Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 Next
Comments 113401 to 113450:
-
Alden Griffith at 02:05 AM on 5 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
Hi Mike, I agree, and I'm well aware of how P values should be interpreted and what they really mean. I intentionally used language that might make a statistician squirm because I'm not trying to communicate to statisticians, but rather the public. The somewhat backwards logic of frequentist statistics is not all that easy to grasp for a lot of people at first. When communicating to the public, I think it's a lot easier to grasp the idea of 92.4% confidence than it is to interpret that there is a 7.6% probability of seeing the temperature trend that we did given the null hypothesis of no trend [a collective "huh?"]. While terminology is certainly important in science, it can really be a stumbling block in our notorious inability to actually communicate to the public. For the purposes of this post, I think saying 92.4% confidence is the way to go. -Alden -
gallopingcamel at 02:03 AM on 5 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Adaptation is costly but the costs are borne by the local residents. Up to now the Dutch have not just maintained their perimeter; they have created significant new inhabitable areas (e.g. within the Zuider Zee). They seem to think the effort is worth it but for how much longer? The alternative to adaptation is relocation. Relocation or migration brings all kinds of strife, sometimes involving neighboring countries. -
John Mason at 01:49 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
John, This is an excellent idea. I'm doing a bit of blogging on climate science and trying to get things explained in everyday terms these days. As post #22 says, it's often very effective to use commonsense everyday context: analogy too can be extremely useful. The critical bit is to explain things accurately, so far as the most up-to-date science is concerned, without sounding patronising. I've worked on-and-off for some years in doing such interpretation in the Earth Sciences - especially hardrock geology - and I fully appreciate the size of the task you have set yourself from experience. I wish you all the best with it. I've been so disturbed by the efforts of the politically-motivated anti-science opposition that I'm determined to move from geology to climate outreach as a career-change. Climate science - indeed, Mankind - needs all the help it can get in terms of improved public understanding. Cheers - John -
Ned at 01:41 AM on 5 August 2010It's the sun
Agreed with JMurphy's comment. Johno, it's generally better to stick with one or two topics in a given comment, rather than tossing in economics, taxation, climate models, climate sensitivity, the fact that CO2 is a small fraction of the mass of the atmosphere, reliability of CO2 measurements, climate change impacts, the CO2/primary productivity relationship, ice ages, and solar irradiance. Throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks doesn't lead to very productive discussions. -
Jim Meador at 01:40 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
John, this is really a great idea. I used to work at a Science center in San Francisco, and I know that writing clear, concise, explanations takes a lot of effort but makes a big difference in terms of how much of the content reaches the readers. The key point is not to "dumb down" when writing the "basic" explanations, but to tie into commonsense, everyday context that everyone already has. Experts tend to tie their explanations into a context that non-experts don't possess, and thereby miss the opportunity to communicate all that they know. Naming the three categories must be done carefully, and is a subject worthy of the thought given by others above. You don't want your users to feel like "Dummies" when they go for the basic explanation. I'd be very interested to take a crack at a few of the arguments. How exactly do I submit my proposed text? As a comment? As to the user interface, I would suggest using three tabs instead of the slider. (A slider is more appropriate to a situation where there is a continuum of possible values. Since this particular situation is limited to three possible values, it seems like the wrong analogy.)Response: I'd be very interested to take a crack at a few of the arguments. How exactly do I submit my proposed text? As a comment?
Early next week, I'll start a forum where all the authors can get together and first discuss the general approach, terminology, etc. Then I'm thinking the way authors submit proposed text is to first submit it as a new thread in the forum. That way, other authors can offer feedback/suggestions and the text can be honed before it gets 'officially published'.
But like any social media experiment, who knows how this will evolve - first step is get the forum going then see what happens. -
Ned at 01:30 AM on 5 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
kdkd is right -- a top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 corresponds to a climate sensitivity of around 3 C. Ken, I'm not sure you understand the distinction between (a) a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and (b) a climate forcing. The number you cite (0.9 W/m2) is the former. The AR4 figure to which you refer discusses the latter. The existence of a TOA radiative imbalance is an inherently transient thing. The existence of an imbalance means that the earth is radiating less energy than it receives from the sun. Over time, this causes the earth to warm up, allowing it to radiate more, which reduces the TOA imbalance. Eventually, that figure will drop back to 0 W/m2, because the earth has warmed up enough to rebalance its radiation budget. Ken's citation of Fig. 2.4 from AR4 relates to uncertainty in the net climate forcing from various sources. There is uncertainty in that total, which in turn leads to uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity. But it's distributed around the best estimate of a climate sensitivity of 3 C. If your reaction is "Well, the uncertainty means it could be lower" then you have to equally consider the possibility that "Well, the uncertainty means it could be higher." In the meantime, while trying to narrow that range of uncertainty, we should proceed on the assumption that climate sensitivity is around 3 C. As for Ken's continued claims of "flattening" temperatures, I point out again that most of the past decade had temperatures above the pre-2001 trend:
In other words, the 2000s were actually warmer than one would predict based on the rate of warming over the preceding two decades.
-
Englishborn at 01:23 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
On the comments issue - I am not techie enough to know if this can be done but if one comment thread were to be used could the comment have a marker stating from which level they are commenting from? From a personal view the idea of splitting comments would likely cause those more knowledgeable and have a better understanding to not read and therefore answer questions or statements in the "lower divisions", which I find very valuable. -
Davidhs at 01:19 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
A vote for "thorough" for the third category, rather than words like difficult or hard or even technical. Rather than worrying at this stage about the exact labels, it might help to set out in more detail the characteristics of each category. This would help us all to start thinking along the same lines and have a clearer idea of what is in your mind, rather than just our interpretation of your headings. We will know better what to call each category when we have a clearer idea of what they look like. For example, the first category might (only might, note! I have only spent a few moments on these scribbles.) be as follows: - straightforward statement of the point. Two or three sentences at most, perhaps. - general indication of where the evidence comes from, eg. from Antarctic boreholes. - when this point was established, eg. CO2 greenhouse effect: demonstrated experimentally in mid 19th C. The second category might: - expand the basic statement, - indicate the history of the point, how the argument developed, - indicate the experimental history, - indicate the counter arguments and work on addressing them, - The third category would then be a more thorough discussion, including the maths, the references to the key papers, etc. ... Sorry: being called away to something else now! -
JMurphy at 01:19 AM on 5 August 2010It's the sun
Johno, it appears that you need to start reading some of the threads here at Skeptical Science. Try these, for starters : Models are unreliable We're heading into an ice age It's not bad CO2 measurements are suspect Hanson's 1998 prediction was wrong Animals and plants can adapt to Global Warming The rest of the arguments are here -
Jeff Freymueller at 01:18 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
This seems like a workable idea for the App, and for the skeptic arguments page. I just don't see it working on the regular posts, though. Actually, it could work on the posts but not for the comments -- I think any discussion would be far too fragmented, and confusing as different people would be talking about different versions of the same thing. Chaos. So I would vote for using it on the archived skeptic arguments, and using Basic/Intermediate/Advanced as the terminology.Response: Multi-levels would definitely NOT be used for blog posts - this is solely for the skeptic argument rebuttals. -
DarkSkywise at 01:17 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I like Yooper's Basic / Medium / In-Depth. It has a certain "je ne sais quoi". ;) -
dana1981 at 01:12 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I think "Basic/Intermediate/Advanced" are good categories. -
DarkSkywise at 00:55 AM on 5 August 2010It's the sun
Johno at 00:36 AM on 5 August, 2010: "However, a 10-degree mean temperature increase coupled with 3-fold CO2 increase would produce ideal growing conditions." Since even a 6 degree rise would be disastrous, I think you'll have a very hard time finding anyone to sell those crops to. ;) -
kdkd at 00:52 AM on 5 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Ken #17 Still plowing the same furrow. You've been down to bedrock for a while, and your field is barren. We now know from postings elsewhere that the measured TOA imbalance likely corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 3ºC - a figure I've been asking you to provide for a year or more. The temperature anomaly data supports the "supposed" heat imbalance as well. As for the error bars. There is more than component that contribute to these. Firstly we have measurement uncertainty. You appear to want to make the assumption that this is going to come out strongly in the negative feedback side with no scientific justification for this. Secondly and thirdly the error bars are influenced by variability and residence time. Finally, just because you repeat the assertion constantly doesn't mean that it's true: there is no flattening trend in the recent temperature record - you can only make this claim through deliberate or accidental ignoring of the statisitcal reality of the situation. Conclusion: constantly stating the obvious (that there are uncertainties involved) contributes nothing to the argument that the problem is less than the scientific consensus suggests that it is. -
GabrielB at 00:51 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
Any plans for Android love as well?Response: I'm taking the apps one step at a time, very conscious of the fact that Shine Tech are spending a great deal of their resources on developing these various apps, free of charge. So no plans yet. -
James Frank at 00:42 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
Another vote for the "Basic/Intermediate/Advanced." "Easy/Medium/Hard" feels odd, since what we're really talking about is the language involved, not the science. And "easy" or "hard" language doesn't communicate as much as "basic" or "advanced." I'm not sure I'm as superhuman as you are, but I'd be happy to have a go at drafting a few "basic" articles. I don't know the science as in-depth, but maybe that's a good thing. -
CBDunkerson at 00:37 AM on 5 August 2010Why I care about climate change
BP, if you actually put some thought to it I think you'll find that 'social values', like say 'not killing people' and 'not stealing', were around for a LONG time before Christianity. Thus, no... pursuing such social values does not make you "a crypto-Christian". Setting aside that you could as easily have argued that circumcision makes someone 'crypto-Jewish' or not drinking 'crypto-muslim' or any number of other equally ridiculous associations. Human culture is both informed by and informs the various religions. For instance, Christianity did not decide that abortion was a sin until science proved that a genetically unique life form comes into being at conception. Originally Christians held that the soul entered the body with the first breath and thus ending a pregnancy before that was ok. Most Christian groups now argue that killing a fetus is the same as killing an adult, but Exodus 21 had very different punishments for the two (i.e. death for killing an adult, pay a fine for killing a fetus). Religions change just like every other aspect of our culture. They are not the underlying determinant of the human condition which you claim. -
Johno at 00:36 AM on 5 August 2010It's the sun
@adelady: surely you can't be serious? Pharmaceutical companies do not invest trillions of dollars to "try out" a new medicine to "see if it works". Surely you aren't proposing we bankrupt the world's economy and limit future industrial development over an irrational fear? Surely you want action based on proper scientific study and evaluation? And while (not "medical sciences") pharmaceutical companies do invest billions of dollars for truly promising cures, they are using their own profits, not my hard-earned income, taken by the government through taxation. If you aren't following, then consider the following polemic arguments (as unscientific as AGW): AGW proponents seem intent on taking my money to fight global climate change. Nonsense! Stop studying pseudo-science and go get a real job, so I won't have to support you anymore. This applies to Dr. James Hansen as much as anyone. His grasp of climate science is limited to his computer model, which has been unfairly compared with direct observations at the top of this subject string. Solar, Wind, and other renewable energy sources will become competitive as fossil fuels run out, and prices for fossil fuels naturally rise. When this happens, atmospheric CO2 levels will necessarily begin to fall. The only question is how high will CO2 levels rise before fossil fuels run out? Based on the reading I've done, this seems to be somewhere between 2X and 5X current levels (that's 1500ppm, or 0.15% CO2). Just so we're clear, all of the AGW fear-mongering to date has been over 0.008% of the earth's atmosphere (+80ppm of CO2). Until the OCO is launched and collects its data, we don't have any reliable method of estimating changes as small as 0.008% of anything global. Again, based on the papers I've read, this would generate mean global temperature increase of no more than 10 degC. The increase would occur slowly, over the course of the next 1000 years. Therefore, predictions of coastal flooding and massive loss of life due to climate change (which happens over a period of decades) are simply sensational and unscientific. There remains a complete lack of any objective scientific data to demonstrate that hurricanes, typhoons, floods, or droughts have increased in either number or severity over the course of the last century. However, a 10-degree mean temperature increase coupled with 3-fold CO2 increase would produce ideal growing conditions. Plants would thrive. We'd be faced with battling all weeds the way some battle bamboo or briar patches in rich soil. Since the food chain relies on a strong foundation of plant life, all animals would thrive as well. In addition, higher global temperatures could result in preventing or delaying the onset of the next Ice Age -- a highly desirable result. Land animals cannot survive an ice ball planet, and crops will fail if growing seasons are cut short. The question is not whether ocean levels will rise, or more flooding and droughts will occur if temperatures are generally higher over the next few centuries; the question is how are we preparing for the coming Ice Age? Do we bankrupt our economy chasing after a little hot air, or do we begin investing in technologies to help us survive a dormant Sun? -
Daniel Bailey at 00:24 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
As someone who takes technical papers and concepts and translates them into plain English for the laymen (which is what most doctors are, believe it or not), there is a huge need for this concept, John. In terms of the tab parlance, something along the lines of: 1. Basic 2. Medium 3. In-Depth The nomenclature used won't really matter, but the K.I.S.S. Principle (Keep It Simple [or you're] Stupid) applies to the tab labels as well (even or the In-Depth level tab). And readability on a small screen is paramount. The impact of this will be immense. You must sleep even less than me, The Yooper -
Andy Brown at 00:08 AM on 5 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I think it is a great idea on your part. People may pooh-pooh the "Easy" explanation as dumbing down, but it actually requires probably even more clarity of understanding and discipline of message to formulate an explanation that someone without a background in the concepts/jargon can grasp. I'm an anthropologist who works on this very issue professionally, and so I have a lot of experience in the challenges and pitfalls of this! -
Communicating climate science in plain English
I would agree on a need for a really really short response, the 'one-liners'. Maybe call that one "Snap!", or "Bar discussion"? -
Johno at 00:00 AM on 5 August 2010It's the sun
For those interested in my previous post, the following sources lay a good foundation for understanding our current studies regarding solar energy transfer to the earth's climate system. Read: "Quantitative modeling of magnetospheric processes" (Olson, W.P. - American Geophysical Union, 1979) This book contains the paper by Paulikas & Blake: "Effects of the Solar Wind on Magnetospheric Dynamics: Energetic Electrons at the Synchronous Orbit" (Paulikas, G.A. and Blake, J.B. - pp. 180-202) Also, read: "Solar Wind Magnetosphere Coupling" (Kamide, Y. and Slavins, J.A.; Terra Scientific Pub. Co., 1986) -
Berényi Péter at 23:55 PM on 4 August 2010Why I care about climate change
#86 thingadonta at 15:04 PM on 4 August, 2010 You don't need a religious foundation to motivate one to pursue social values. Those social values come from Christianity. As long as you are truly motivated by them, like it or not, you are a crypto-Christian. And if you happen to deny mentioning the Name, that's still in line with the commandment. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. As I was taught by a catholic priest, there is a formless void in the human soul made to the shape of God. You should be aware that all the false gods and demigods of the world fight for getting in and it is next to impossible to keep it clear if you do not let its true master take it. You may be able to live a righteous life in theory with that void wide open, but very few get the grace of God to actually accomplish such a quest. Trying to get rid of Christian faith is like the attempt of Sun Wukong, the Monkey King to win over the Buddha. He leaped to the very End of the World in seconds, found huge columns there, marked one with arrogant script and piddling, got back in a whirlwind just to find a root of finger on the Buddha's palm smelling of urine and showing a tiny inscription. But what strikes a scientist like me, is that if one can't perceive the natural underpinnings of a faith/religion like Christianity, it's no wonder one can't tell the natural underpinnings in something like climate change. What strikes a Christian like me, is that if one can't perceive the supernatural underpinnings of Natural Philosophy, especially its roots in Christianity. -
chris at 23:54 PM on 4 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
It's worth supplementing Tom's response just above since he very nicely gets to the root of the greenhouse effect. As Tom indicates, thermal energy is radiated to space from the upper regions of the atmosphere (specifically those regions of space at a temperature appropriate to balance the incoming solar radiation at a "temperature near 255K). Clearly the layers of the atmosphere right down to the Earth's surface are wamer than this (can be determined by the lapse rate). Now we add more greenhouse gas. At any particular height in the atmosphere the radiation of LWIR to space is less efficient since there is more higher altitude CO2 to absorb the LWIR. With more greenhouse gas, the emission of LWIR to space must necessarily occur from a higher altitude on average. However to maintain thermal equilibrium with incoming solar irradiation, the temperature of the layers from which LWIR is emitted to space must be the same as before. In other words those layers must warm up to the previous temperature (i.e. without the addition of greenhouse gas). All the layers below (right down to the earth surface) warm up. That's the greenhouse effect. -
Ken Lambert at 23:49 PM on 4 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Surely, the issue of confidence in climate forecasts deopends on the accuracy of the warming imbalance which is supposed to exist - currently about +0.9W/sq.m. The degree of warming now and into the future hinges on the accuracy of this number and its projected value going forward. Go look at Fig 2.4 of AR4 and Fig 4 of Dr Trenberth's 'An imperative for climate change planning et al.." and tell me the accuracy of the 0.9W/sq.m number. Pay attention to the width of the error bars on total aerosols, and net responses like WV and ice albedo feedbacks. The CO2 GHG forcing effect is fairly narrowly constrained, but flattening temperatures do highlight whether this effect and its interaction with water vapour is as accurately know as AGW science claims. And of course OHC is the least accurately measured and the owner of this blog agrees that the oceans are the only significant storage for the heating imbalance and that is where the true extent of global warming will be measured. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:39 PM on 4 August 2010On Consensus
Arkadiusz Semczyszak There is very little room for any doubt that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. An even more straightforward argument than isotopic concentration can establish this, it is called the mass balance argument. 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"). This demonstrates that the natural environment must be a net sink of CO2 as the "missing" 55% of our emissions has to go somewhere (there has to be conservation of mass). Essentially, if the natural environment were a net source of carbon dioxide, then the observed annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be grater than anthrpogenic emissions as both man and the environment would be contributing to the rise, but that is observed not to be the case. Now if you can show how the natural environment can be the source of the excess CO2, whilst at the same time the annual rise being less than anthropogenic emissions, THEN there may be reason to doubt. Ferdinand Engelbeen has an excellent webpage on this topic. Appologies if I have misunderstood your point. -
JMurphy at 23:38 PM on 4 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Daved Green, I have used that Climate Models site in the past and think it would be very useful if more people were to take in onboard, so to speak : it only requires downloading a small file (as far as I remember). I have also used the SETI one and one looking for various cancer 'cures', but that is neither here nor there. With regard to models, I posted this link elsewhere and wanted to post it again, as an example of a good model prediction : Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change, from 1999/2000). (By the way, I added that link, plus two from Hansen on the same topic, to the LINKS section and noticed that there are an extremely large number of blogs, etc. being used as so-called skeptical arguments. Even the "Ice Age predicted in the 70s" topic has 248 skeptical 'arguments' against it, as if there was something to argue against ! To be fair, when you select peer-review only you get left with just a Rasool and Schneider paper from 1971, but that was a theoretical prediction from the time (subsequently discarded) and not a skeptical argument, surely ? Too much dross, though, and maybe confusing to those who come along to see what the state of play is with regard to various arguments - they might think that the skeptics have the upper hand, perish the thought...) -
Tom Dayton at 23:36 PM on 4 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP, there are GHG molecules above and below other GHG molecules. As each molecule radiates up, those upper molecules intercept that radiation. Then those recipient molecules themselves radiate up and down. There are many, many such layers. The effect is radiation being "trapped" within those layers. Except at the top of the atmosphere, where there are no other GHG molecules above the topmost ones, so the extra radiation of the topmost ones does not get intercepted. So the topmost ones cool. -
adelady at 23:36 PM on 4 August 2010It's the sun
Johno, do you mean "adequately" account for CO2 forcing, or 'exactly'......... If you're trying to say - and until then we should do nothing based on on our current limited understanding - then you're failing to understand science generally. In the medical sciences, prescriptions and procedures are tried out, and adjusted when necessary. In the social sciences, economics models and projections are commonly used despite no-one understanding if or when any projection will ever be reliable. Life isn't mathematics. Science isn't mathematics. You want absolute certainty? Stick with maths, avoid science. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:16 PM on 4 August 2010On Consensus
Simple examples that you can begin to doubt - dear “student”: “7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels.” - The same "isotopic signature" have respiration, especially soil respiration. “8. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind) [how? hypothesis 2a and 2b? - see Real Climate - discussion: G.S. + E.S. contra R.P. s.].” In Poland it is a proverb: "The devil [is what is most important] is in the details ..." But you doubted until the end - the “dear student” - in the alleged consensus, let us give voice a “prominent of the man” of the IPCC, a prominent scholar whose works (especially one), I cite here many times. He will answer the question you: “So what’s all the fuss about, then?” Atte Korhola , the Professor of Environmental Change, the UN IPCC (IPCC is the creator of "consensus"), he present: “... various reasons, so they desperately look around for anything they can to perhaps put off having to FACE REALITY.” (February, 2010). ... and "face reality" according to him is this: “The mistakes demonstrate that IPCC has taken on too much when TRYING TO CRAM the entirety of diverse climate research in one book and force it INTO CONSENSUS. [namely: the pursuit of consensus is a major mistake IPCC ...]” “However, science develops all the time and reduction of scientific ambiguity is NOT REALISTIC.” “UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS [These are 1-8 claims above?] are placed in the IPCC report. The report is being read as if it were a HOLY BOOK [“holy book” = “consensus”], and details presented in it are taken as truths CARVED IN STONE.” “HOWEVER, SCIENCE DEVELOPS ALL THE TIME AND REDUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC AMBIGUITY IS NOT REALISTIC. [ie: these 1-8 assertions + 9 - dominant negative effects GW; and are too detailed to give a strong consensus, at best it can be a MOMENTARY consensus - with many VERY significant: "but ..."]” "The evaluation of climate change should be continuous, and it should genuinely allow for DIFFERING VIEWS. [How can this be reconciled with the above -“professor “ - understanding of consensus?]” Consensus, consensus building ("style", the IPCC - that is, de facto proposed above - "Professor"), by Korhola, ignores the fact that: “... the issue of climate change has proved increasingly complex ...” “... the ambiguity of the models increases ...”; ... and leads to the emergence of: “... mistakes and exaggerations ... “ - „... for example, regarding the Himalayan glaciers, destruction of the Amazon rain forest, collapse of the grain crop in Africa, and the link between climate change and natural disasters ... [I'd loved - whit the most important - the spread of malaria ...]” ...and yet the logical (and most important) component of the consensus (by IPCC) is: „... and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems …” ... and becoming the logic: even when the based claims are true, but the conclusions are false, the “whole” must be regarded as false ... -
Johno at 23:14 PM on 4 August 2010It's the sun
In reading through this string of posts there seems to be a complete lack of understanding (both experts and non-experts) regarding the physics of energy transfer from the Sun to the Earth. Solar forcing must include more than simply TSI. We have barely begun to quantify the interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere, which transfers highly variable amounts of energy to the earth's climate system. While early estimates indicated this energy exchange was negligible in comparison to TSI (only a few watts per square meter), it is NOT negligible compared to the assumed forcing of anthropogenic CO2 in earth's atmosphere (also a few watts per square meter). Until these phenomena have been successfully observed, measured and monitored for several decades, it will be impossible to adequately account for CO2 forcing. -
Craig Allen at 22:50 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
How about a 4th level called haiku :) -
the fritz at 22:45 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I think , basic, easy, introductory etc.......are not necessary; all people concerned by this item don't believe and will never believe in AGW -
pdt at 22:26 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
How about "bottom-line"/"in-depth"/"Gory Details"? -
NickD at 22:25 PM on 4 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Dan Olner at 17:42 PM on 4 August, 2010 says: "If someone asks 'how come you can predict climate in 100 years but not weather in three weeks?'" I think this is a good question and I have heard the argument made often. Besides the response laid out here, I have heard an analogy that I think works pretty well for the average person. I should note that I'm not big on analogies, as the listener who disagrees with your point will simply look at what is wrong with your analogy and the point can easily get lost. That aside, I like the comparison to the stock market. We could say the stock market is much like climate. We can (and usually do via 401Ks and the like) make fairly safe assumptions that over the long term there will be an upward trend. This is based partially on economic models and historical data. What we can't accurately predict is the day to day fluctucations of the market, individual stocks, etc. Even the long-term forecast will have its fair share of "unexpected" events. The current recession might be comparable to a large volcanic eruption. Perhaps a depression would be akin to the same volcanic eruption combined with a deep solar minimum. Something along those lines. I hope that helps, as it can sometimes be difficult to speak to your audience, as others have noted. Speaking in technical terms might lose them quickly. Start talking about their wallet and relating it to current events might be beneficial. -
chris at 22:14 PM on 4 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
RSVP at 21:02 PM on 4 August, 2010 Hope you made it to lesson two RSVP! Computational models are so valuable in pretty much all scientific endeavours now that it would be a shame if you were still stuck in your lesson one. Obviously the way to address your GIGO conundrum is to take care in the coding and parameterization, use the most powerful computational resource available (if your model is effectively scalable without limit) and keep careful sight of the relationships between your model and the particular element of the real world that your model is simulating. It obviously helps to have a good understanding of the limitations of your model,to carefully frame the scope of the model in terms of the questions about the real world that your model is addressing, to have a means of addressing the relationships between model outputs and the real world, to update the model as parameterizations of the model inputs improve, etc.. Pretty much everyone that uses computational modelling has a handle on these things... -
Mike2811 at 22:01 PM on 4 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
Hi Alden Good post but you do need to take some advice from a statistican on some of the language you use. Specifically relating to what significance and the null hypothesis means in the classical statistical approach. It is not a measure of the confidence in the value of some parameter or result. So in your first example, it's not that there is a 92.4% confidence in the result. That sort of language would make a classical statistican squirm. It's saying what if the data I see, are really generated by an underlying process where there is no trend, but where you see apparent trends because of the underlying variability in the data. In this case, 7.6% (or 76 out of 1000) of the cases in the long run would be consistent with the underlying trend being zero. Traditionally the mantra of p=0.05 would mean you would fail to reject the null hypothesis, but of course as you note, it's more complex than that. It may seem a small point, but the idea of classical significance being a % confidence in something is not correct -
chparadise at 21:53 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
For the three levels, perhaps "Basic", "More in depth", and "Expert take". Or "Introductory", "Advanced", "Expert". Snarkier version: "High School", "College", "Graduate School". -
Mystyk at 21:53 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I think terminology more like "Basic/Advanced/Technical" would be appropriate. It gets across the point better for what each level encompasses, making each sound more like a user is selecting their desired detail level rather than their intelligence level. -
Ned at 21:44 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
How would this work for the comments? It would seem to be very redundant to have three parallel sets of comments for each of the arguments. On the other hand, it would also seem hard to have a discussion in the comment threads among people who are viewing three different versions of the source material. I could also imagine in a lot of cases people asking questions about the easy and medium versions of an argument and being told to view the hard version. That said, John, I applaud your tireless efforts to make this site more and more useful in communicating and discussing science.Response: Hmm, haven't worked that bit out. Most likely option - have different comments for different levels. Bit messy but seems like the best solution. All current comments would apply to Medium level. -
Daved Green at 21:38 PM on 4 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Hi , does anyone else run climatemodels ? you run it on your computer when its idle , this way they can run thousands of simulations . Iam just interested in others opinions of this . Sorry if link doesnt work . -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 21:34 PM on 4 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Why I care about climate change I am an environmentalist both by choice and career. My driver is similar to John's in that I have children who will have to live in a changing world. I also have 'faith' that humanity has the potential and the intelligence to live sustainably. If I didn't, I'd find it increasingly difficult to have a positive attitude about anything. -
Ned at 21:31 PM on 4 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
As a reminder, BP's figures (like the first one in his comment above) are not particularly useful as long as he continues to use simple averages of the GHCN data set. That choice of method implicitly assumes that either (a) there is no spatial dependency in the climate statistics being examined, or (b) in every year the spatial distribution of stations is uniform. Since we know that both of these assumptions are invalid, one can't really draw any conclusions from his figures. In addition, BP writes: Obviously there was a selection procedure involved in determining which stations should be dropped and it's unlikely it was a random one. "Random" has a very specific meaning. It is unlikely that the probability of a given station dropping out of the GHCN record in a given year is random. That is not a problem, however. Statisticians and scientists work with data produced by systems with elements of non-randomness all the time. A more useful question is whether the change in numbers of stations has any impact on the derived global temperature trends. As has been emphasized many times here, it clearly does not have any meaningful impact. -
Bern at 21:27 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
Dappledwater, I would think the basic version would start with the one-liner response, and then provide a few paragraphs expanding on that a little - possibly covering a few more bases, or explaining some of the caveats (carefully, to avoid confusion!). -
huntjanin at 21:27 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
At the risk of being expelled forever from this august list, which I read several times a day, let me submit a very heretical view: I'm against dumbing down this excellent website, in any way, shape, or form.Response: On the contrary, this system would actually free up more advanced content. I've often held back on publishing more detailed content in order to keep things simple. With this system, having a simpler presentation gives me more license to go into more detail on the higher levels without fear of "beginner" readers. -
robert way at 21:23 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I will give it a shot but it is true that it is very hard to bring things down to the easy level... -
ProfMandia at 21:20 PM on 4 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
John, I am starting to think you are not human. Do you sleep? :) -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 21:17 PM on 4 August 2010Why I care about climate change
I don't have a faith, but it is people like you, John, that help me realise how valuable it can be to have one. -
RSVP at 21:02 PM on 4 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
My first lesson in computers was, "garbage in, garbage out". -
RSVP at 20:57 PM on 4 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR 177, 178 I have read both 177 and 178 twice now. Didnt see waste heat mentioned once, which is the topic of this thread. You say I have not, "...understood thermal diffusion in a gas". I assume you are referring to that which GHGs impart to non-GHGs. I have no problem with that idea. However, if you inject heat directly into non-GHGs (i.e. introduce waste heat), I assume it will work the other way around, in which case, non-GHG heat will impart thermally to GHGs which will in turn radiate heat (up and down) as you say. That which is going up, is cooling, and yet you say, "And more GHG's mean more warming. Period, end of story. No cooling,.." This last sentence may be true for radiation generated from the surface, but does not seem to apply for heat injected into the atmosphere. You dont have to admit you are wrong. I may even be wrong in the long run, but I dont think the idea on face value has no merit as you would like to make this seem (given you tone and remarks).
Prev 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 Next
