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  2254  2255  2256  2257  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  Next

Comments 113051 to 113100:

  1. Peter Hogarth at 20:32 PM on 9 August 2010
    Confidence in climate forecasts
    Argus at 02:58 AM on 7 August, 2010 I am assuming that you use modeling in your profession at some level, as I do. Models are almost universal tools, but we know they are simplifications, and to use them successfully we must understand and accept their limitations. Where climate models have fallen down in the past they have (at least to my knowledge) done so because they have not included factors which turn out to be more significant than previously thought (such as water vapour or cloud feedback, in many older models) or have not been calculated to high enough resolution (for instance to resolve eddy effects in Ocean studies). The models constantly improve, but by adding in more factors, increasing complexity and by using improved processing power to increase resolution, not by some sort of fudge factor “fitting”. As has been pointed out, many of the IPCC models -in general- underestimated the reality of evolving sea level rise or Arctic ice loss. However another extremely important point is that models are the only way of running climate experiments and control experiments in parallel. We do not have that luxury in reality. Your point about media bias cuts both ways, but this is in many cases not objective science (either way).
  2. What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
    Yes I liked that one.
  3. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    doug_bostrom, your are confusing the map with the terrain.
  4. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Re #23. Maybe .."climate, unlike football, is the result of processes that obey laws of nature"? (I suppose chaos is still accounted for in those laws.) Re #2 and #3, I was trying to cover the consequence if as a result of a GFC only half as much is bet(probably TWICE as much in a GFC!). The high roller effect is appropriate as #3 suggests. Perhaps ... "They can confidently expect to make on average a certain percentage of bets placed,though over short time periods or when a high roller appears this percentage can be higher or even be a loss. Over a sufficiently long period the profit is predictable and positive" Hmm.. maybe that's too much of a mouthful and confusing and you only have 3 mins! Think I'll go home now ..
  5. Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
    Doug, that’s quite a scary diatribe you’ve put together there so will take a bit of reading. Never mind, I’ll try to make the time to go through it in detail. On a quick scan I was immediately reminded of a similar scare story about climate change and the risk of Westminster being drowned – Mark Lynas’s science fiction booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” (Note 1). That has as its front cover a picture of London almost underwater – enough to frighten the most sceptical member of the general public into accepting without question The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Well, not quite. I was very concerned about my grand-childrens’ future after reading the Times on Sunday’s 11th March 2007 review of Six Degrees so I went to the library and took out the book. It is full of misrepresentations which I’ve pointed out to Mark but he was never prepared to respond on them. I wonder if you will adopt the same approach if I find any in your missive. Lets make a start. 1) “Since the design and construction of the Thames Barrier, anthropogenic global warming has moved from a state of hypothesis to that of established, accepted theory, has become a factual challenge”. No Doug, The Hypothesis remains a hypothesis. 2) I can find no evidence to support the claim “historically unprecedented rainfall deluge” in the statement “ .. 2007's .. rainfall deluge and subsequent flooding caused enormous damage over a large region southern England .. ”. On 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). Perhaps you’d like to provide a link to the evidence that supports your statement about 2007. Another thing that strikes me about your diatribe – it makes the assumption that the small amount of global warming that we may have experienced over the past 150 years is going to continue and have a significant impact upon the extent of flooding in the SE of England. As I understand it this is only a hypothesis based upon the projections of computer models that have never been validated, but that’s for a different thread. Sorry, must dash as the boss is calling. NOTES: 1) see http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002RI9F0E/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0007209045&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=114R8ETZ1PW2FS220J2B 2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1968 Best regards, Pete Ridley
  6. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    I always preferred the analogy of the climate with a big ship headed toward an uncharted reef. Both the climate and the ship have large inertia and respond slowly. Steering clear of trouble means turning the wheel well before the collision is imminent. React too slowly, and sure we might miss the above water portion of the reef, only to be sunk by submerged rocks (uncertainty?). But hey, that's just me. Mark me down as another tick for the casino analogy.
  7. What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
    I don't think Wayne Johnston (at 11:52 AM on 22 July, 2010) got the credits he deserved for his comment (#9). That is a very funny answer to the original question!
  8. hengistmcstone at 18:21 PM on 9 August 2010
    Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    "climate, unlike football, is the result of physical processes" That is subject to challenge because football (or the result of a football match, if you like) is a physical process. Apologies if there is a scientific sense to this phrase, but to me football (whether ozzie rules,american or soccer) looks pretty damn physical. Would it be trolling to point out that some (extremely rare and talented) people make their living betting on football?
  9. actually thoughtful at 17:47 PM on 9 August 2010
    Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    20 RSVP - knowing about AGW only helps if humanity has the wisdom to act. So far, not so good. But with Russia on fire and the Middle East looking at 130F - maybe there will be a sea change (ahem!).
  10. actually thoughtful at 17:45 PM on 9 August 2010
    Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Love the casino bit. The 80kph/brick wall is, well abrupt (pardon the pun). Consider something more like this: "The options we face are to hit that brick wall at 40, 80 or 120 kph. The course of wisdom is obvious." (as the final paragraph). I just didn't transition with you to the car and the brick wall and I ended up with road rash after you focused on it for 4 paragraphs. It is "hard hitting" (ooh I am just on fire tonight) and I realize you are painting verbal broad-stroke pictures, so perhaps my suggestion doesn't help. Hopefully it does.
  11. Communicating climate science in plain English
    I find in reading those sites that say that climate problems are a myth that their evidence is very sparse and inconclusive. Recently I read Book 1 of the free e-book series "In Search of Utopia" (http://andgulliverreturns.info), it blasts their lack of evidence relative to several myths. The book, actually the last half of the book, takes on the skeptics in global warming, overpopulation, lack of fresh water, lack of food, and other areas where people deny the evidence. I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to see the whole picture read the book, at least the last half. There is also up to date information at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
  12. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Sorry I left out an important part of the deal. If AGW does pan out, the fund gets split amongst Climate Scientist grandchildren. But in that case, how exactly did knowing about AGW help?
  13. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    On your last comment connects nicely with the Oreskes and Conway book (Merchants of Doubt) "So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty..." - is acting methodologically as the anti-science brigade often do, focusing on the fact of uncertainty to undermine confidence in firm evidence.
  14. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    scaddenp: Thanks for chasing the papers. An excellent learning exercise.
  15. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Perhaps it would only be fair then to direct all the CO2 emission penalties to a huge fund that holds this money until 2100, and if AGW predictions dont pan out, not only is the money returned, but the same amount is paid in full by Climate Scientist's grandchildren.
  16. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Regarding alliteration, what about '...unbearably bad' ?
    Moderator Response: Yes, sounds great. SL
  17. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Hot Tweets: Skeptical Science connects AGW scam to casino owners and developments in car crash safety http://bit.ly/b1JVtv
  18. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    #12, In a way, that is also an indication that means rule in the end. The large cells, etc, lacked fine detail and so aggregated over large regions, but they got the general picture pretty close anyway.
  19. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    It might be useful to work in something to the effect that even if the car is going to hit a wall, it would be better to hit it at 40 than 80. After all, we are all riding in the car whether we like it or not. But maybe that adds too much complexity to have a clear effect on the listener.
    Moderator Response: Great idea but I worry about complexity (and time, I only got 3 minutes). SL
  20. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    "Broeker's climate modelling would have been far less sophisticated back in 1975 - hence, possibly a very lucky prediction irrespective of computing power " We let's see. Paper is here He slightly overestimated the amount of CO2 for 2010 - 403ppm which I think does involve a bit of luck because he was also working on assumption that 50% of CO2 emitted was absorbed which he couldn't have had pinned down well then. He used the result of Manabe and Wetherald GCM for a sensitivity of 2.4 and calculated from there. How "lucky" were Manabe and Wetherald? Well their model is extremely crude. A strange globe of land and "wet land", no ocean currents, huge cell size. And yet their sensitivity isnt far from current estimates of 3. They got arctic amplication right and so on. Crowley's incredibly primitive model still reproduces the ice ages very well. Rather than luck, I would suggest that the broad features of the climate are relatively easily captured and estimated. Finer detail is hard.
  21. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Very minor typo at "And no on in..". The casino is a nice extension to Hansen's loaded die analogy. Broeker was so on that it risks appearing to be a bit of luck, especially considering that modern models come in between 2 and 4.5 C, mostly, per doubling. Having said that and having seen some of Wally's work, the guy is astute; he has a rare clarity of vision. Despite Schneider's subsequent retraction regarding the cooling of aerosols in comparison to the warming of CO2, there is the risk that it could also be said that global cooling was predicted at the same time.
    Moderator Response: well spotted typo, thanks SL
  22. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    I would also suggest that the law of probability also extends ACROSS a range of independent events (in space) and not just across time for a single user. So multiple INDEPDENDENT lines of evidence, each with ever so slight bias can very quickly tease out the reward for a casino.
  23. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Broeker's climate modelling would have been far less sophisticated back in 1975 - hence, possibly a very lucky prediction irrespective of computing power (but I'm happy to stand corrected). He seems very much the pessimist about our future today. I note his enthusiasm for geoengineering. Jumping to the car crash analogy, I note the road toll could be cut to nearly zero by placing a long and very sharp steel spike protruding from the steering wheel stopping about in inch away from the driver's sternum. I don't think it'll catch on, somehow.
  24. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Perhaps using the word -only- climate is the result only of physical processes, or contrast with footy rules, there's no umpire for heat or clouds. ????? By and large, I think it's terrific.
  25. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    I do love the casino analogy. Surely someone somewhere is compiling a quotation reference set for the best of the best in the analogy/ metaphor/ simile competition.
  26. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Being concerned about sound supporting or hindering meaning, I would much, much prefer unbelievably bad to inconceivably bad. 'Unbelievable' is a more familiar word and a little bit of alliteration can be a strong reinforcer of the 'bad' word you're already repeating. And I'd modify the footy thing a bit - a lot of people would argue with the notion that footy is not the result of physical processes. Haven't thought of a way to rephrase yet.
  27. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    I love the casino analogy. Another excellent analogy is the stock market. There is a great deal of randomness overlaying an underlying upward trend. Last century there were a couple of decades where there was no upward movement in the major stock indices, but ultimately they resumed their ever upwards climb. This addresses the contrarian, "but its been cooling for the last decade" type argument. Incidentally, I haven't seen any work on how long a pause or downturn in global temperatures we can expect to see from time to time as the world continues warming.
  28. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    To the extent there is uncertainty, "it is not your friend". Me thinks that was a Real Climate response will go try and find if you wish.
  29. Why I care about climate change
    Pete Ridley @ 114 & 117, gallopingcamel @ 111 Since this a post on both belief and climate change, I suppose your comments do fall within the topic. However if this was a post on science and climate change you would need to bring a whole lot more science. On the subject of beliefs and people's reluctance to let go of them: "You can lead a mule to knowledge, but you can't make it think"
  30. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    John Chapman: Yes, it's a small percentage of total bets placed, but it's still a large sum, and it's still a good analogy for understanding the difference between short-term variability and longer-term trends. The casino doesn't take (to pick a figure out of the air) 2% of every bet placed. They win some, they lose some, but thanks to the maths, they know that in the long term they'll win 2% more than they lose. Throw in the odd high-roller winning or losing big (c.f. El Nino or La Nina) and it's not a bad analogy at all! paulgrace: I had to read the original twice to get what you were saying... amazing how one word can change the context so much! (Probably need to add "will be" after Perth, to make it grammatically correct)
  31. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    It may be worth following on from the 1976 prediction with a sentence on what temperature(s) the more recent models are predicting in 2100. And I suppose to be totally correct (and pedantic), a casino's profit is a percentage of bets placed rather than an absolute figure.
    Moderator Response: Good points, concerning the latter, how about "...they can confidently expect to turn a handsome profit at the end of the year, which for the folks who own the Burswood was $280 million in 2009."
  32. Confidence in climate forecasts
    2010 seems to be doing a splendid job of smashing previous record high temperatures in Moscow.
  33. Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
    Ah, small note: The eclipse prediction is not right. The next total eclipse is in 2012. Unless you meant "...that will be visible from Perth" which isn't what you wrote.
    Moderator Response: Thanks, well spotted. SL
  34. 1934 - hottest year on record
    Sorry, I did not notice Peter Hogarth's convenient links directly to fairly comprehensive descriptions that should answer Broadland's questions about how and why adjustments are made. Apparently Broadlands also missed Peter's helpful links, leading him to form the erroneous conclusion that the data have been corrected, homogenized, and re-corrected so much in so many ways that they are almost unrecognizable. Broadlands, before making a remark like that you really ought to go and find out where the truth lies. If you then have problems with what you read, why not specifically address those things that leave you feeling bothered? For instance, are you bothered by corrections to remove UHI from the record? If so, why? Using words like you do instead of learning more about your subject might lead somebody to form the wrong impression. Earlier you remarked, It would be absurd to think that some sort of conspiracy has taken place but some plausible explanation should be available for this consistent trend. Peter then did better than did I by providing you with specific pointers the information you asked for. Why not use it? You earlier remarked that your inquiry for information to NCDC had so far not enjoyed a reply. I can well imagine that staffers at NCDC might be frustrated by questions they've already gone to the trouble of answering.
  35. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    #53: scaddenp is correct. Oil and gas form at agonizingly slow rates. There are numerous estimates of the ultimate quantity of oil existing on earth; take 1750 billion Bbl as a guesstimate. From UMichigan GS265. Gb=Billion Bbls The oldest known oil may be about 540 million years in age. That's a ballpark formation rate of about 3500 Bbl/year -- against an average consumption rate of 5+ billion Bbl/year from the late 1800s on. (same source: 761 GBbl cumulative production in 130 years, starting around 1865 thru 1995). So we are indeed taking it out MUCH faster than it gets put in.
  36. 1934 - hottest year on record
    What's your point, Broadlands? For that matter, why are you pointing us to a scan of a National Geographic article from 1976 as some kind of authoritative source for temperature data?
  37. Confidence in climate forecasts
    Pete Ridley #92 Or somewhere between adelady's simple explanation, and the more complex one in the moderator's response: ENSO is a process which moves heat around the planet surface. So if heat is used in one place it will by necessity not be used elsewhere (law of conservation of energy). So this means that ENSO can not explain the rising temperatures, as there has to be an energy input in order for this to happen. This could come from a few places, including the sun, volcanic activity (transfer of deep heat to surface) and greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately for your argument, it's pretty well established that greenhouse gasses (largely CO2 from fossil fuels) are the only reasonable explanation we have left.
  38. 1934 - hottest year on record
    PETER... The data have been corrected, homogenized, and re-corrected so much in so many ways that they are almost unrecognizable. Then, there are at least four sets of US temperatures: (1) NCDC, All 48 states, summed, and averaged. (2) NCDC, All 48 states, summed by regions, and averaged (3) The 48 state averages re-weighted and averaged by NCDC. (4) All 48 states, weighted, summed and averaged using the ORIGINAL US Weather Bureau monthly reports. Comparing any of the first three with #4, ALL of them are LOWER than the values that were measured and weighted prior to ~1950. ALL of them show NCDC temperature departures for every month of every year that are almost twice as low in the winter months as in the summer months. You point to 1934 as the third warmest year? The NCDC reported 1934 at 54.8°C. But, the ORIGINAL US Weather Bureau data for 1934 will show that it was 55.1°F, 0.3°F warmer. That puts 1934 in second place...record highs in 10 states. 1921 is in first place...record highs in 10 states.. all different states.. 1998 is third...record highs in 9 states, again all different from those in either 1921 or 1934. Evidence? Read these excerpts from the 'raw' US Weather Bureau official reports: "On the basis of weighted averages for the several sec- tions, the year 1940 was normal as to mean temperature; the value for the year was 53.6°, as compared with a mean of 53.7° for the period 1891 to 1940, inclusive, and the extremes of 55.6° in 1921 and 51.8° in 1917" or this... "On the basis of weighted averages the year 1941 was practically normal in respect to mean temperature, the departure being less than 1° above the mean value of 53.7°. The extremes of temperature on the weighted basis were 55.6° in 1921, and 51.8° in 1917. or this... The mean temperature for the year 1942, derived by weighting the averages for the varying areas of the several States, was exactly normal, being 53.2°,or the same as the average for the 1886 to 1942 period, during which time the highest mean annual temperature was 55.6° in 1921 and the lowest, 51.8° in 1917. The NCDC however now has 'corrected' them all... 1921 at 54.5°F, 1.1° lower 1917 at 50.8°F, 1.0° lower 1940 at 52.6°F, 1.0° lower 1942 at 52.6°F, 0.6° lower.
  39. Confidence in climate forecasts
    #92 Pete Ridley. "Perhaps the real culprit causing those global weather events that are being misinterpreted as human-made global climate change is El Ni˜no and not our use of fossil fuels." Have you not heard the expression? Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches.
  40. Confidence in climate forecasts
    Don't forget that as the earth warms (leading to higher and more common temperature records), there will also be more precipitation : As Earth gets warmer, large regions will experience heavier rain and snowfall as weather becomes generally more intense, according to a new study. LiveScience I wonder how many so-called skeptics are continuing to ignore reality in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan or China ? Maybe they'll be trying to convince themselves that it was just the same about 30 years ago, or whenever.
  41. Confidence in climate forecasts
    I myself can't say what might work, actually thougtfull. Simply bludgeoning people with clean facts clearly does not work. Analogies only seem to work if they're deployed in a dialog with receptivity in play. Another disturbing finding is that repeating corrections over and over again to people who can't fit that new information into their system tends to harden misconceptions. This suggests that simply droning on and on in the same way is not only pointless but actively counterproductive. How to fit this information into communications efforts? This is a subject of study itself. I don't have the expertise to offer practical advice for others to use. I've heard of "Web of Belief" but have not read it, will now scurry off to find out more. Thanks!
  42. actually thoughtful at 07:00 AM on 9 August 2010
    Confidence in climate forecasts
    Pete Ridley, I absolutely concur that if Spencer were in a room with 99 climate scientists not afraid to face the results of their work, he would end up red-faced (and embarrassed). Now perhaps I am obtuse, but I have no idea what error you are finding in comparing a country's national heat records to the hottest temperature in that nation's history. Would you care to simply state your point, or do you prefer riddles? Or is it irksome that your points, once established, are fairly quickly refuted? Pete if you have some evidence for your stance by all means share it. Randomly posting diatribes (well documented, to be sure) that don't inform the debate seems pointless to me. As near as I can tell, the original poster's point that we can assume 2 or 3 degrees of warming over the next 50-100 years remains unchallenged by your comments. If you seek to challenge that, I would expect to see some evidence that CO2 is not changing the earth's equilibrium temperature (and of course the explanation for what is changing the equilibrium) or the negative (ie cooling) feedback that the climate researchers have missed. To date you have us trying to figure out your riddles and sending us on wild goose chases to your content-light posts weeks ago about whether Roy Spencer will be embarrassed or not in a room full of real climate scientists!
  43. Confidence in climate forecasts
    I do absolutely depend on the world "continuum," Pete. The number line really works for me. I can't play your word game regarding heat records because you're a little too obscure with your rules. In any case, those are not my claims, they're readings passed along by a meteorologist.
  44. What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
    As the moderator took exception to some of the quotes I offered in my previous version of this comment I have removed what I believe was objected to so you’ll have to refer to the article itself for the full context. Here’s the revision. What do you get when you put 99 climate scientists who support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in a room with a sceptical climate scientist like Dr. Roy Spencer – red faces? I think that Claude Sandroff (Note 1 - American Thinker) would agree with this. In his article “Global Warming, R.I.P” he reviews Spencer’s latest book on the subject (Note 2). Readwhat he says when talking about “.. this highly skilled climatologist and his The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists, .. ”. Sanroff concludes “Some .. Westerners might in their affluence be able to afford expensive energy alternatives to power -- things like wind and solar that don't directly involve the emission of CO2. But the rest of the world cannot. Cheap, affordable energy, the kind that comes from coal, natural gas and oil, is a prerequisite for any society to rise economically. Spencer seems thrilled to be able to tell the developing world that they have a free pass to burn hydrocarbons and prosper”. I’m sure that you’ll all love reading the rest of Sandroff’s article and delight in reading Spencer’s book. It’s “Written in a style that should be attractive to both warming newcomers and scientists from other fields,” so is ideal for the inexpert contributors to this blog. Spencer’s book does just what is being called for in the “Communicating climate science in plain English” thread. NOTES: 1) see http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/global_warming_rip.html 2) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%E2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/ Best regards, Pete Ridley.
  45. Confidence in climate forecasts
    Moderator, ref. comment 92, I think that you may have overlooked the relebvant topic in my comment – weather events not global warming. Doug, ref. comment #93, perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in that series of “facts” you presented in your “continuum” (you do like that word don’t you). In every case bar two of your “National heat records set in 2010” you claim each had its/they “ .. hottest temperature in its history .. ” or words to that effect. Can you spot the error? Perhaps “ .. your imagination is getting ahead of you .. ” (see #85). Perhaps you and “actually thoughtful” might like to have a look at my comment #162 on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?”. Best regards, Pete Ridley
  46. actually thoughtful at 06:29 AM on 9 August 2010
    Confidence in climate forecasts
    Thanks Doug, I am not really accusing you of being a pessimist in this regard. But as you have looked at the intractability of the skeptics/deniers - what thoughts do you have on moving a given skeptic towards rationality? I have not yet found a formula that works. Ideology seems to trump reality every time. BTW - WV Quine wrote an amazing prescient book on this subject (in 1978!) called The Web of Belief. It is dense but I whole-heartedly recommend it to you. http://www.amazon.com/Web-Belief-W-V-Quine/dp/0075536099
  47. Confidence in climate forecasts
    No, actually thoughtfull, I don't believe that (heh!). Research strongly suggests that there are some strong internal psychological barriers to acceptance and integration of information producing uncomfortable feelings w/regard to personal behavior as well as ideological perceptions of the world. I think it's useful to consider this information if we're trying to stick w/talking about climate research and how it affects public policy from a scientific perspective. Leaving aside known commercial considerations, the reaction of many contrarians to climate research is mysterious on its face. This inexplicable resistance often ends up being dumped into a bucket of empty speculation about "stupidity" or "ignorance" or even malicious intent. No research supports such thinking. Research suggests that contrarian attitudes are best predicted in the absence of any other information by political and ideological thinking, that such counterfactual worldviews do not correlate as well with education or other personal attributes. Not to say this correlation is 1:1, just that it's quite statistically significant. My belief is that the same person who will go to the mat denying commonly accepted and even ancient and quite scientifically uncontroversial research findings in a public forum and will even use invective etc. in doing so would willingly volunteer altruistic acts in a different setting. There's nothing separating us other than we might be tested in our civility if we bump into our beliefs or things that touch on our beliefs in conversation. Anecdotal evidence from climate discussion threads seems to support this notion.
  48. actually thoughtful at 05:42 AM on 9 August 2010
    Confidence in climate forecasts
    Doug, Are you holding the position that no events, facts or education can change people's deepset beliefs? I understand the pessimism due to the facts on the ground right now (ie folks like Pete Ridley exist) - but isn't that to harsh a judgement? Don't you think some notable percentage can be swayed by logic, facts and reality?
  49. Confidence in climate forecasts
    Pete you'll have to stay the dark by yourself, or at least short of my company. I can't join you. I can only suggest you set some sort of internal metric where you might reevaluate your conclusion and then keep an eye out for additional weather phenomena exceeding any recorded in the instrumental record. I'll describe a little bit the continuum in my own mind. If I see a record-breaking temperature in a given city, it means nothing. If I see a spate of exceptionally hot days in a given city, that too means nothing. If I see a spate of record breaking temperatures in a given city, that's a little bit attention-getting. If I see an extended spate of weather in a given city breaking historical records, it's notable but can't be used as the basis for any conclusions. If I see multiple cities in multiple countries breaking historical records, that's noteworthy but still can't be used as a open-shut case for making claims about climate short of other evidence. If I see all of the above plus other phenomena such as historically unprecedented floods in a number of locations, my eyebrows start to go up. I still can't form any conclusion, but these things need to be integrated into what I know of what we're doing to the atmosphere. They comport with global temperature increases as well as a host of other phenomena. Such events can't really be ignored, for after all, what if the same pattern emerges again in 5 years? Should I ignore it then? When would I pay attention? So this year is a data point, a notable one. National heat records set in 2010 Belarus recorded its hottest temperature in its history on August 6, 2010, when the mercury hit 38.7°C (101.7°F) in Gorky. The previous record was 38.0°C (100.4°F) set at Vasiliyevichy on Aug. 20, 1946. Ukraine tied its record for hottest temperature in its history when the mercury hit 41.3°C (106.3°F) at Lukhansk on August 1, 2010. Ukraine also reached 41.3°C on July 20 and 21, 2007, at Voznesensk. Cyprus recorded its hottest temperature in its history on August 1, 2010 when the mercury hit 46.6°C (115.9°F) at Lefconica. The old record for Cyprus was 44.4°C (111.9°F) at Lefkosia in August 1956. An older record of 46.6°C from July 1888 was reported from Nicosia, but is of questionable reliability. Finland recorded its hottest temperature on July 29, 2010, when the mercury hit 99°F (37.2°C) at Joensuu. The old (undisputed) record was 95°F (35°C) at Jyvaskyla on July 9, 1914. Qatar had its hottest temperature in history on July 14, 2010, when the mercury hit 50.4°C (122.7°F) at Doha Airport. Russia had its hottest temperature in history on July 11, when the mercury rose to 44.0°C (111.2°F) in Yashkul, Kalmykia Republic, in the European portion of Russia near the Kazakhstan border. The previous hottest temperature in Russia (not including the former Soviet republics) was the 43.8°C (110.8°F) reading measured at Alexander Gaj, Kalmykia Republic, on August 6, 1940. The remarkable heat in Russia this year has not been limited just to the European portion of the country--the Asian portion of Russia also recorded its hottest temperature in history this year, a 42.7°C (108.9°F) reading at Kara, in the Chita Republic on June 24. The 42.3°C (108.1°F) reading on June 25 at Belogorsk, near the Amur River border with China, also beat the old record for the Asian portion of Russia. The previous record for the Asian portion of Russia was 41.7°C (107.1°F) at Aksha on July 21, 2004. Sudan recorded its hottest temperature in its history on June 25 when the mercury rose to 49.6°C (121.3°F) at Dongola. The previous record was 49.5°C (121.1°F) set in July 1987 in Aba Hamed. Niger tied its record for hottest day in history on June 22, 2010, when the temperature reached 47.1°C (116.8°F) at Bilma. That record stood for just one day, as Bilma broke the record again on June 23, when the mercury topped out at 48.2°C (118.8°F). The previous record was 47.1°C on May 24, 1998, also at Bilma. Saudi Arabia had its hottest temperature ever on June 22, 2010, with a reading of 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Jeddah, the second largest city in Saudi Arabia. The previous record was 51.7°C (125.1°F), at Abqaiq, date unknown. The record heat was accompanied by a sandstorm, which caused eight power plants to go offline, resulting in blackouts to several Saudi cities. Chad had its hottest day in history on June 22, 2010, when the temperature reached 47.6°C (117.7°F) at Faya. The previous record was 47.4°C (117.3°F) at Faya on June 3 and June 9, 1961. Kuwait recorded its hottest temperature in history on June 15 in Abdaly, according to the Kuwait Met office. The mercury hit 52.6°C (126.7°F). Kuwait's previous all-time hottest temperature was 51.9°C (125.4°F), on July 27,2007, at Abdaly. Temperatures reached 51°C (123.8°F) in the capital of Kuwait City on June 15, 2010. Iraq had its hottest day in history on June 14, 2010, when the mercury hit 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Basra. Iraq's previous record was 51.7°C (125.1°F) set August 8, 1937, in Ash Shu'aybah. Pakistan had its hottest temperature in history on May 26, when the mercury hit an astonishing 53.5°C (128.3°F) at the town of MohenjuDaro, according to the Pakistani Meteorological Department. While this temperature reading must be reviewed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for authenticity, not only is the 128.3°F reading the hottest temperature ever recorded in Pakistan, it is the hottest reliably measured temperature ever recorded on the continent of Asia. Myanmar (Burma) had its hottest temperature in its recorded history on May 12, when the mercury hit 47°C (116.6°F) in Myinmu, according to the Myanmar Department of Meteorology and Hydrology. Myanmar's previous hottest temperature was 45.8°C (114.4°F) at Minbu, Magwe division on May 9, 1998. According to Chris Burt, author of the authoritative weather records book Extreme Weather, the 47°C measured this year is the hottest temperature in Southeast Asia history. Ascention Island (St. Helena, a U.K. Territory) had its hottest temperature in history on March 25, 2010, when the mercury hit 34.9°C (94.8°C) at Georgetown. The previous record was 34.0°C (93.2°F) at Georgetown in April 2003, exact day unknown. The Solomon Islands had their hottest temperature in history on February 1, 2010, when the mercury hit 36.1°C (97°F) at Lata Nendo (Ndeni). The previous record for Solomon Islands was 35.6°C (96.0°F) at Honaiara, date unknown. Colombia had its hottest temperature in history on January 24, 2010, when Puerto Salgar hit 42.3°C (108°F). The previous record was 42.0°C (107.6°F) at El Salto in March 1988 (exact day unknown). National cold records set in 2010 One nation has set a record for its coldest temperature in history in 2010. Guinea had its coldest temperature in history in January 9, 2010, when the mercury hit 1.4°C (34.5°F) at Mali-ville in the Labe region. Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog
  50. Communicating climate science in plain English
    Please see my related comment today on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?” thread.

Prev  2254  2255  2256  2257  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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