being closely considered given most other agencies were providing more rosy outlooks, at a time when the rural sector was particularly wanting a rosy picture painted. The print media gave quite a bit coverage to the matter when they picked up on the story the following year. http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/sintex_f1_forecast.html.var
  38. Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
    Thought-provoking scientific freshness: Many geoengineering projects have been proposed to address climate change, including both solar radiation management and carbon removal techniques. Some of these methods would introduce additional compounds into the atmosphere or the ocean. This poses a difficult conundrum: Is it permissible to remediate one pollutant by introducing a second pollutant into a system that has already been damaged, threatened, or altered? We frame this conundrum as the “Problem of Permissible Pollution.” In this paper, we explore this problem by taking up ocean fertilization and advancing an argument that rests on three moral claims. We first observe that pollution is, in many respects, a context-dependent matter. This observation leads us to argue for a “justifiability criterion.” Second, we suggest that remediating actions must take into account the antecedent conditions that have given rise to their consideration. We call this second observation the “antecedent conditions criterion.” Finally, we observe that ocean fertilization, and other related geoengineering technologies, propose not strictly to clean up carbon emissions, but actually to move the universe to some future, unknown state. Given the introduced criteria, we impose a “future-state constraint”.” We conclude that ocean fertilization is not an acceptable solution for mitigating climate change. In attempting to shift the universe to a future state (a) geoengineering sidelines consideration of the antecedent conditions that have given rise to it --conditions, we note, that in many cases involve unjustified carbon emissions --and (b) it must appeal to an impossibly large set of affected parties. Geoengineering, Ocean Fertilization, and the Problem of Permissible Pollution
  39. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Timely arrival of new integration of anthropogenic C02 emissions w/carbon cycle: "What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data," says Erich Roeckner. According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase from approximately seven billion tonnes of carbon in the year 2000 to a maximum value of around ten billion tonnes in 2015. In order to achieve the long-term stabilisation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century. Although, based on these calculations, global warming would remain under the two-degree threshold until 2100, further warming may be expected in the long term: "It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise," says Erich Roeckner. More: New carbon dioxide emissions model
  40. Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
    Semperviren's idea of a quiz is terrific. Could be constantly refreshed by randomly picking ten questions.
  41. Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
    The iPhone app is great, though I've noticed that there are some pretty slick denialist apps making it into the app store (Apple demonstrated a lack of good judgement in showing the "Our Climate" app in the Featured apps). One feature I would like to emphatically request would be something along the lines of a quiz that delved from the top level of your one-line rebuttal list into more detail with later stages. I've noticed that it's hard for regular people who have really examined the scientific basis on AGW to recall counter arguments in conversation because they are quite often trying to formulate an explanation rather than attain a rhetorical win. I feel like a sort of multiple choice test within the app would really add a lot of value, something people could use to become familiar with the vast array of denial arguments and how they relate to the established research so they aren't surprised and shut down when someone brings out a specious yet convincing-sounding talking point. In a water cooler debate, it's really not going to convince anyone if you have to go back to the computer or check your app to make a response. People who care about this issue should have a certain level of retention of the facts. Hopefully that would lead to greater confidence in their ability to speak what they know to be true and bring about more debate without science based arguments being derailed by esoteric pinpricking. Great job on the site and the apps!
  42. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    Pete, did you notice in the above quote (57) the NAS says that AGW has gone beyond the status of well supported theory and should be considered an observed fact. You are a little behind saying it is only a hypothesis. Maybe you can update and say it is only a theory, not a fact. The predictions of change that were made in the 70's and 80's are happening faster than predicted (ice melt, sea level rise, extreme precipitation, fires, ocean acidity). What makes you so optimistic that the future will be better than forecast?
  43. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    Pete Ridley wrote : "As I indicated, I’ll need to make some time to look more closely at what has been claimed in Doug’s diatribe." You just get better at posting more lack of substance. You accuse someone of composing a bitter, abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism (otherwise known as a diatribe - but against what or whom is still unclear), even though you admit you haven't had "time to look more closely at what has been claimed" ! Are you just permanently set on 'argue the opposite', no matter how little you know' ? And yet...you haven't had time to look closely to see whether the 'diatribe' was, in fact, based on facts, BUT have been able to find a little time to assert (against, don't forget, something you haven't had time to check up on) that "[o]n the contrary, it seems that The Great Flood 1968 (Note 2) may have been worse and what about 1953, 1928, 1894, 1891, 1877, 1875, 1872 and 1869?. (I’m sure there are more)." So, you are asserting something that you don't know to be true (the years you mention MIGHT have had greater floods, especially the year 1968 whose title of 'The Great Flood' may have led you to believe it MUST have been a biggy) against something that you haven't actually checked ! The title of this thread is called "Grappling with Change : London and the River Thames" : that is nothing compared with grappling with so-called skepticism and trying to work out which argument is honest and credible, and which is made up as they are typing.
  44. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    Pete, in the interest of being fully informed regarding your personal opinion of AGW being a hypothesis as opposed to where the scientific community today stands, I encourage you to read this NAS report, which I cited in the article. It's not possible to provide redundant and lengthy supporting material in everything written about this topic, but down here we have a little more room so I'll just quote briefly to address your concerns: Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. It's worth stopping and thinking a moment to consider this juxtaposition, a very simple one: your opinion versus the NAS. Again I encourage you to read more, that's all I can do.
  45. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Concerning 'obscure' references to "AFL Grand Final" and "Burswood": surely there are much more international examples you could use, readily understandable even to Americans;) I have in mind "World Cup" and "Monte Carlo". As Wikipedia says, "Monte Carlo is widely known for its casino". And since soccer, a.k.a. 'football' has become much more popular over the last 20 years in the US, Americans finally know what the World Cup is -- as most of the world has long known. Why, we even know what vuvuzelas are -- which might be a good analogy for the droning of disinformation from the 'skeptics';)
  46. Why I care about climate change
    gallopingcamel wrote : "For example, I reject the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson at the EPA who claims that CO2 is a pollutant." Come on : to be more accurate, you should write : "I reject what I believe to be the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson and the EPA who have put forward a very clear case that CO2 is a pollutant." This is because you reject the findings of EPA authors and contributors Benjamin DeAngelo, Jason Samenow, Jeremy Martinich, Doug Grano, Dina Kruger, Marcus Sarofim, Lesley Jantarasami, William Perkins, Michael Kolian, Melissa Weitz, Leif Hockstad, William Irving, Lisa Hanle, Darrell Winner, David Chalmers, Brian Cook, Chris Weaver, Susan Julius, Brooke Hemming, Sarah Garman, Rona Birnbaum, Paul Argyropoulos, Al McGartland, Alan Carlin, John Davidson, Tim Benner, Carol Holmes, John Hannon, Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Andy Miller, and Pamela Williams. And you reject the findings of Federal expert reviewers Virginia Burkett, USGS; Phil DeCola; NASA; William Emanuel, NASA; Anne Grambsch, EPA; Jerry Hatfield, USDA; Anthony Janetos; DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service; Thomas Karl, NOAA; Michael McGeehin, CDC; Gavin Schmidt, NASA; Susan Solomon, NOAA; and Thomas Wilbanks, DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory. You also reject the scientific knowldege of NOAA, USGCRP, IPCC, CCSP, NRC, EPA, ACIA, on which the EPA Report is heavily based. You also reject an EPA Report that "...relies most heavily on existing, and in most cases very recent, synthesis reports of climate change science and potential impacts, which have undergone their own peer-review processes, including review by the U.S. government." You also reject the document which also "underwent a technical review by 12 federal climate change experts, internal EPA review, interagency review, and a public comment period." To view more that gallopingcamel rejects, the report is here. Perhaps you agree with the petitioners who complained, including the states of Texas and Virginia and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and challenged the EPA regulations, citing recent controversies as evidence of flaws in climate science and a conspiracy among mainstream scientists to shut out dissenting views ? Well, the EPA rejected those. So, what do you reject and why ? What makes you believe that your own scientific knowledge is good enough to reject the EPA Report ? Don't say it's all down to politics...!
  47. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Your ending is... "So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h. No one in their right mind would do it." Good; but personally I'd suggest a slightly different ending. Something like... "So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h... because it might not hurt. Are you feeling lucky? "
    Moderator Response: I like it! SL
  48. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Replying to John Brookes, #5: yes, it is analogous to the stock market. The problem is that if we use the stock market, we are using one phenomenon they don't understand, to explain another phenomenon they don't understand. After all, one of the first lessons we learn about the stock market -- if we learn it at all -- is that "Mr. Market" is a moody and irrational character, who swings between feckless optimism and boundless despair precisely because the majority of traders are trading irrationally, with no understanding of statistical averages and chaotic phenomena (as explained by http://beginnersinvest.about.com/library/lessons/nlesson2a.htm). But we can see something very similar in 'discussions' of climate change a.k.a. global warming; the confusion of 'climate' with 'weather' is also based on lacking that understanding, and is very persistent. Also, I think hengist in #23 is making the same point I noticed reading the article: in what way is football not also "a result of physical processes"? Is this really the right way to say what you are trying to say? A lot of your listeners, after all, are reductionists. As such, they do not question that football is also "a result of physical processes". Directly contradicting this assumption with no preparation is not the way to win them over to your side. I would like to say that the football analogy is more widely understood, but then again, years ago I noticed how my fellow countrymen like to talk on and on about sports without actually ever taking the effort to know what they are talking about. As often, it is what they think they know that isn't even true that leads them so far astray. Yet even so, sports is a better analogy than the stock market because despite the principal failure to understand (which I mention above), they at least understand that batting averages (in baseball) are important -- even if they persistently misunderstand what that importance is. The casino analogy might actually be better simply because most people do stay away from them, understanding that the house always wins. Even if it is true that they believe this more out of cynicism than out of understanding of probabilities, at least they do understand it. Another advantage of the casino advantage is that people know about card tricks and cheating in casinos -- and there is a lot of tricks and cheating going on in the fossil-fuel industry's campaign of disinformation about AGW. Surely this analogy will be easy to draw on within that three minutes.
  49. greenhousegaseous at 02:52 AM on 10 August 2010
    Has Global Warming Stopped?
    John and the many constructive and erudite commentators: a really *superb* discussion and a thorough addressing of perhaps the most simplistic claim of denialists, that GW has stopped, and/or that cooling has set in. Luckily I was trained in econometrics, so can appreciate most of what you all have presented here. As a thoughtful reader, I would ask only that John or someone among you who is qualified relate the *rate* (meaning overall pace) of warming in the present era to what the ice cores and other sources tell us about the rate of temperature change in past periods. It has nothing to do with the thread, admittedly; it would simply be a useful addendum for those of us sharing the link to this post and discussion with non-readers. But job well done! Ahh, but now we all (again) face the dilemma: how do we make this clear understanding available to the key 250 million educated *busy* voters in the world-controlling democracies in a format and level of exposition they can understand, without requiring them to immerse themselves in our various arcane specialized fields? Or to read John’s fine blog, for that matter? Much more to the point in these days of harassment by popular charlatans out for media attention, how do we ensure these most-vital constituents have sufficient confidence in the work of dedicated climate and earth science professionals to carry the message of a human-dominated ecosystem in crisis to others, beginning with their own children and grandchildren? It is easy to dismiss these millions, saying they should know enough science to follow such a telling thread as this one. That fatuous response won’t help us, or more importantly, them, now.
  50. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    JMurphy, thanks for providing others with those excellent definitions of “theory” and “hypothesis”. I always try to choose my words very carefully and the definition of “hypothesis” fits perfectly The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis i.e. “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation”. Of course, those investigations into those significan uncertainties about global climate processes and drivers continue across the globe, at enormous but necessary expense. There is so much that the scientists need to learn. Thanks again. Regarding the links that you provided to what you appear to (mistakenly) regard as evidence sufficient to change the status of The Hypothesis to that of a theory, these simply support the argument that during the past 150 years there appears to have been a small amount of global warming, some of which has been contributed to by humans. Few sceptics would seriously dispute this. What they do not provide evidence of is that such warming will continue indefinitely to the detriment of humankind. BTW, I do not believe that I have ever sought to disprove the theory of AGW. If you can find me suggesting that anywhere then please let me know and I’ll correct it. Thanks for providing that help that I asked for about evidence to support the claim “historically unprecedented rainfall deluge”. Maybe the Pit Review includes such evidence rather than simply making the claim which you quoted. As I indicated, I’ll need to make some time to look more closely at what has been claimed in Doug’s diatribe. There is a big difference between “unprecedented” and “unprecedented since records began” and I hinted at a similar error in one of Doug’s comments on the “Confidence on Climate Models” thread (see his mini-diatribe at comment #93 and my comment #97). Doug, there’s a time and a place for everything. Don’t worry. I’ll enjoy my grandchildren and look more closely at the scare stories about London sinking under the seas as and when I choose until I pass on to the hopefully perpetually warm and comfortable life to follow this one (if what I was told during my childhood is to be believed). Best regards, Pete Ridley

Prev  2253  2254  2255  2256  2257  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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