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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recommended supplemental reading:

Top US firms including Walmart and Ford oppose Trump on climate change by Richard Luscombe, Guardian, Dec 1, 2017

knaugle at 01:46 AM on 6 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

It's off topic, but this just appeared as an Los Angelas Times article...

Climate scientists see alarming new threat to California

Interesting read.

Moderator Response:

[JH] For future reference, the appropriate place for a post like the above would be the comment thread of the most recent SkS Weekly News Roundup.

Ogemaniac at 23:16 PM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

And to think the question was biased in favor of conservatives in two ways

1: A "decade from now" is not the long-run equilibrium. The basic effect of these tax cuts is a boost to GDP due to the increased deficit spending, and a long-run drag as we pay ever-growing interest in on.

2: It focuses on GDP, not GNI. The problem with GDP is that it counts as a positive income "earned" by foreigner investors inside the US. Most of the purported GDP gains are merely a reflection of foreign investors reaping a tax windfall and having more bonds to buy (likely, at higher interest as well!).

Thiristaer at 22:32 PM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

The % of GDP cost is an excellent point. Especially when it’s coupled with the idea that costs to mitigate climate change now reduce the risk of greater costs in the future.

Unfortunately, that sounds just like the kind of mumbo jumbo about “tax cuts paying for themselves.” Oh wait, but many Americans totally buy that. Hhhmmm

What you say about science denial actually being rooted in Red Fear and Anti-Globalism is spot on. I’ve heard it over and over again. Let’s remember that the Trump campaign was able to turn the climate debate in its favor not by denying the science (“Chinese hoax”) but by playing to Exceptional American‘s idea of fairness (The Paris Agreement/America First.)

ubrew12 at 12:53 PM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

If you wait long enough, deniers often reveal themselves as 'defenders of the homeland against communist and globalist takeover'. They see that climate change requires a 'one-for-all and all-for-one' approach, and Big Fossils tells them that's UN Agenda 21 and the end of freedom as we know it. At times like these, I try to remind them that, if they used a toilet today (or even had access to one), they are already taking orders from the 'Big Guvment', to save them from their own filth (liquid in that case, but in climate change it's their gaseous filth they need saving from). And they've been doing this for 150 years, apparently not aware of their 'communism', and that its been costing them in taxes, all this time, about 1% of their GDP to save their children from dying of cholera (but just look at that cost, mon Deiu! btw, this is about the same % of GDP that fighting climate change is expected to cost if we start soon). I was brought to this realization by skepticalscience, btw!

The magic of the market can (and should) be directed to bring us the latest wizbang ideas at the 'lowest entropy' sector of human development (computers, information, electronics). Sadly, someone still needs to be there to take out the trash (the 'highest entropy' sector), or we will literally drown in it. Turns out: the captains of capitalism ain't interested (garbage collection isn't sexy, I guess), which leaves the sadly benighted public sector. It always falls to the public sector to tell the public to put a toilet in their house, and use it. Using it, however, hasn't left the public powerless to defend itself from the clutches of the commune, for some strange reason. And that reality is worth repeating to the denial community.

There's nothing wrong with fossil fuels. Fossils just needs to pick up its trash. And... there's the rub.

nigelj at 08:13 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

"When moral and secular authority join to convince the public to 'just trust me' on reality (to use a favority phrase of Mr Trump), then that's the path people take. "

Yes absolutely. People hurting or confused by complexity and poverty, turn to public figures especially dangerous demagogues, who will find scapegoats. Conspiracy theories take presidence over objective reality, and are a form of escapism. There's also a belief in "truthiness" which I think is over emphasis on gut instincts.

If the problem is misdiagnosed, the results will not work. America has places hurting like detroit, but this is due to automation as much as jobs lost to mexico and free trade like this has benefits as well as some problems. You have to help these people left behind, with retraining and relocation allowances, or income support, or maybe some universal basic income scheme, otherwise its going to get ugly. Yet this is an anathema to Republicans.

ubrew12 at 06:58 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

Perhaps this comes down to whether one believes reality to be objective or subjective. Subjective reality can be obtained from authority figures (because going against them is more painful). When moral and secular authority join to convince the public to 'just trust me' on reality (to use a favority phrase of Mr Trump), then that's the path people take. The purpose of Fox News is to emphasis the 'moral rightness and necessity' of taking that path. If reality is objective, then wonk opinion matters. Scientists matter on scientific matters, and economists on economic matters, and this is regardless if they are spouting 'inconvenient truths'. As regards the recent tax cuts, some people with little regard for objective history will be condemned to repeat it, I guess. The main thing is to keep the pillars of free speech, so that the wonks can remain a buzzing fly in the GOP ointment. That's the real danger right now, to this website and others messaging objective truths that many in authority don't want to hear.

nigelj at 06:54 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Daniel Mocsny @5, what you say is pretty interesting, but the environmental movement does spend a lot of time suggesting things individuals can do to change their lifestyles (regardless of what government does or doesn't do). For example reducing consumption, using low energy lighbulbs, theres a large list of things, but the point is you can only repeat this so many times, and its more or less a finite list well known by now. We can't force this onto people. Anyway this is why enviromentalists concentrate also on what governments could do as well.

The problem is often cost related. Electric cars have been just out of cost reach of many people, and even if you are worried about climate change, it's a big thing to find money for an electric car. This is of course now changing as prices drop, and the technology improves, and we may be near a tipping point of exponential growth in this technology.

There's much sensible government can do to help electric cars, and other issues, such as small subsidies, recharging stations, carbon fee and dividend schemes. It seems clear to me fixing the climate issue is ideally a combination of private individual action, corporate action and some government action, in a partnership approach. This is idealistic, but when I'm convinced of something, it's important to spell out the proper way. Of course as you correctly say the "oligarchs have captured the regulators", but we cannot simply accept that is how it must be. It has to change somehow, and I suspect it will change and presidencies and congress change towards people more prepared to confront the issue. The point is idealism has it's place, as does consideration of the full picture on what everybody should do on the climate issue, or we loose a rational and positive path forwards, and any semblance of a coherent overall plan.

I like your moral outrage point, and it is something that can work well at an individual sort of level. But we are still left with figuring out the best way of communicating the science, and the risks posed to humanity. Personally I think the IPCC have done a good job at a technical level, and it's hard to see how their reports could be fundamentally better or radically different, in approach and style. Scaremongering has no place in technical reports, although risks should certainly be underlined boldly.

Perhaps it's more up to scientists in the media, and also politicians and business people to help spread the message. They can talk more freely than the iPCC. Scientists have done ok, but are not trained public relations people. Messages from politicians and business have been mixed, and often non existent from these two groups.So you see we haven't really delivered the message all that well in the past in some respects. I think if a few of these people started talking about the risks of climate change,in a cool way but emphasising the high level of risk it would help. Of course there are 101 reasons why they are reluctant, but perhaps its time they looked at their moral bottom lines.

Daniel Mocsny at 05:29 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Should we use fear, optimism, facts, or something else to motivate people to do everything in their power to rape the planet less hard? The proof is in the pudding. When someone figures out the right message, we'll see everyone around them slashing their individual carbon footprints, in a steadily expanding circle. We'll see fossil fuel companies getting worried as they notice their business cratering in particular geographic areas, and looking for ways to restore demand. As I have never heard of this occurring - there is no community in the developed world where people en masse have adopted low-carbon behaviors across the board, and the behavior pattern is spreading relentlessly outward - then it is likely that nobody on this panel or anywhere else has any evidence-based idea of how to present climate change to the public. We might as well speculate on the best strategy for curing Huntington's disease (a disease that nobody knows how to cure yet), when we're still at the stage of reiki, homeopathy, leeches, and purgatives.

The melting glaciers don't care whether people are optimistic, pessimistic, despairing, dismissive, or hopeful, because emotions don't affect the rate of warming. Only actions do. Individuals who experience the full range of emotional reactions to climate change messaging continue to climb in their automobiles every morning, and book holiday flights regularly. You can see how people are acting by glancing at any highway or airport. Each airliner (a carbon-spewing flying fossil fuel tank) probably carries the full range of opinions on climate change. Look around the pages of your Facebook friends - how many are festooned with largely unwitting photographic boasts of how hard they raped the planet on their last holiday trip? Even many so-called climate activists continue to engage in the fossil-fueled gang-rape of the planet. People have somehow mastered the trick of compartmentalizing their personal assaults on the climate off from whatever they may believe about the climate.

As the election of Donald Trump should have made abundantly clear, government cannot be relied upon exclusively to solve the problem for us. The great hope of the environmental movement - that we can bypass the individual, who is the unit of climate change causation, and invoke collective magic - has played into the hands of the oligarchs who long ago perfected the formula for capturing the regulators. Unfortunately for the biosphere and its human and non-human residents, the environmental movement has focused almost exclusively on obtaining government regulations, when this is perhaps the easiest strategy for oligarchs to counter.

So forget trying to motivate people with optimism or fear. We need a good healthy dose of moral outrage. When you see someone raping the planet with their automobiles, holiday trips, etc., react to them the same way you would react to seeing someone doing something that is morally outrageous (such as killing a kitten). As a culture, we care more about the welfare of individual kittens (even though domestic cats are nowhere near endangered as a species) than we care about the welfare of the biosphere on which cats and every other known living thing depends.

nigelj at 05:24 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

"Theres just no logic to the Republican tax plan at all, and it is a shameless self serving give away to business interests"

Actually a correction. There is a certain twisted logic, keeping your donors and supporters satisfied, but it's all still gone too far and is a morally bankrupt decision not in the countries interests.

America will also be financially bankrupt if it keeps cutting taxes and increasing spending on military. Debt is already at nearly 100% of gdp well above IMF recomendation of 60% maximum of gdp, and is something like 13 trillion dollars. It cant go on forever without disastrous consequences.

nigelj at 05:07 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

The Republican tax policy and climate policy simply doesn't make any sense to me either. A general tax cut doesnt make sense. America is not a high tax country contrary to the bizarre claims of some people. Its tax rates are very significantly below the OECD average, as a total tax burden, shown here and here for example. Therefore its hard to see a pressing need for a tax cut in general terms.

The country doesn't need general tax cuts. It's obviously not in recession needing stimulation.

Economists say Americas at near maximum capacity so tax cuts could well lead to inflation, a boom and crash cycle, and larger trade deficits (that Trump says he is worried about) and will certainly add to government debt and deficit loads, which Obama was criticised for. But apparently high debt and higher deficits is now "ok". The double standard is breathtaking.

Tax cuts will raise pressure to cut important spending in health, education, NASA, and climate research.

Theres just no logic to the Republican tax plan at all, and it is a shameless self serving give away to business interests. Economists say most of the corporate tax cut will go to executive pay and shareholders, not pay of ordinary workers.

There may be a need to tidy up deductions, cut taxes on poor people, and some small corporate tax cut, but any of these cuts should be revenue neutral surely? Balanced by tax increases (maybe a carbon tax). But the Republicans are in total denial about the climate issue as well.

I'm not an advocate for high taxes as France has for example, more a middle ground approach, but the Republicans have lost touch with reality.

nigelj at 04:27 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Thiristaer, fair comment. Cynics, denialists.

The cynics like to feel they have some special insight that makes them superior, like people who believe in conspiracy theories. They do not. They are either dumb, or intellectually lazy and mostly terribly insecure and deeply afraid to admit they were wrong, so they get locked into beliefs regardless of reality.

A good read on genuine healthy scepticism "Skeptic, by Michael Shermer"

Thiristaer at 03:46 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Nigelj

Those are not skeptics. If skepticism was their bag they would apply an equal level of scrutiny to the “research“ they base their conclusions on and any/all research that points in another direction.

Their behavior fits better within the definition of cynicis. To title them skeptics is an insult to those of us who are genuinely inquisitive and love nothing more than gaining new knowledge by discovering we were wrong about some.

nigelj at 12:44 PM on 4 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Some people probably consider Crockfords views have "truthiness" because they tell people what they want to hear, and are consistent with their world view, therefore she is an "expert". I think that's how it works. Expertise as normally and properly defined doesn't even enter into it.

Bob Loblaw at 07:57 AM on 4 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

I perused through Matthew L's list of Crockford's publications. I followed the link to the two Comments posted with respect to journal papers.

The first comment (on the Science paper) discussed observations of cross-breeding between brown bears and polar bears, and says nothing about climate change or future directions of polar bear habitat reductions. I can't tell from the web page whether the comment is strictly an on-line comment or whether itt appeared in print. (The paper is from 2012.)
The second link (to the Current Biology paper) is also a paper about historical brown bear and polar bear hybridization, but I see no comments listed at all. Using that web page's search tool produced no material written by Susan Crockford. The paper is from 2011.

It is interesting to note that in the first comment, Susan Crockford lists her affiliation as "Department of Anthropology ... University of Victoria". The department's faculty listing states that she is an Adjunct Assistant Professor. Being an adjunct carries a lot less weight than being a university employee.

https://web.uvic.ca/calendar2014/FACS/FoSoS/DoAn/index.html

Desmog.ca also has a story on this paper, which includes an interview with one of the authors of the paper - Ian Stirling. I've met him ,and he is a real polar bear expert. His opinion of Susan Crockford, expressed in the story, is not flattering.

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/11/30/polar-bears-chosen-bizarre-symbol-deny-climate-change-scientists-say

Mathew L's depiction of Crockford as a relevant expert is a classic example of the denialist use of Fake Experts:

FLICC

jsmith at 07:52 AM on 4 December 2017

Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1

Honestly I'm not sure where to comment this, but there's a paper listed as by Lamar Alexander here https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=195 that is actually by AJR Alexander, so that paper should be removed. I'd do it myself but I can only tell how to add papers, not remove them.

nigelj at 05:13 AM on 4 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48

This graph below is the temperature trend at Barrow Alaska, showing an increase of 5 degrees F from 1949 to 2014.

toolkit.climate.gov/image/1151

Project this out another 50 years or so, even just as a linear trend and it's astonishing, but it's highly likely to be more than a liner trend according to IPPC.

Eclectic at 01:39 AM on 4 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

I regret that I must issue a correction of my comments @ post #21.

I had mentioned Mr Larry Kummer's blogsite "Fabius Maximus" as an example of the "denier" blogs alluded to by the OP — blogs which opposed the overwhelming scientific evidence of AGW and which inter alia tended to make use of a lone outlier scientist [in this particular case, Dr Susan Crockford] for the purpose of "proxy-style denialism" of the global problems produced by AGW.

A quick look over "Fabius Maximus" (a blog with Headline Mission of opposing the modern degeneracy of the American Nation) . . . showed me that the blogsite was mostly political in nature, with little attention to science. The link from Dr Crockford to a recent "Fabius Maximus" article by Mr Kummer, showed a standard denialist article with misrepresentations & poor logic. Standard fare, indeed — yet in presence of the other generally political articles in the blog, I drew the conclusion that the science denialism was "a minor personal side-issue for him [as prime author of the blog]".

How wrong I was.

Mr Kummer's subsequent (post #25) assertion that he was no denier but "a strong supporter" of the IPCC and major climate agencies . . . was surprising to me, for it showed a vast discordance with the body of his article. A discordance of truly Presidential degree (an allusion to the current President, of course).

Digging deeper, I found quite a number of Kummer articles with strong science-denying bias [here I could have said climate-science-denying — but all well-established science hangs together, so to speak . . . and so to be a denier of one area is in effect to be a denier of all areas].

There were also querulous posts by Mr Kummer (to similar effect) on third-party blogs. # So I was quite wrong to describe him as a minor or low-grade "denier". He actually rates as a red-hot public denier of climate science.

The irony of this, is that his blog which is nominally fighting the decline/degeneracy of "the nation" . . . is actually an active contributor to the anti-science movement which is a causative part of the national decline.

nigelj at 07:27 AM on 3 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Yes polar bears are accustomed to a certain way of life. It's not as if polar bears and seals can build boats. Polar bears eat seals and also carcasses of beluga whales. But seal numbers are declining, and arctic belguga whale numbers are under threat from hunting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale#Population

Polar bears are not evolved to eat smaller fish easily. Its hard for me to see how they can adapt in time to all these changing circumstances. Things will reach a tipping point where numbers dwindle at an accelerating rate, and even finding a mate will become more difficult.

The resilent or adaptable species tend to be insects, bacteria and smaller mammals. And humans to an extent. But our vulnerability is the complexity of our economy and society now.

nigelj at 06:23 AM on 3 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

The comments posted after the hope and despair article are interesting. Totally fact free, politicised, gut reaction, sneering, venting of anger.You wont convince half of those climate sceptics, but may convince those near the middle of the bell curve.

nigelj at 05:57 AM on 3 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Good article. You don't want to exaggerate, like claiming the earth will become like venus, and ruin credibility of science, or have false optimism either, that ignores unpleasant realities.

Just give people the facts. Climate change is serious, and while probabilities of some of the worst aspects ( like several metres of sea level rise this century) appear low at this stage, because consequences are so severe, we cannot gamble, and must take action. I call this measured scariness, with all the facts on the table in an adult way.Treat the public like adults, and hopefully they will respond like adults.

One Planet Only Forever at 05:11 AM on 3 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

In addition to the threat to polar bear populations from reduced Arctic sea ice extents, there is already the challenge to polar bear populations due to the later formation of sea ice. I have seen numerous reports of polar bears trying to survive on the shorelines because of later formation of sea ice. unlike humans who can get a science based forecast and plan accordingly, polar bears base what they do on what they are accustomed to.

Unfortunately many humans fail to 'learn from science' and will not change their behavior responsibly if the required change is contrary to what they have developed a desire for ... become addicted to.

Jeff H at 19:39 PM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

The things we wanted to emphasize in our paper are important concepts like tipping points, critical threshold, time lags and what Tilman and May referred to as the ‘extinction debt’ in their 1994 Nature article. Polar bears depend on habitat that literally melts as temperatures rise. If, as projected, ice extent in the Arctic continues to decline, then at some point bear populations WILL collapse. We have seen similar occurrences in tropical biota; species remained in fairly sizeable numbers until forest cover was reduced below a critical threshold and then numbers plummeted, often so rapidly that extinction was inevitable.

We therefore emphasize that focusing on today tells us little about future projections in a warming world. Paul Ehrlich’s building analogy is appropriate here. A man jumps off the top of a 100 story building, plummets 50 floors and while doing so shouts “everything is OK!”. Well, it clearly isn’t OK. Climate change skeptics and deniers routinely fail or refuse to project. Their mantra is, “everything is OK today, so don’t worry about tomorrow”. This isn’t science. I was taught as a professional ecologist to place the demographics of species and species populations in a dynamic, changing world. The world is not static. Humans are altering vast swathes of the biosphere, including surface temperatures, at rates well beyond the capacity of many species to adapt. Therein lies the rub.

Moderator Response:

[PS] By the way, thanks Jeff for stopping by and entering this discussion. It is appreciated.

nigelj at 18:17 PM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Matthew L @22

"The longer the ice in the Arctic fails to melt away,"

He says this despite indisputable evidence from multiple sources of a longer term decline in arctic sea ice areas and thickness. He must either dispute the obvious, or live in a world shielded from actual evidence like this. Either way, this is why we call you people 'denialists'.

Eclectic at 13:31 PM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

FMeditor @25 , you cherry-pick a couple of "failed" comments [2007 Prof X said: Arctic summers ice-free by 2013 . . . Also 2002 Prof Y said: Regular summer trade ships within a decade] to imply that all of mainstream climate science is worthless. And then you cherry-pick summer polar sea-ice extents in 2008 and 2017 . . . while turning a blind eye [= not informing your readers] to the multi-year trend while at the same time ignoring the spectacularly-large decline in summer polar sea-ice volume ; and all the associated causations of these effects [i.e. ongoing AGW]. And then another non-sequitur : you imply that Dr Crockford's PhD in zoology would/could qualify her as a new C.R.Darwin or S.J.Gould or someone of similar weighty opinion.

FMeditor, your article was worthy of the British Daily Mail. What next : Al Gore said New York would be 20 feet under water by now?!?

You have a strange way of being "a strong — even dogmatic — supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies". Hmm, with friends like you, why would science need enemies? ;-)

On the FabiusMaximus politics, I am eclectic. Some I agree with, and some I think are "unsupported". And I also perceive that the Shakespearean Lady protests too much, about the FM lack of bias. # But all this is irrelevant to the outlier position of Dr Crockford and her lack of objectivity.

"Full information" given on the FM website? Far from it, on Crockford/AGW. Half-truths may be presented as disinformation, or OTOH may be presented in a way that is truthful & useful to the reader. It's largely the editor's choice, don't you think?

As Popper would say if alive today : the mainstream scientists have done a fine job in gathering the climate science evidence of rapid Anthropogenic Global Warming, and their predictions so far have been good . . . while the predictions (and science) by Lindzen & other "contrarians" have been appallingly bad.

FMeditor at 11:04 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Eclectic,

(1) "The climate science denialism seems to be a minor personal side-issue for him."

I don't respond to unsupported smears, but in this case will point out that I am a strong — even dogmatic — supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies (esp NOAA). Their work is the foundation of my posts. That you consider that "denialism" is ... strange, and sad.

(2) "the topics tend toward the partisan-political,"

The tagline of the FM website says it is about "geopolics." So, yes, there is a lot about politics. Much of our content attacks extremists on both Left and Right. That's the case for posts about the policy debate about climate change — where both extremes have turned against the IPCC.

(3) "thereby implying to the casual/superficial reader, that Crockford was an expert in the field and whose opinion was worthy of respect)."

Your description of that section of the post is misleading. As is the standard practice on the FM website, we provide readers with full information so that they can make the own evaluation. I gave a summary of her professional background — education, a link to her publication (including her paper about polar bears), etc.

Calling that "disinformation" is daft.

Here background in zoology is relevant to this subject. Time will tell if her analysis is correct. As Popper said (paraphrasing), successful predictions are the gold standard in science.

Matthew L at 11:01 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Sorry for the typos. Keyboard on my phone is very small and editing a pain!

John Hartz at 10:58 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Suggested supplemental reading:

How do you Spot a Climate Science Denial Blog? Check the Polar Bears
by Kyla Mandel, DeSmog UK, Dec 1, 2017

Matthew L at 10:57 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Jeff H. Please name the "deniers" you are referring to. The three names I put forward stress repeatedly that they fully buy into greenhouse gas global warming. However they do not agree with the established view that it is as rapid or likely to be as catastrophic as most articles on sites such as this. They put forward reasonable arguments and are far from extreme. So far the worst predictions of imminent catastrophe have failed to materialise. The longer the ice in the Arctic fails to melt away, the polar bears thrive, coral atols fail to sink and agricultural yields continue to grow the more convincing their arguments become and the less convincing are the predictions of disaster by the end of the century. I am still worried that the worst might happen and still read the science but am a lot less worried than I was 20 years ago when so many predictions of doom were made that have failed to come to pass. I notice you failed to respond to my comment on the tendancy towards self justification, and cognitive dissonance in the scientific community when predictions fail. Ever read the book "Mistakes were made (but not by me)"? I think you should. When you cry "wolf!" and predict catastrophe you had befter be very certain it will happen or you are not to lose all credibility. Professor Peter Wadhams was once a despected scientist...

Moderator Response:

[JH] Sloganeering snipped.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

Eclectic at 10:44 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Quite right, FMeditor @ 13 et seq . . . CBDunkerson should more properly have used the term "disinformation" (rather than "misinformation").

I suppose MatthewL could tell us whether his source was Dr Crockford's blogsite or Mr Kummer's blogsite — but really the exact source of the disinformation is of little relevance to the basic question.

On Kummer's blogsite, as far as I have seen, the topics tend toward the partisan-political, by himself and subsidiary authors. The climate science denialism seems to be a minor personal side-issue for him. Nevertheless, Kummer doesn't hesitate to have his climate article (on polar bears & Crockford) bristling with non-sequiturs & other disinformation (e.g. the link to Crockford's publication list . . . thereby implying to the casual/superficial reader, that Crockford was an expert in the field and whose opinion was worthy of respect).

It appears that Crockford's expertise on the evolution of the polar bears . . . is about as relevant to today, as the evolution of the rhinoceros is to the current problems of the rhinoceros. Worse, Crockford's own apologism (against climate science) on her own blogsite shows the cherry-picking [Hudson Bay bears] and logical non-sequiturs, irresponsible risk-management & short-term thinking so typically unobjective and in short: unscientific.

Note particularly her denial of the progressive loss of arctic ice.

nigelj at 09:52 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Ecletic says "Then we come to the reasons for Dr Crockford to be such an outlier in her opinions. The reek of Heartland Institute is strong."

Edidence of Crockfords very strong links to Heartland Institute here and anti climate science petitions she has signed here.

michael sweet at 08:46 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Fmeditor:

Matthewl said:

"This paper smears an outstanding and eminent scientist in the field of Arctic Fauna."

The evidence he provided showed that Susan Crockford has never studied any living fauna in the Arctic. She has several papers on dogs and a few on archaelogical research in the Arctic. His statement "outstanding and eminent" has been shown to be false and therefor is misinformation.

Jeffh describes Steven Amstrup, Ian Stirling and Eric Post, researchers who are "outstanding and eminent". They have 1000 times more citations about arctic fauna than Susan Crockford. Since Susan Crockford has never observed fauna in the arctic, these researchers have an infinite more experience in the field than she does.

Wol at 07:09 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Matthew L @ 10:

Seems to me that the gist of the piece is that polar bear numbers are a sort of proxy for temperatures.

Don't they call this a gish-gallop? Starting and then continuing an argument based on animal numbers is so far from having any conclusions - at least until centuries have passed - is merely a distraction. Her scientific credentials don't even enter into it.

FMeditor at 06:20 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

nigelj,

Re your: "Nobody said her publishing record is missinformation"

I gave a full quote of the comment by CBDunkerson, and replied using his own words. No paraphrase. No interpretation.

nigelj at 05:57 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Just my view on polar bears, fwiw. Briefly I think polar bears are in trouble from declining sea ice. Polar bears use the floating sea ice, and sea ice is also important to seal populations, on which polar bears depend.

There is mixed evidence of whether polar bear numbers are declining overall right now because of so many influences, measuring accuracy, climate issues and hunting. But there is good evidence of declining populations of some seals here.

This is not rocket science. Species have some level of adaptability. Polar bears are probably still finding enough seals to get by. But in 20 years impacts will be much greater in terms of declining sea ice and seal numbers, and will stretch adaptability of polar bears. If seal populations declining now as seems apparent in at least some cases as above, directly from declining sea ice, they can only decine further. This is likely to impact on polar bears given its their food supply, and it's over a relatively short time frame of decades to a century. This is short in adaptation and evolutionary terms.

The issue is one where its too early to get a clear picture on polar bears partly because of changes in hunting, and its the projections that count most. Any 'reasonable' consideration paints a grim future for polar bears later this century.

nigelj at 05:12 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

FMeditor @13

"(2) Matthew's comment is factualy correct — not "misinformation." From this information Bart and Michael draw different *conclusions* about the relevance of her training and experience."

Nobody said her publishing record is missinformation, you are making a straw man argument. Its her views and findings that are questioned.

And yes they do draw different conclusions, but only one conclusion makes sense, namely M Sweets. Susan Crockfords research is broadly speaking in zoology, with nothing published in the peer reviewed literature on polar bears apart from some very brief comment piece, and almost nothing published related to climate change. Thefore its nonsensical for anyone to consider her an expert or authority on polar bears, and relation to climate change.

If you want to be an expert and taken seriously, you have to prove it to your peers, and the only convincing way is to publish research of substance specifically on polar bears, or do a Phd thesis on polar bears, otherwise claims of expertise are empty assertions, like some arm chair retired physics teacher claiming to be a leading expert on black holes on the basis of some blog post he wrote. No, an expert is someonelike S Hawking, who has offered some substantial proof he is an expert. Its no different for Susan Crockford.

FMeditor at 04:53 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

CBDunkerson,

My comment was about Michael L's first comment. His second comment appears to be his own analysis, perhaps based on reading Crockford's website.

It doesn't cite or quote anything in my post , or even seem related to it.

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/11/30/new-study-about-climate-science-debate/

FMeditor at 04:46 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

CBDunkerson

"Matthew L is likely getting his misinformation from this Larry Kummer piece."

(1) No, he didn't. He got that information from the "About" page on Susan Crockford's website, Polar Bear Science.

https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/

(2) Matthew's comment is factualy correct — not "misinformation." From this information Bart and Michael draw different *conclusions* about the relevance of her training and experience.

nigelj at 04:38 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Matthew L @10

"The problem is that the uncertainties in the science are so huge (ECS between 1.5C and 4C per CO2 doubling according to IPCC) that it is quite possible to take a reasonable view at both ends of the spectrum. "

With respect this doesn't make too much sense. You cannot take a reasonable view at extreme ends of the spectrum, because that Sir is a contradiction in terms. A reasonable view in general terms is a rational and / or middle ground view.

Most research finds that climate sensitivity is moderate to high. A reasonable view is to take at least the centre ground and say climate sensitivity is at least moderate.

I think you could go further on the basis of published science, and also say it is likely to be moderate, could be high, and is unlikely to be low. Anything else that favours one end of the spectrum would be your opinion and personal bias on what end you favour.

Please also note the low sensitivity papers have also been heavily criticised, and recent temperaturess bring their methodology and findings further into question.

Jeff H at 03:55 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

As lead author of the Bioscience paper I will make three responses to Matthew L’s erroneous posts. First, our paper is about scientific ethics, not about Susan Crockford, and we set out to prove that blogs which deny AGW largely ignore the primary scientific literature. We proved that here using PCA. Polar bears are used as biotic proxies for AGW by climate change deniers, hence why we focused on these iconic mammals. In truth, the empirical literature is filled with studies showing the harmful effects of warming on soil, aboveground terrestrial and aquatic communities. This wealth of data is ignored by denier blogs because it would be impossible for them to counter this veritable tsunami of data. Moreover, since blogs are operated usually by people lacking formal training in the relevant fields, a deliberate attempt is made to focus on only a tiny subset of areas or fields.

Second, Susan Crockford has only 17 papers in her career on the ISI Web of Science (none since 2014); her work has been cited less than 200 times and her h-factor is 7. Moreover, she has conducted no primary research on polar bear biology or ecology. On this basis I would question whether she is an ‘outstanding and eminent scientist in the field of Arctic fauna’. To argue that she knows more about the survival of Arctic fauna than anyone else is absurd. Three of my co-authors, Steven Amstrup, Ian Stirling and Eric Post, by contrast, have a combined total of over 500 publications, 15,000 citations and vastly more expertise on Arctic ecology than Crockford.

Third, there are not two sides in discussions about AGW. There is one side whose conclusions are supported by the vast majority of the empirical data and another side whose arguments are not. Of course there are uncertainties over future projections of AGW, and deniers exploit these as much as possible to sow doubt. But there are many certainties as well, and scientists need to do a better job getting these across to the general public. Oreskes and Conway named their book, ‘Merchants of Doubt’ for a reason. Deniers will never win scientific debates, but that is not their aim. Their aim is to convince the public that the science is not settled. In tis way nothing will be done to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Matthew L at 02:18 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

She has done meta-analysis on research data on polar bear numbers which is compelling, if not peer reviewed. As a medic I am well aware of the problems with peer review and the lack of replicated results, so I do not dismiss any paper just because it is not peer reviewed.

There is nothing to suggest that global numbers of polar bears have declined in the last 40 years and plenty to suggest that they have grown. It may be difficult to disentangle growth due to a reduction in hunting with decline due to a reduction in habitat. However, to date, the former effect has evidently been stronger than the latter, despite a steady decline in Arctic sea ice. You are disingenous in your statement that polar bears are listed as endangered. This was done to protect them from dangerous men with dangerous guns, not gradual sea ice decline.

From what I can gather, most of the time when an unbiased assesment is done on Arctic fauna the results tend to be less alarming than the initial press would suggest. For instance the recent Fish and Wildlife Service assesment of walrus populations as not endangered following "analysis of the best available scientific information".

https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/walrus/esa.htm

I do not know of Crockford's attitude on climate change, but as she is a highly qualified and published scientist who has worked extensively in the Arctic I very much doubt it is "anti-science" - any more than Judith Curry, Pielke Junior and Roy Spencer are "anti-science" or "deniers" (absolutely hate the use of that word). They are all highly qualified scientists in relevant fields of study who understand global warming and greenhouse gases but have come to a different view of the scientific evidence than taken on this blog - largely through empircal study and analysis rather than reliance on the wildly variable reuslts from General Circulation Models.

I am broadly on your side, fascinated by the science, but absolutely despair of the politics on both sides. The rampant and totally ludicrous millenial cult level alarmism (Manhatten under water by 2010, no Arctic ice by 2012, 5 million climate refugees by 2015 etc) in the press followed by ridiculous self justification and cognitive dissonance when the world does not end ("its worse than we thought!") just demolishes credibility . As for the "sky dragon slayers", I absolutely despair...

Blogs really are not the problem. The problem is that the uncertainties in the science are so huge (ECS between 1.5C and 4C per CO2 doubling according to IPCC) that it is quite possible to take a reasonable view at both ends of the spectrum. It would be better for sites such as this to climb down from the moral high ground and start looking at the effect that crying "wolf!" so often has on scientific credibility when the wolf does not appear.

Moderator Response:

[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

Stephen Leahy at 02:10 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

My take on the paper/Crockford for Vice:

80 Percent of Climate Denier Blogs Reference This One Canadian Zoologist

A University of Victoria adjunct prof has become climate deniers’ go-to source on polar bears.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzgq3y/climate-denier-blogs-spread-online-polar-bears-science

CBDunkerson at 01:08 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Matthew L is likely getting his misinformation from this Larry Kummer piece.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments