Recent Comments

Prev  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  2274  2275  2276  Next

Comments 113401 to 113450:

113401. dana1981 at 01:12 AM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        I think "Basic/Intermediate/Advanced" are good categories.
113402. DarkSkywise at 00:55 AM on 5 August 2010
        It'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. ;)
113403. kdkd at 00:52 AM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence 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.
113404. GabrielB at 00:51 AM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating 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.
        
113405. James Frank at 00:42 AM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating 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.
113406. CBDunkerson at 00:37 AM on 5 August 2010
        Why 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.
113407. Johno at 00:36 AM on 5 August 2010
        It'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?
113408. Daniel Bailey at 00:24 AM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating 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
113409. Andy Brown at 00:08 AM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating 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!
113410. KR at 00:01 AM on 5 August 2010
        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"?
113411. Johno at 00:00 AM on 5 August 2010
        It'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)
113412. Berényi Péter at 23:55 PM on 4 August 2010
        Why 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.
113413. chris at 23:54 PM on 4 August 2010
        Waste 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.
113414. Ken Lambert at 23:49 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence 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.
113415. Dikran Marsupial at 23:39 PM on 4 August 2010
        On 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.
113416. JMurphy at 23:38 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence 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...)
113417. Tom Dayton at 23:36 PM on 4 August 2010
        Waste 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.
113418. adelady at 23:36 PM on 4 August 2010
        It'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.
113419. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:16 PM on 4 August 2010
        On 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 ...
113420. Johno at 23:14 PM on 4 August 2010
        It'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.
113421. Craig Allen at 22:50 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        How about a 4th level called haiku :)
113422. the fritz at 22:45 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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
113423. pdt at 22:26 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        How about "bottom-line"/"in-depth"/"Gory Details"?
113424. NickD at 22:25 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence 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.
113425. chris at 22:14 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence 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...
113426. Mike2811 at 22:01 PM on 4 August 2010
        Has 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
113427. chparadise at 21:53 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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".
113428. Mystyk at 21:53 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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.
113429. Ned at 21:44 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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.
113430. Daved Green at 21:38 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence 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 .
113431. Cornelius Breadbasket at 21:34 PM on 4 August 2010
        Why 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.
113432. Ned at 21:31 PM on 4 August 2010
        Temp 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.
113433. Bern at 21:27 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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!).
113434. huntjanin at 21:27 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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.
113435. robert way at 21:23 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating 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...
113436. ProfMandia at 21:20 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        John, I am starting to think you are not human. Do you sleep? :)
113437. Cornelius Breadbasket at 21:17 PM on 4 August 2010
        Why 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.
113438. RSVP at 21:02 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        My first lesson in computers was, "garbage in, garbage out".
113439. RSVP at 20:57 PM on 4 August 2010
        Waste 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).
113440. Rob Painting at 20:53 PM on 4 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Phew, and I thought you guys were busy enough already. As far as classifications are concerned, basic/intermediate/advanced sounds good to me. Given that the current rebuttals might be characterized as intermediate. What amount of information might the basic version entail?
        Response: My 'Debunk of the Week' on the Irregular Climate podcasts are good examples of 'basic' versions of the 'intermediate' rebuttals. When I kick this off, I'll start by using the half dozen or so podcast debunks.
113441. RSVP at 20:16 PM on 4 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        macoles #18 "I choose to be an Atheist, not because of my understanding of science, but because I believe God is unnecessary" Is there a reason you capitalize the word atheist? This question aside, for most people belief in a deity is tantamount to having a sense of purpose, one that transcends our survival instinct. Perhaps the inability of science to explain this is proof enough for most.
113442. RSVP at 19:52 PM on 4 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        BP #83 Thanks for the picture. Obviously more than just CO2 is coming out of the tail pipe given the "cutting edge" fuel and emission standards back then, which goes back to my "flawed" view. Emission standards are only a problem when everyone and their grandmother owns a motor vehicle. This was not the case in Hungary in 1956. If "horses were actually slaughtered en masse " as you say, it was done precisely to centralize dependencies (a bad thing). So I dont think my comment was so off. HumanityRules #82 Judging from your comment, there is no common ground, so I wont even bother.
113443. Dick Veldkamp at 19:40 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        I agree with John Russell above, what matters is the audience. If IPCC says 'there is at least 90% probability of 2-5 deg temperature rise in the next 50-100 years', what this means in normal language is: 'there is no doubt' or 'we can be pretty darn sure'. Like it or not, we use expressions like 'there is no doubt' and 'it is certain that' all the time to describe (future) events that have a probability of occurring of less than 1. It is a bit like with DNA evidence. Lawyer to expert: 'Is there a probability that the DNA match putting my client at the scene of the crime occurred by chance?' Expert: 'Yes, about 1 in a million.' Lawyer: 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: based on DNA-evidence you see it is not at all certain that my client was at the scene of the crime.' Of course this is ludicrous, a probabibilty of P = 0.999999 (or even P > 0.99 for that matter), is what we tend to call 'absolutely, totally certain' in layman speak. On a related note: what is often overlooked is that uncertainty also means that there is a probability that things will turn out to be WORSE than expected. So uncertainty in IPCC projections makes it MORE important to take swift action, not less.
113444. Rob Painting at 19:25 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Chriscanaris @9 - your De Havilland Comet analogy is back to front. Continuing with your analogy - the models demonstrate a 90% probability of the aircraft crashing, but because of the remaining uncertainty you want to board the plane and fly anyway.
113445. chris1204 at 19:09 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        If the general principles of climate models were wrong, scientists would have known long ago: microwave ovens wouldn't work, aircraft wouldn't fly, weather couldn't be forecast. Aircraft however do fall out of the sky, microwave ovens fail, an weather forecasters get it wrong. With regard to aircraft falling out of the sky, I'm reminded of the troubled history of the De Havilland Comet aircraft - two spectacular crashes led to extensive research eventually isolating metal fatigue arising out of pressurisation and depressurization as the culprit. The models never predicted this. Moreover, only four Comets crashed (one because of pilot error, one because of issues relating to wing design, and the last two because of metal fatigue leading to significant redesign of subsequent Comets). Now none of us would ever get inside a plane if we were told that there was a chance of 'less than percent' of the aircraft crashing. So I think thingadonta's not totally out of place in citing the IPCC's uncertainty margins. The uncertainties arise because some things don't quite fit the models perfectly. With all respect to ubrew12 whose technical expertise far exceeds anything i could aspire to, the earth is a touch moire complex than an artificial satellite. I'm not too comfortable with the notion that the broad concepts are so simple as to be trivial. Models by their very nature oversimplify and need modification to bring them in closer accord with reality (and I recall a fine description in Spencer Weart's book on the the development of climate models). None of this in any way detracts from arguments that we should reduce CO2 emissions and fossil fuel reliance substantially - these are very arguably good things in themselves. However, let's not impoverish our understanding of our world by trivialising the sources of uncertainty - we might even end up with better focussed responses for the future of our planet.
113446. Ann at 19:05 PM on 4 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        This reminds me of a science fiction story by Stanislav Lem (quite an old story, dating from communist Poland). The story is about Master Oh, a universal benefactor and philantropist (Oh being an uttering of admiration at his genius). Master Oh arrived at a planet that was completely inundated. By the way, climate change had nothing to do with it. It was just an irrigation project from the government gone terribly wrong. Rather than doing something against the cause, Master Oh advised people to adapt to the circumstances. More specifically he advised them to evolve into fish. So the people lived in the water, they developed the most terrible rheumatism, tried unsuccessfully to breathe underwater, hoping they would one day reach the sainted fish state. Moral of the story: you can better do something about the actual cause of the problem, especially if YOU are causing the problem, than to adapt. I am also wondering: what costs are necessary to protect the Netherlands (and other low-lying regions worldwide) against a sea level rise of 1-2 (up till 6 ?) meters. And this is just one of the many costs the society – e.g. the tax payers - will have to bear as a consequence of global warming. And how does this cost compare to the cost that is necessary to stop global warming ? Another way of dealing with this problem is of course: giving up these regions. But that actually means that the people with the bad fortune of living in low-lying regions will ‘pay the price’. They will lose their property as a result of this human-caused disaster, and probably receive no compensation whatsoever.
113447. John Russell at 18:57 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Dan Olner at 17:42 PM on 4 August, 2010 : Unless you know Kevin Judd's audience you can't know whether what he writes is over-simplistic. Only he can know whether he's pitched it right. Given that this is a general radio audience, if Kevin started talking about 'boundary conditions' and 'external forcings' he'd lose his audience immediately; they'd switch off. This is one of the problems of explaining climate science; for the man in the street you really need to go simple. If you over-qualify a statement you sound complicated and turn many people off; if you leave out the qualifications you leave yourself open to being criticised for not understanding the science. There's a perfect example in Kevin's radio piece. He says "...there is no doubt on the basic story that the earth's average temperature is going to rise 2 to 3 degrees over the next 50 to 100 years." Then, above, thingadonta says "according to the IPCC, [there's] roughly a <=10% doubt" . So to prevent criticism perhaps Kevin should have said, "there is a strong chance...", or even (to satisfy Thinga...) "there's a 90% chance? But then the audience say, "see; they don't really know!" -- which is true... or perhaps not. To be both simple and accurate is possible. But in this world of unequivocal -- arguably outrageous -- statements by politicians, advertisers and every pundit under the sun, for the man in the street the voice of the scientist can sound woolly and unconvincing.
113448. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:43 PM on 4 August 2010
        The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
        “Please reduce the lengths of quotes in your comments.” You are right. Sorry. However works - paper Capron et al., it is important (according to not only me - it gives strong arguments of both skeptics and supporters of AGW theory) that it was more difficult for me to shorten the quotation, not to miss the most important observations of this great - numerous team of researchers. I’m wonder discussion in the scientific world that this work may cause.
113449. jdaviescoates at 18:30 PM on 4 August 2010
        It's land use
        From one perspective "land use" can be seen to include everything we do that generates CO2 (how we grow food on land, how we mine minerals from land, how we transport over land, how we live on land etc etc.) If "land use" is analogous to "how we live on planet Earth" of course its land use.
113450. HumanityRules at 18:18 PM on 4 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Thanks Kevin, I think if you were to flesh things out with details I'm not sure a model for the earths climate is in anyway similar to the model for how a microwave oven works Secondly I don't think it's a simple process of plugging in "laws" to the model and setting it going. You have to be sure you have all the laws in the first place. My understanding is that the history of climate models says they get it wrong more than they get it right, that they have needed to be constantly changed because they have tended to drift from observed results. That when they are changed they are not necessarily changed in a way that is a closer match to the forces at work in the real world but are changed to mimic the new observed data which means down the line there is a real possibility that they'll drift from observed results again. I have no problem with models per se but we should be realistic in how well they are working, I think there is an over emphasis on the skill. Part of the problem is that the interpretation of results are often subjective an example might be. Intrinsic versus Forced Variation in Coupled Climate Model Simulations over the Arctic during the Twentieth Century In this paper they look at the output of models for temperature change in the arctic and compare it with observed results. The arctic temperature record has two periods of strong warming, 1979-present and 1920-1940. Models can mimic well the present period but there are issues with the important earlier period. The authors of the paper think that because models predict the present period well we understand whats forcing arctic temperatures now, of course its CO2. They also try to stretch the skill of the models by redefining an early 20th century warming period. So instead of 30years @ 0.7oC above normal they say that a model has some skill in reproducing arctic temperatures if it manages a decade @ o.36oC. This is purely subjective and the authors aknowledge this. With this criteria some (still a minority) are shown to have skill. On this basis they think models are accurate. I think in more simple terms: this paper does a good job in showing that models do not reproduce the early 20th century warming period well and so do not contain all the "laws" governing the arctic temperature. Therefore we can't say for certain what is forcing arctic climate change in the early 20th century and therefore now. As an amateur I should defer to the experts but knowing that this paper isn't just about looking at arctic climate but also is trying to generate the consensus around AGW it makes the subjective nature of the interpretation problematic.

Prev  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  2274  2275  2276  Next