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  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  Next

Comments 125901 to 125950:

  1. Robert Ellison1178 at 23:16 PM on 12 December 2009
    What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    #'s 63, 64, 65 'Using NOAA satellite readings of temperatures in the lower atmosphere, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) produced a dataset that shows global atmospheric warming at the rate of about 0.07 degrees C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since November 1978. "That works out to a global warming trend of about 0.7 degrees centigrade over (the next) 100 years," said Dr. John Christy, who compiled the comparison data. "That's a definite warming trend, which is probably due in part to human influences. But it's substantially less than the warming forecast by most climate models, and it isn't entirely out of the range of climate change we might expect from natural causes. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11540 http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ The peak of global temperature in the 1998 El Nino is part of the 1998/2001 climate shift and evident in any of the (monthly) temperature records. This is the simplest part of the science. The more interesting arguments concerned major uncertainties in the solar records, cloud properites and dynamics and as a result of complex systems theory.
  2. The hockey stick divergence problem
    LorenzoG, ice cores temperature reconstructions are based on isotopic ratios; sea and lake sediment reconstructions use some biological proxy; neither is precipitation dependent. Trees, ice sheets and sea typically happen to be in different locations; you may find some lake sediments and tree rings from the same location. The solution of what is mathematical more than observational? It's not clear to me what you're asking.
  3. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    DeNihilist, it's true that people "are smart enough to get the basics of the science, most of us just don't have time to educate ourselves." and that "So attention grabbers are the default argument.". Problems arise when, like for the post of J. Storrs Hall you link, one needs a little bit more than get the basics to not be fooled by those attention grabbers. And indeed it's a much larger problem, there no filter on what can be published on the internet. Anyone interested in climate science is continuosly forced to spend his time in debunking more or less absurd claims people find somewhere in pseudo-scientific sites. It's much like the too many "inventions" of perpetual motion machines; apart from some curiosity, i'd not spend time looking at them seriously. How many times one should repeate that no conclusions can be draw from a temperaure reconstruction in any single site which is not shown to be for some reason representative of the global pattern? And what about the too short time series so frequently analyzed? One of the great things of this site is the collection of these kind of arguments, indeed ;) Scientists have managed to find a solution to which i think we all should adhere, it's well known and called peer review process. It should represent the threshold for throwing the other claims away without wasting time debunking them over and over. Questions are always welcome and if someone can answer i'm sure he will; but jumping on a blog with a claim found in some obscure sites is not asking questions nor it's discussing science.
  4. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    To John Cook You say above... "The total contribution of waste heat to our climate has been calculated and compared to the heating contributed from greenhouse gases in Warming from fossil fuels (Caldeira 2009). The radiative forcing from CO2 is around 10,000 times greater than the forcing from waste heat." From the Caldeira paper.. "Therefore, in year 2000, the Earth was heated >75 times more by anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere than by direct heating from fossil-fuel combustion." The huge factor you are referring to has to do with the theoretical cumulative heat from the total lifetime of CO2. When you are talking about Joules per year, even the article you make reference to only attributes a factor of 75 times. Now 75 is still significant, but what is this energy doing? This radiative energy only involves 1) the Sun, 2) the Earth's surface, and 3) outer space. Do you think electrical power lines are hot to touch? They are not. (You dont want to try this). Power lines are conduits of power between a source and a load. In the same way, the atmosphere does not absorb radiative energy however much it is increased. Heat transfers to air through convection as described by the equation, q = hA(Ta − Tb). When the air and solid reach the same temperature heat transfer stops. Ocean water temperatures are normally always cooler than sea level air temperatures (except near the Earth's poles), however, car radiators, motors, refrigeration systems, etc., are generally warmer than the surrounding air. These are warming the air, day and night.
  5. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Phillipe, The reason that sceptics pick 98 is the same reason that Mr. Gore uses Mann's first hockey stick - for effect. Since 98, the temp rise has slowed quite a bit. Has it cooled? Of course not. That is why this decade may be the hottest that we know of, it is coming from a hugh peak. But the battle for minds continues on both sides of the debate. As I posted earlier, the majority of the people, in my opinion, are smart enough to get the basics of the science, most of us just don't have time to educate ourselves. So attention grabbers are the default argument. Simple. What intrigues me is that the pro side has not yet seen the real truth about the release of these "climategate" files and e-mails. The anti side is finally getting to debate the science, and it is very public, so more of the harried masses can now see what the pro side has contended to be the facts. Do you not see what a great oppurtunnity this can be? More people are Binging/Googling this subject (then even Tiger woods indescretions!). More people are looking for the truth. Finally, the pro side can climb out from obscurity and declare their side with logical and science backed facts! This website is a prime example. As more of my friends ask me about this, I always refer them here as the best place to get the pro side of the debate. Tell your leading lights to get off their talking points and celebrate the freedom that this leak has given them to finally explain the science to those who matter the most - Joe and Jane six pack! People don't want to be scared into doing the "right" thing, they want to walk with reason into doing the right thing. This leak is the best thing that has ever happened for CC! Dont miss the boat! Since I am not very good at pasting stuff, here is an attempt at getting some graphs from Greenland. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html That is the info The graphs appear on WUWT in an article by J. Storrs Hall - here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ more interesting material to help push us to a better understanding.
  6. Philippe Chantreau at 12:28 PM on 12 December 2009
    What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    The "lack of warming" since 1998 exists only under the condition that 1998 is cherry-picked as a starting year and the effect of the massive 98 El-Nino not taken into consideration. How is it if we take 1997 or 1999 as a starting point? Why so much focus on 1998? The answer is simple: the extraordinary warmth of that year makes it easy to suggest that it was "cooler" afterward, although the following decade was, in fact, warmer than the one containing 1998. Every time someone tries to take 1998 as a starting point for anything, I know they're trying to take mo for a ride. This has been discussed already. Swanson and Tsonis conclude: "Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability,even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies(c.f. Roe [2009]).If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008]." A quick look at how temps have recently behaved can be see here, it is very much as expected in a noisy system, and not different from what has been seen before: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/giss1.jpg Skeptics like to use natural variability only one way, but it does cut both.
  7. The hockey stick divergence problem
    I would like to see an analysis of proxy results based on location. Tree rings, ice cores and sediment data all have a precipitation component. Are all low latitude proxies experiencing different precipitation conditions than high latitude proxies? Or % of cloud cover? Information is missing, and most of the solutions seem to be mathematical rather than observational.
  8. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    NewYorkJ, there have been times when the AGW theory was on the making and the challenges put on it were fruitful. A lot of things have been fixed and/or improved thanks to the true scientific scepticism; and there is still ample room for discussions, as is the case in scientific conferences and peer reviewed papers. But I know, you're not talking about science and scientists ;)
  9. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Regarding the Darwin station spin (Re: response to #50), this is a nice debunking: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists Skeptical arguments somehow seem to be growing more irrational and shrill. I didn't think that was possible.
  10. Models are unreliable
    blouis79, you might want to read something on weather vs climate. But if you like straight lines, fit one to the last 30 years or so and you'll end up with about 2 °C by 2100. Not confortable anyway. But you don't need to use "fancy computer models" to do better than a straight line fit and get a better representation of reality. By the way, you can also do nice fits to the ice ages cycles without "fancy computer models", but guess what?, they do a better job.
  11. Models are unreliable
    The science of prediction is well studied and not very reliable. A straight line fit with available historical data is statistically just as good as a fancy computer model. A stock market model works fine over 100 years as a straight line with unpredictable ups and downs. That's as good as a climate model will ever be over a few hundred million years - a straight line with ups and downs. The argument about weather vs climate is germane - they say we can't predict weather but it's OK we can predict climate and then try to predict the jiggles which is as good as predicting weather. So has anyone seen a model run try to account for the paleoclimatology data?
  12. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    From An AP news item about the stolen emails.. "One referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" in temperatures". Ya'll are doing a great job, keep it up.
  13. The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
    I work with a serious global warming denier (GWD). Due to his prompting I began to do a lot of reading about the subject of global warming. Like the posts by thingadonta, there is no serious refutation of the science. The science is well done and convincing. Thingadonta's attack is rhetorical and in this case, an ad hominem attack. If one cannot refute the science, then one can refute the scientists. Current neo-con thought seems to like the socialist bogey-man, so let's drag that out against the climatologists. Even Mizimi's criticism of the survey misses the point about the science, simply seeking to further the ad hominem attack. These "contrary" posts constitute a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) attack by the GWDs to try to keep the "Global Warming Debate" myth alive. These GWDs are not contributors to the scientific process nor should one pretend that they are such. So, welcome to the age of the internet. Any person with an opinion is free to post it. Expect to see a lot more rhetorical, religious, and political attacks on science and scientists. The fact that science is fluid and subject to change based on evidence will make it even more critical that important information is communicated well and in a way that lay people can understand.
  14. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Just one of my opinions is that, as humans we evolved naturally on earth. Everything we invented or developed came from the earth. We just manipulate what was already here. Therefore anything we do is just part of nature and is a natural progress. Be it good or bad. We are nature. We are not apart from it. We’re just animals that think too much. If we make a mess of things, Nature will let us know.. one way or another.
  15. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    HumanityRules, I agree with everything you say about Mel P and on her past record alone there are grounds for dismissing her ill-informed rants. The fact that she now assumes 'fraud' on the basis of a few decontextualised e-mail extracts is despicable, perhaps slanderous. I was really referring to the darwin data which appears to have come from leftfield and in that context I would appreciate John's technical input. Unfortunately there are now many who doubt AGW on the basis of propaganda from the 'deranged' few. Tempting though it may be we are unlikely to persuade them of the science by ad hominem attacks. Curiously I'm unable to post on her blog. If anybody here has a mind to, they're welcome to address the article in question.
  16. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling you get when confronted with two contradictory ideas. For example, while nearly every calorie associated with human activities ends up as waste heat directly warming our atmosphere, climate scientists continue to focus on an atmospheric greenhouse effect that they are still trying to prove exists. Who are the real deniers? The reason you can "see" IR surface images using infrared optics is because air itself does not radiate IR. Once air has been warmed up by your automobile, home furnace, and local power plant, that waste heat can only be given up when it comes in contact with condensed vapor in the air or objects on the earth's surface (including polar ice and glaciers). The deniers of this notion tell us that the amount of human waste heat is insignificant next to quantities associated with the Earth's solar radiation budget, yet these are the same people who are also talking about the ponderous thermal effects of increased CO2 as measured in part per million! To see what happens with all that solar energy, all you have to do is compare the temperature of a rock at midday and then at 5 am. Waste heat on the other hand heats air first, then the Earth's surface where it later has a chance to escape into space through radiation. There are something like 500 million automobiles in circulation worldwide. It is a well known fact that climate in urban areas are affected by waste heat. If this heat it is continually generated, it must be gradually spreading out throughout the planet.
    Response: The atmospheric greenhouse effect has been empirically confirmed by multiple, independent lines of evidence - both by satellites finding less infrared radiation escaping to space at the wavelengthe that CO2 absorb energy and by surface measurements finding more infrared radiation returning to the surface at those same wavelengths. Why do climate scientists focus on CO2? Because it is both the most dominant radiative forcing and is also the fastest rising.

    The total contribution of waste heat to our climate has been calculated and compared to the heating contributed from greenhouse gases in Warming from fossil fuels (Caldeira 2009). The radiative forcing from CO2 is around 10,000 times greater than the forcing from waste heat.
  17. There's no empirical evidence
    More to the point, are there other, more prevalent sources of CO2 outside of industrial or non-natural based carbon emissions and further, are there other elements at play in increasing the global heat capacitance currently perceived?
  18. There's no empirical evidence
    I think the Skeptical Argument is improperly presented. It should rather be presented "There is no empirical evidence or proof that humans are [the primary causes of current global warming trends]. It's all based on theory and computer models.
    Response: Ideally, rather than use my own wording, I like to quote an excerpt from a skeptic article - usually one that sums up the argument succinctly and eloquently (lest I be accused of setting up a strawman argument). I'll get around to it for this argument sooner or later.
  19. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Al, Indeed lets see.
  20. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity, The AR4 report does in fact quantify the forcing from aerosols (see Fig. 2.13 pg. 169 Chpt. 2). The top 3 are forving base don observations. The latest AOGCMS which will be used in AR5 include atmospheric chemistry, although I am not sure to what extent the chemistry module interacts with the cloud microphysics module/s, if at all. As John notes, there is no discernable signal of CGRs in the global temperature data, if they did have a significant impact on cloud coverage/opacity, then it would ahve in turn had an impact on the global temps. Anyhow, let us see what the CERN data show.
  21. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Jim Ryan, there are so many misleading/wrong claims in that article that a point by point critique would be quite boring. Just take two of them. The temperature has been flat in the last decade. You might want to this post that shows how the earth is still accumulating heat. Surface temperatures vary a lot and a decade of apparent flat trend is easy to find. But this does not mean that global warming has stopped. Tamino has a a nice post on the varibility of surface temperatures you might also want to read. The "Darwin scandal" is just a lye (no euphemism here, just a flat lye); Eschenbach is indeed known for playing this dirty game of manipulating data (anyone still remember how he shifted the data to show that Hansen was wrong?). What happened at Darwing is that the station has been moved and then it was necessary to apply a correction. Eschenbach is simply hiding this.
  22. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatross it's too weak to describe those people that think there is merit in this idea as contrarians or cynics. There is a real mis-reading of the intentions of scientists on both sides of this arguement. While I accept that there are some (on both sides) that have an agenda it's true that most scientists are just generating data that hopefully adds to the body of knowledge. It seems that anybody who generates too much controvesy with their work is quickly labelled any number of denigrating terms. Given Jasper Kirkbys obvious high status in the field he could probably be working on just about any topic he wishes. He chooses to do this, I guess, because he thinks it has legs. Do you think this man is convinced by the arguement? I do. I also think the 15-20 groups involved in this project from a dozen highly regarded institions think this is important. Many of the authors from the 138 references in the PDF also probably think this is important. In terms of overstating the importance. The IPCC state the uncertanity is too great to assign a forcing value to CGR. There are other forcing (such as aerosol and cloud) which have similar high levels of uncertainty but which are aknowledged. How can you overstate or even understate something which the IPCC suggests is very poorly understood. If we followed your logic we'd remain in the dark.
    Response: The role of cosmic rays in climate is an important question - there is still some question about the degree of influence being debated in the peer reviewed literature. However, as far as the global warming debate goes, cosmic rays have had little to no role in the warming over the last few decades. This is because measured cosmic rays have shown little to no trend since the 1950s - an unsurprising result as cosmic rays are modulated by solar activity which has also shown little to no trend since the 1950s.
  23. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    I'd be happy to critique Melanie Philips for you.......she's an all round appalling person with rabid views on just about everything. Only the most deranged would consider her a darling of anything. If there's one bad thing about the anti-AGW it's that its dominated by the worst right-wingers in the mainstream debate.
  24. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity, I said "I do not dismiss the hypothesis that cosmic rays have no role whatsover." So I am open to new ideas. Am I convinced, are the climate scientists and cloud microphysics scientists convinced? No. The CERN project might shed some light on all of this, but again, the importance is very likely being overstated by the contrarians/cynics. They seem to forget that there are an abundance of giant CCNs, especially over the oceans which can readily act as CCN for cloud droplets, and most of the globe's low-level cloud (Sc, St) is found over the oceans. There is hardly a limitation of CCN over the oceans. I am not doubtful of this hypothesis b/c it is not consistent with AGW, but b/c of the tenuous science concerning the exact mechanisms involved. I cannot emphasize this enough, even if there is a link, be careful about ovserstating its importance. I'll have a look at the PDF when I have time, by the same token you should read some of Dan Rosenfeld's work, and the excellent discussion at RC. Anyhow, I don't want this thread to morph into a debate on CGRs.
  25. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Hi John, Melanie Philips is a journalist in the UK and one who frequently appears on BBC TV and radio spouting a rabid anti-AGW scepticism and is consequently one of the darlings of the 'denialist' community. At the moment she is in full flow regarding the CRU e-mail hack. Needless to say she hasn't a scientific background and is convinced that AGW is a 'scam'. Although I am familiar with general scientific precepts, her latest blog, although I'm fairly sure it is a gross misrepresentation, contains some rather specialist knowledge and I would appreciate if you would critique it from a technical perspective. Fantastic site and keep up your invaluable work! http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5620571/the-smoking-iceberg.thtml
    Response: Reading through Melanie Philips' latest blog post The smoking iceberg, you'll see she is reiterating many of the most popular skeptic talking points. For example: The focus on the Darwin weather station is new though, will have a look at that in more detail if time permits.
  26. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    #46 Albatross I take your points and there is some truth in your silver bullet idea but not quite for the reason you state. I see that Svensmarks data has been critised to death but as I said the science doesn't rest on the limitations of one piece of data. This should be a familiar arguement to you it's one used by pro-AGW people all the time. If you take a look at the PDF I linked to you'll see a well rounded arguement supported by many different data sources. On Svenmark I think his theory has been refined to say that CGR affect low level clouds. I see the graph on John's page about CGR but this looks very different to the one presented in the PDF on page 5. It's too crude to say one is lying so you'd have to conclude that the data are generated in very different ways. I'm not skilled enough to say which is right. It should just be pointed out that the CLOUD project is supported by groups in a dozen or so US and European institutions. The lead author is Jasper Kirkby who according to his Wiki page is a leader in particle physics, designing new accelerators. This is not mickey mouse science by petrochemical stooges. I accept there are many scientist that produce work that downplays the role of CGR influence it just seems you are unwilling to accept there are many who also think it's worth investigating because there is evidence to support it. I really suggest you read at least the first half of that PDF, it's balanced in showing the limitations of the science as well.
  27. There's no empirical evidence
    thereisaidit, we already have the technology and it's improving rapidly; the only big question is time (or probably I should say the will to act). We will never see the arctic, or any other impact we already caused, recover. It's even worst, indeed; even if we act promptly we will see more degradation of our environment. We are not even thinking of turning back to the pre-industrial climate, we're only trying to avoid what is considered too dangerous to afford.
  28. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    batsvensson, "scientists" is plural. It's a whole scientific community that is under attack from outside.
  29. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    "what Weart is talking about is personal attack to scientists. This is unprecedented." I do not agree. May I mention Newton?
  30. The hockey stick divergence problem
    I would like to see an analysis of proxy results based on location. Tree rings, ice cores and sediment data all have a precipitation component. Are all low latitude proxies experiencing different precipitation conditions than high latitude proxies? Or % of cloud cover? Information is missing, and most of the solutions seem to be mathematical rather than observational.
  31. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity #37. Did you read my part about the role of aerosols in cloud formation, opacity and precip. efficiency? These are known facts and have been studied extensively. See for example work by Daniel Rosenfeld. I do not dismiss the hypothesis that cosmic rays have no role whatsover. Is the evidence convincing? No. Is the science that has been done good? Not always. Don't take my word for it, read the in depth discussion and debate that was held at RC recently. John Cook deals with the cosmic ray hypothesis on this very site. I get the impression that you are looking for a silver bullet Humanity. Thank goodness, this mess is all because of comsic rays, well now we can go on with business as usual. Well, not so fast, even if the comsic ray hypothesis is true. How significant is it in terms of absolute radiative forcing? Can they even demonstrate that? In the greater scheme of things it is probalby (if at all) a very small player. Recently someone at the U of T in Canada found a link between stratospheric ozone destruction and cosmic rays. Next thing, denier blogs are claiming that CFCs causing the ozone hole is a hoax. Well, no. He said that CFCs and NOx were still the primary catalists, but that cosmic rays appeared to be modulating the amount of ozone loss. And that is what may be going on with cosmic rays and clouds-- the hypothesis and its impacts (if any) are being overstated. CGRs may be a very small player, but they are by no means the primary driver. Also, do not forget about the problems associated with ocean "acidification". Doubling or tripling CO2 would play even more strain on an already taxed and vunerable ocean ecosystem which is a major food source for huge numbers of people. So there are other very real and understood reasons for reducing our CO2 emissions.
  32. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Humanity "Finally while I agree that we should give weight to experts in the field who have studied these thing throughout their career we shouldn't exclude the layman and his contribution to this debate." Agreed, I do not cater to the ivory tower, but I would be very wary of taking at face value that this person's interpretation of the data is correct. Humanity, you should also know that Willis has been shown to fudge data before (look it up), so he is hardly credible. The man has an agenda and is clearly biased. He did not even succeed in properly replicating the methodology set out in the litertature. It is irresponsible for them to make the allegations based on a sample size of one, and for them to then make sweeping generalizations/allegations and then post these allegations on the net for everyone with an untrained eye to misinterpret at will. And that is their audience for the most part, not scientists.
  33. There's no empirical evidence
    oops, in the last commet the first mention of "non-CO2 releasing energy" should have been "CO2-releasing energy"
  34. There's no empirical evidence
    This web site and it's articles is the best (most thorough most civil, most compact, most interesting) I have ever come across. If we agree that human-caused CO2 has has caused the increase in global temps, the more difficult problem is what to do about it. Does anyone really think the answer is electric cars? More bumper stickers? Without hyper-analysing energy issues, it seems that the underlying belief is that we need to substitute non-Co2 releasing energy with non-CO2 producing energy. Is this even POSSIBLE on a global scale? And if so? Will the surge of population over the next hundred years erase those efforts? And, is there enough time? Even if our solutions were implemented on a a world-wide scale over the next 20 years, how long would it take for the volume of arctic ice to re-establish itself and confirm our "fix" has succeeded?
  35. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Two good rebuttals of the CRU "scandal": http://www.pewclimate.org/science/university-east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-analysis http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html BTW, I am working on an essay targeted toward conservatives that think we should continue to "do business as usual". I will be shopping it around at the various blogs I frequent in order to get feedback to make it better. The goal will be to get an essay that we can all use to convince those that ignore the science because they do not like solution. Stay tuned.
  36. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    As another line of evidence for global warming you could list that plant species in mountain ranges now tend to grow at higher elevations than in the past. See for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5884/1768 A side effect of this is that species that are restricted to the highest altitudinal zones may be driven to extinction, both from increased competition and because they have nowhere else to go.
    Response: Thanks, I've added it above and more importantly, added it to "It's Not Happening".
  37. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    @albatross, 32 "Still not convinced about the warming? Then look at the oceanic heat content data at: www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ If these data do not convince you that something is amiss, nothing will." I like to point to the sea level measurements, showing a trend of >3mm/year since the early 90ies. I think ALL temperature data series will have to be carefully checked by 'outsiders'. That's the only sensible thing to do in the present situation.
  38. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    @thingadonta, 36 >"we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance". "Absolute Baloney. Ever heard of the church in the middle ages?, the resistance to evolution?, or Socrates and the Academy, or the Spanish Inquisition?. His use of the word 'never' here is a gross exaggeration/distortion, what would such do with the data then, if they can't even get basic history right. Would they use this word 'never' in a historical paper, or are they just plain stupid? " OK, the Spanish Inquisition is the correct historical parallel. I think the implied context here was the public, (allegedly) fact and science based debate of the latter centuries. I understand very well that this distinction is somewhat alien to you.
  39. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    thingadonta, i think you should distinguish between science and scientists. While it's true that we've already seen harsh controversies in the past, what Weart is talking about is personal attack to scientists. This is unprecedented.
  40. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    NewYork, your argument is well formulated in comment #33, but I wonder; do you also mind to take into account the fact that scientist also oppose the hypothesis of dangerous man made global warming, and on what ground would they then do this? Else your argument may leave the conclusion open to that scientist that opposes this idea are evil or lies or are stupid or is a combination thereof.
  41. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatross #32 on the Darwin data. I don't think Eschenbach says there hasn't been a global warming trend. In fact he says several times that the globe is warming what he speciifcally does is question the adjustment process. I also don't think he's attempting to generate a centuary trend either locally or globally. He acknowledges this is one data set, in fact he critises the sparsity of long term data sets in the region used in the adjustment process. This seems a perfectly reasonible process to do and it's perfectly reasonable to expect NOAA GISS and CRU to undergo this sort of scrutiny. Finally while I agree that we should give weight to experts in the field who have studied these thing throughout their career we shouldn't exclude the layman and his contribution to this debate.
  42. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatross #32 I wouldn't write off CGR at the moment. I think I read somebody was going to recreate the CGR/atmosphere conditions using a particle accelerator to see if the process can be reproduced in the lab. Somebody is spending 9million euros on this and using CERN particle accelerators so somebody thinks it's worth investigating. It seems admirable that they wish to test the theory by identifying a real physical process to may be occuring. The project is called CLOUD and you can read about it here http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ They have a PDF of the original proposal. It addresses some of the limitations of the science but obviously mainly focuses on why this experiment is justified. You can read all 74 pages here http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf but may want to start with section 2.1 which gives some of the background science. I'd just add that calling science incredibly tenuous and nonsensical when it's published in well respected peer review journals is dangerously close to the closed mind you complain about on skeptical websites. The PDF document has 138 references at the end. This all doesn't hinge on the weaknesses, limitations and uncertainties associated with a single set of work.
  43. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    "we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance". Absolute Baloney. Ever heard of the church in the middle ages?, the resistance to evolution?, or Socrates and the Academy, or the Spanish Inquisition?. His use of the word 'never' here is a gross exaggeration/distortion, what would such do with the data then, if they can't even get basic history right. Would they use this word 'never' in a historical paper, or are they just plain stupid?
  44. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    NewYorkJ, have to disagree with you about the average person not being able to grasp the science. The majority, I would say with 90% certainty, of the people that I work with, work for or know, could grasp enough of the science to make an intelligent decision. But unlike you, me, or the hundreds that come here, most are to involved in their and their families lives to have the time. If it comes down to, "do I do an anyalysis of global warming or figure out how to pay the bills", well you know which one is more important. And to be honest, the contrarion crowd seems to have A LOT more fun at this debate then the pro crowd! :)
  45. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Albatros, thanx for your time in response. But slow down just a tad, I said that the "attabouys" were NOT here, that this and a couple of other sites are more concerned with the debate (which is why I always come here first, then Steve's, then Lucia's). Again, I am just an old plumber who has a bit of an idea of what is being talked about here. I do not however have the depth of all these papers that get pointed too. That is what I really like about this and some other sites. There is knowledge being offered! I am a fence sitter on this issue, for my philosophy of life is a bit more eastern, bhuddist, you know "all is illusion" yet seek the truth. Technically, I cannot argue with any of you. I can just throw out some thoughts that occur to me from my experience, for most days I am transforming potential energy (nat. gas) into heat, and moving it to areas that need it. So I put out a hypothesis, about oceans needing time to cool down, both you and John directed me to information that I can now read, and decide for myself. I thank-you for that. But Albatros, what do YOU think about my main posit, that this debate is winding down, due to the fact that the major drivers of the opposite sides, CO2 and solar cycles, are now meeting head-on? Without quoting papers, I would like to know YOUR personal opinion. If you think that it is rubish, tell me, it won't hurt my feeling. But to me, this is just the thing, that is way to coincidental, that seems to happen in life, to help us realize just how wonderous a journey we are on!
  46. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    Good post, Worder. Contrarians know their target audience. It's certainly not scientists, as qualified scientists can easily cut through their spin. It's the general public and politicians prone to misinformation. Scientists often try to talk to both groups at the same time. Most scientists are reluctant to dumb down their message too much. A great site for climate science is RealClimate, but the posts there are often too technical for your average Joe. When they dumb it down, they probably lose some of their technical audience. Scientists developing communications skills further might help, but I think it's a drop in the bucket. On any complex scientific topic, it can be argued that it's unreasonable to expect most average Joes to understand concepts such as radiative forcing and the Stefan-Boltzmann law in such detail that one can determine sound arguments from bad ones, in the same that your average Jane doesn't understand rocket science. Further complicating this is the psychological Dunning Kruger effect, where individuals who have the least competence tend to trust their competence more than those with more competence, when in contrast it's more rational for those without expertise in an area to defer to experts. So convincing the vast majority of people often comes down to who has the better rhetorical argument. And good repeated rhetoric to an untechnical audience can easily trump good science, no matter how effectively communicated. On any issue that has such a large degree of potential political and societal ramifications, there are going to be large groups of individuals ready and willing to muddy the waters with loud rhetorical arguments. I feel the best solution is long-term. Make critical thinking a requirement in public education, taught at each grade level, with increasing degrees of complexity. Also, thanks to Albatross for pointing me to Lambert's takedown of further pseudoscientific claims from WUWT and the "it's a hoax" crowd. I don't think these folks care how many times their rhetoric have been taken apart and exposed. Objective-minded folks with a strong pursuit of knowledge stopped taking them seriously long ago, but that of course is not their target audience.
  47. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Re #1 (Humanity Rules). My understanding is that Earth emissions are modeled as black body radiation. Given the earths temperature of ~298K that means the IR radiation emitted by the earth peaks at around 600cm-1 and tails off around 1500cm-1. There is this on-line model that allows you to play with the earths emissions. This is Climate science 101 so it may be hopelessly naive !
  48. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    DeNihilist re 26. I followed this page for a long time before posting, and for good reason. Unlike the pseudo-science and spin at WUWT (and really, that is all it amounts to), John et al. reference the real science, and question it. If you think the prevailing attitude here is "attaboy", you are a) wrong, and b) have been completely blind to the "attaboy" mentality at WUWT and CA. Honestly, I went there once and put forth some opposing ideas and was subjected to much ridicule and vitriol. You will find the atmosphere here much more accomodating and open-minded. I have learnt much on this site, and not because of everyone says "attaboy". You should also know that this whole CGR hypothesis is incredibly tenuous, and at best would account for very little in terms of cloud cover. The hypothesis has also been demonstrated many times to be barring on nonsensical. Aerosols (natural and antrhro) and CCNs have a much more imporant role in cloud formation, cloud opacity and rainfall efficiency (for precipitating clouds). Regarding the Darwin fiasco. First, sample size of one. Second, Eschenbach does not apply the proper tests for detecting inhomogeneities. Third, he does not consider changes in sensor type, and observation times etc. Fourth, he does not use the same method as the experts at NOAA, but rather tries to replicate it in some kind of pseudo scientific and hand wavy manner, that may be convincing to the untrained eye or layperson but his method does not hold up to close scientific scrutiny. Now let us for moment entertain your notion that the surface temperature records are nonsense. All four of them (CRUHadT, GIIS, NCDC, JMA) gone. Now let us look at the trends in global mid-tropospheric temps. from the RATPAC (global radiosondes), and the RSS (satellite) data produced in the NCDC annual report up until December 2008 (a very "cool" year by recent standards): For reference, the long-term trend in global surface air temps from NCDC is +0.13 C per decade, and the 25-yr trend for NASA GISS is +0.19 C per decade. By comparison: RATPAC-- long-term trends, +0.17 C per decade (since 1976) RSS-- long-term trend +0.15 C per decade since 1979 (using new technique of UofW to remove stratospheric influences) Did not cite UAH as those data have been shown to be highly unreliable, but even those data show a long-term warming trend. Tim Lambert has weighed in on the Darwin fiasco over at Deltoid, as has Tamino. This is exactly what happened when the Climate Coalition (AGW "skeptics")group got hold of the raw data in NZ and then made a hash of caluting the long-term temperature trends. And WUWT has demonstrated themselves to be just as inept. Still not convinced about the warming? Then look at the oceanic heat content data at: www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ If these data do not convince you that something is amiss, nothing will.
  49. Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
    guinganbresil, the temperature increase after a forcing is roughly proportional to the temperature anomaly and it also has a time lag. Then, thermal emission, proportional to the 4th power of absolute temperature, will keep up "later". Each year we increase the forcing a little bit (i.e. more radiation absorbed in the CO2 band) and the thermal emission (i.e. what is seen as background in the IR spectrum) need to increase. Add that there are feedbacks at work and what you'd expect is a more or less steady increase in thermal emission. This is the nice theoretical picture. The reality is much harder to grasp because the heat goes across the climate system in complicated and irregular ways. We still don't know the details and i would not be surprised to see no increase in thermal emission for a while. In Kevin Trenberth words from one of the now famous emails "Our observing system is inadequate."
  50. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    I'll start by saying that this site has enlightened me more about "climate gate" than any other, and I am now convinced that the email leaks are essentially meaningless. BUT it was possible only after I set aside the time to learn the acronyms and technical terms that are used quite liberally throughout the posts. Yes, this is a scientific forum, and no, I am not a scientist, but I am an educated man with a master's degree, and it took a real effort for me to understand some of the arguments here. Heck, it took me days before I even found this site! Scientists have a real problem on their hands, and it's relating their findings in a way that makes the general public take notice and understand. Get too technical, and you'll lose most of the non-experts. Get too general, or spectacular, and your skeptics will exploit the gaps. Maybe the solution starts with college-level education. Many science professors and students I've known (including my brother and father) operate in silos, quietly dismissing things such as communications skills and humanities as nonessential to their work. And yet, when one of their papers is misinterpreted by the media or a politician, they fume that it was the reporter or commentator's fault, and they may even decline further interviews in the future, as if your average newspaper reader or FOX viewer will read it in the peer-reviewed scientific journals instead. If nothing else, this "climate gate" debacle should tell climate scientists that communicating with the public isn't just something that you muddle through when the reporter knocks on your office door, nor is it of trivial consequence. Effective communications should be a distinct discipline within your field, and one that you take years to develop. Face it -- when Joe Lunchbox or Mark Banker or Jill Housewife crashes on the couch at night and feel like they need a science degree to understand your findings, it's Glenn Beck 1, you 0.

Prev  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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