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  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 151 to 200:

  1. At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    Thanks, I did notice that it was taking a position, which I took as a red flag.  But I struggled to understand if it was making new claims regarding saturation, based on new experimental evidence, or if the explanations on this page essentially cover it already.  

    I'd be very interested to know how valid this papers arguments are and if they have been rebuffed, or found wanting in peer review, as I think this line of attack will be a very popular one in the coming months. I've already met it from numerous trolls elsewhere who currently think it's their "gotcha!"

  2. At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    Theo Simon @4 :

    As John Mason says @5 , there are certainly some Red Flags attached to that Kubicki paper ~ including it's citations of papers by Harde; by Humlum; and by Idso . . . those prominent luminati of the Alternate Universe.

    Theo, to save your reading time in future ~ whenever you see a "gotcha" article in NoTricksZone .com , claiming that the mainstream science (of anything) is quite wrong . . . then there's a roughly 99% probability that the article is a load of taurine excrement [abbreviation = BS ].

    Reading the cited [Kubicki] article's Abstract quickly demonstrates that the authors have simply failed to understand the basic physics of the atmosphere & GreenHouse Effect [abbreviation = GHE ].   And this first impression gets confirmed by reading the article's Conclusions, which are comprised of an excessive amount of word salad and bizarro politics.

    Kubicki et al. seem to have discovered ideas that have been well & truly debunked . . . many decades ago.   If only the authors had troubled to have their "novel" ideas reviewed by experts, before presenting their paper to the world !   They could have saved themselves so much embarrassment, as well as saving dollars.

  3. At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    re - # 4: I've just taken a look at that paper. The reason we didn't mention it was that it came out very recently.

    This however is part of the conclusion:

    "However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves, they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations. Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose."

    In scientific literature, a conclusion should be about the work that was done, and not an arm-waving diatribe! The Introduction likewise gives its first 400 plus words over to arm-wavy waffle about the IPCC. I'm surprised it got beyond peer review on that basis. Indeed, its submission/acceptance dates (Received 4 December 2023, Accepted 11 December 2023) suggests it never was reviewed. In most cases a period of months divides those two dates because the peer review process is quite slow. These are all warning signs that 'something is up' with this item.

  4. At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    I am not science trained but trying to understand. This rebuttal doesn't mention the alleged evidence presented in the paper "Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases" by Kubicki and others - or does it?  The current denialism talking point is that additional CO2 has now been shown to have no additional warming effect, and claims new proofs of this:

    https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/

  5. 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16

    @ 1. Nigelj

    Absurd indeed. The IEA has said that the clean energy transition would save the world $71 trillion by 2050. The cost would be $44 trillion, but $115 trillion in fuel savings.
    So it's worth doing even without climate change costs.

  6. 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16

    Regarding the story of the week: "Wednesday's study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which is backed by the German government, stands out for the severity of its findings. It calculates climate change will shave 17% off the global economy's GDP by the middle of the century." Now compare this with the DICE economic model (Richard Nordhaus) : "The updated results imply a 1.6% GDP- equivalent loss at 3 °C warming over preindustrial temperatures, up from 1.2% in the review for DICE- 2016.19 Mar 2."

    www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2312030121#:~:text=The%20updated%20results%20imply%20a,the%20review%20for%20DICE%2D%202016.

    The time frames of the two studies look approximately the same. 3 degrees warming would be about mid century. The difference in estimated damages between reducing gdp by 17% compared to 1.6% looks absolutely huge.

    You cant reconcile this easily. This has me puzzled so I'm hoping I haven't misinterpreted something. However the DICE model has been heavily criticised by several experts as seriously underestimating the costs of climate change and being an absurd study in its handling of  risk assessments.

  7. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on April 21, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  8. Climate's changed before

    Re - #899: there's a post in the publication-queue regarding Bolling-Allerod events - not sure as to publication-date, but the points made by Eclectic at #900 are relevant. They are regional in their extent.

  9. Climate's changed before

    Spooky @899 , you should not really be surprised ~ since the OP article is referring to Global temperature changes.

    Not to the local rapid changes in the boreal icesheet region (e.g. Denmark, Greenland, Alaska : during the last glacial age) as shown in the Bolling-Allerod warming and in the briefer Dansgaard-Oeschger events.   Those local northern regions are affected by "sudden" changes in local oceanic currents ~ both smaller & larger (e.g. the AMOC).   But that has little effect on the global scale, except when it involves a massive event like the melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (i.e. the Younger Dryas).

    In India, the Indian Monsoons (to which you allude) show much fluctuation resulting from very small alterations in local temperatures & winds (winds which may bring more oxygen18-rich water) . . . even in the absence of a 30-year climate change.

    For global temperature changes, there need to be global-scale changes in albedo / insolation / particulates /  or greenhouse gasses.

  10. Climate's changed before

    I am surprised that the rapid temperature increase which happened about 15'000 years ago during Bolling-Allerod period is not mentionned. Records indicate a 3C warming in less than 90 years, and therefore was way faster than current warming. Those records are specific to the gulf of Alaska and do not prove by themselves that the warming was global. However brutal variations of Delta18 ratio have also been observed in Greenland and India  at the same peiod (I have not checked if it was at the exact same time). I would be interested by comments of experts about this. Thank you.

  11. How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023

    nigelj said: "El ninos release ocean heat that has been building up"

    The complement to this is that La Ninas absorb atmospheric heat as the cold thermocline approaches the surface, thus exposing a large area heat sink.  Thus, a complete swing is -cold to +hot.

    So the fact that we have been in a La Nina state the prior few years makes the warming spike even more stark.

    Also the AMO shows a significant El Nino-like peak.  This is perhaps expected, as the precursor to this situation occurred in 1878 (see chart below) when one of the largest El Ninos recorded occurred in the Pacific, while a similar scaled peak occurred in the Atlantic's AMO.  

     

    AMO

  12. How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023

    Jan @ 2 / 3 :

    my computer does not connect to that facebook site

    ~ possibly the computer figures (genau richtig) that my German abilities are far too small.

    "Long story short" ~ are you saying that the recent slightly greater global warmth is a minor temporary excursion or a longer-term feedback that will give many years of greater-than-expected warmth of surface temperatures?

  13. How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023

    Made it a little bit nicer, as it is important:

     

    On the causes of the exceptional temperature jump in 2023

    First things first:

    What was special about the warming in 2023 was, that it happened all in the last 6 months, so it was a much larger jump over these months than the mean values of 2023.

    Further, only a moderate El Nino existed, so not too much warming came from here.

    Reasons where:

    SOx reductions over the shipping routes amplified the marine heatwave signal across the mid-latitudes.

    The El Nino in combination with a positive Indian Dipole - both lead to a larger heat release of the tropical oceans as a clear and strong circulation cell is supported over the tropical oceans due to the zonal SSTs gradient.

    Sea ice reductions around the Antarctic caused circulation changes that led to moist and warm air advection over Antarctica (strong effect on the warming as exceptional heat waves rocked Antarctica), as well as radiative effects of the sea ice reductions and heat release over sea ice-free areas.

    Then that climate warming warms the oceans now more than natural variability is often able to produce colder than normal SSTs - at one time only some ocean regions existed with colder than normal temperatures.

    Then we had the vast expansion of marine heatwaves across the global oceans, especially across the mid-latitudes reaching a coverage of more than 40% in July.

    The warmer-than-normal Oceans created a cloud feedback thereby increasing shortwave absorption (reinforces marine heatwaves).

    From 2012 to 2016 we had a non-linear increase of moisture in the marine boundary layer caused by exceptional SSTs. The next jump will have happened in 2023 causing a water vapor feedback over large parts of the oceans to increase. And tropical moist air advection is causing marine heatwaves in the subtropics to mid-latitudes. So also here is another feedback as more water vapor radiates longwave radiation back to the surface.

    Further, we had during summer to autumn large areas where the soil-moisture-temperature cascade came into play producing these exceptional continental heat waves. It comes along with a cloud feedback and supports stalled/fixed high-pressure systems as these heat domes redirect the jet around them (higher troposphere).

    Then we had the pattern effect of increasing zonal (east/west direction) temperature gradients at the ocean surface and continents which disturb the overlying circulation, often causing blocking patterns (also a reason for the marine heatwaves to build up)

    Then we had towards autumn a heat release of the marine heatwaves across the mid-latitudes, as the atmosphere gets colder. Also, cold core and warm cors eddies cause extreme temperature gradients in the western boundary extension regions leading to a larger latent heat releases over these ocean regions (small-scale pattern effect of SSTs increases wind speeds).

    Last it has been possible that the oceans released heat from the subsurface that had built up. Across the mid-latitudes warm freshening water masses are accumulating under the surface as shallow as 150m depth. And these heat depots could have been tapped, as the jets speed up during winter, as the density gradient between the tropics and poles increases in the upper atmosphere while it decreases near the surface, especially during winter. More and stronger low-pressure systems due to increased shear are the outcome. And all these extreme low-pressure systems in autumn and winter across the mid-latitudes in 2023/24 could have tapped these subsurface heat depots. But no study here as this is a new development seen in the intensity of the low-pressure systems the last years (e.g. number of atmospheric rivers hitting the US west coast)

    Main problem thou is the expansion of marine heatwaves, as they are feedback driven by global warming heating the oceans from the surface too fast (thermal stratification increases non-linear in the upper 300m of the oceans in various regions), in combination with the pattern effect which disturbs global zonal circulation with the result of more stalled high-pressure systems (low wind speeds are in most instances the main precondition for marine heatwaves to form besides thermal stratification and shallow upper mixed layer depth).

    Last the warming of the northern latitudes can also be included in the factors driving global warming in 2023.

    In short, the warming of 2023 was feedback-driven by various systems forcing each other into a heating mode with the systems of the oceans, atmosphere, and landmasses acting in unison!

    The exact series of which contributed to what extent to the heating science has to find out. But it would have to be done on a monthly basis!

    The next jump will have devastating consequences as they become larger...

    In my opinion, the model spread is now a joke as it is way too large proving the uselessness of models as they will increasingly become unable to predict what is coming as too many parametrizations prevent them from simulating the non-linear character of the mutually reinforcing systems with many processes operating on small scales...

    p.s. we warm the oceans too fast from the surface that is our main problem!

  14. How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023

    What was special about the warming in 2023 was, that it happened all in the last 6 months, so it was a much larger jump over these months then the mean values of 2023.

    Further, only a moderate El Nino existed, so not too much warming came from here.

    Reasons where:

    SOx reductions amplified the marine heatwave signal across the mid-latitudes.

    The El Nino in combination with a positive Indian Dipole - both lead to a larger heat release of the tropical oceans as a clear and strong circulation cell is supported over the tropical oceans due to the zonal temperature gradient.

    Sea ice reductions around the Antarctic caused circulation changes that led to moist and warm air advection over Antarctica (strong effect on the warming as exceptional heat waves rocked Antarctica), as well as radiative effects of the sea ice reductions and heat release over sea ice-free areas.

    Then climate warming warms the oceans now more than natural variability is often able to produce colder than normal SSTs - at one time only some ocean regions existed with colder than normal temperatures.

    Then we had the vast expansion of marine heatwaves across the global oceans, especially across the mid-latitudes reaching a coverage of more than 40% in July.

    The warmer-than-normal Oceans created a cloud feedback thereby increasing shortwave absorption (reinforces marine heatwaves).

    From 2012 to 2016 we had a non-linear increase of moisture in the marine boundary layer caused by exceptional SSTs. The next jump will have happened in 2023 causing a water vapor feedback over large parts of the oceans to increase. And tropical moist air advection is causing marine heatwaves in the subtropics to mid-latitudes. So also here another feedback as more water vapor radiates longwave radiation back to the surface.

    Further, we had during summer to autumn large areas where the soil-moisture-temperature cascade came into play producing these exceptional continental heat waves. It comes along with a cloud feedback.

    Then we had the pattern effect of increasing temperature gradients in the oceans surface and continents which disturb the overlying circulation, often causing blocking patterns (also a reason for the marine heatwaves to build up)

    Then we had towards autumn a heat release of the marine heatwaves across the mid-latitudes, as the atmosphere gets colder.

    Last it have been possible that the oceans released heat from the subsurface that had built up. Across the mid-latitudes warm freshening water masses are accumulating under the surface as shallow as 150m depth. And these heat depots could have been tapped, as the jets speed up during winter, as the density gradient between the tropics and poles increases in the upper atmosphere while it decreases near the surface. More and stronger low-pressure systems due to increased shear are the outcome. And all these extreme low-pressure systems in autumn and winter across the mid-latitudes in 2023/24 could have tapped this subsurface heat depot. But now study here as this is new.

    Main problem thou is the expansion of marine heatwaves, as they are feedback driven by global warming heating the oceans from the surface too fast (thermal stratification increases non-linear in the upper 300m of the oceans in various regions), in combination with the pattern effect which disturbs global zonal circulation with the result of more stalled high-pressure systems (low wind speeds are in most instances THE precondition for marine heatwaves too form besides thermal stratification and small mixed layer depth).

    Last the warming of the northern latitudes can also be included in the factors driving global warming in 2023.

    In short the warming of 2023 was feedback-driven by various system forcing each other into a heating mode with the systems of the oceans, atmosphere, and landmasses acting in unison! The exact series of which contributed to what extent to the heating science has to find out. But it would have to do it on a monthly basis!

    The next jump will have devastating consequences as they become larger...

     

    Here is my FB page, want now to make my own blog, as the experts lose the oversight and models will be increasingly wrong (the model spread is in my opinion a joke as it is way too large proving the uselessness of models)...

    https://www.facebook.com/Erdsystemforschung/

     

    All the best

    Jan

     

    p.s. we warm the oceans too fast that is our main problem!

     

     

     

     

  15. How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023

    Some explanations for the unusual global warming levels in 2023:

    James Hansen thinks the anomalously high global surface temperature in 2023 are due to AGW + El Nino + Aerosols reductions. I can't find the related commentary, and have to go by memory, but Hansen suggests that the quite abrupt reductions in shipping aerosols in 2023 added to reductions in industrial aerosols over the last ten years warmed the oceans and this energy comes out after a time delay and it all came out in 2023. Perhaps someone has the details of his suggestion and comments on its credibility.

    El ninos release ocean heat that has been building up. I note that the high sea surface temperatures are in the northern oceans are away from the centre of el nino activity.

    From NASA: Five Factors to Explain the Record Heat in 2023. But what caused 2023, especially the second half of it, to be so hot? Scientists asked themselves this same question. Here is a breakdown of primary factors that scientists considered to explain the record-breaking heat ( I have cut and pasted the key statements only):

    The long-term rise in greenhouse gases is the primary driver.
    The return of El Niño added to the heat.
    Globally, long-term ocean warming and hotter-than-normal sea surface temperatures played a part.
    Aerosols are decreasing, so they are no longer slowing the rise in temperatures.
    Scientists found that the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption did not substantially add to the record heat.

    earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152313/five-factors-to-explain-the-record-heat-in-2023

    From PBS News: ‘We’re frankly astonished.’ Why 2023’s record-breaking heat surprised scientists. A range of factors including general warming due to human-caused climate change, the El Niño climate pattern, record-low Antarctic sea ice and others — contributed to 2023’s record-breaking heat, but they don’t tell the full story. Schmidt said more work has to be done to fully understand why the year was so hot.

    “In 2024, we’ll be seeing whether this persists or whether it kind of goes back to a normal pattern,” he said. “And that will be kind of telling as to whether 2023 was just a very unusual combination of things that all added up to what we saw, or whether there’s something systematically different going forward.” (Seems like good comments to me)

    www.pbs.org/newshour/science/were-frankly-astonished-why-2023s-record-breaking-heat-surprised-scientists#:~:text=A%20range%20of%20factors%20%E2%80%94%20including,the%20year%20was%20so%20hot.

    From Copernicus:

    Some alternative suggestions on 2023 warming including changes in regional  wind patterns over the northern parts of the oceans bringing heat to the surface:

    atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming

    (This is not a reference to el nino, but to other changes in wind patterns to the north. For me it raises the question of  caused the changes in wind patterns)

    Clearly there is no definitive answer yet on why 2023 was so unusually warm ( ditto 2024 thus far). As scientists say next years data  will help illuminate the causes.

  16. 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #15

    Of potential interest to readers of SkS:  This opinion piece in 'The Hill' ("Expect financial fallout when the fossil fuel bubble finally bursts") suggests that when the fossil fuel bubble finally pops it will rival the Crash of 2008 on the global economy.  The article examines what such a phenomenon might look like.  A quote "We are past the point for the “smooth” and “gradual” transition that... [former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark] Carney urged a decade ago, making his warning of a major Minsky Moment even more relevant."

  17. Rodgers_Kawooya at 04:16 AM on 17 April 2024
    Climate's changed before

    As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

  18. prove we are smart at 00:04 AM on 16 April 2024
    What is Mexico doing about climate change?

    On behalf of Mexico and the many,many nations on this planet who will struggle more than the "entitled wealthy", climate justice - can it come from those who have given us the current 20% of global co2.   www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP0L69ielU

    Full article here                                            www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

  19. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William,I have been away.

    The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.


    I don't think you have provided any evidence that alternative energy systems are not a better alternative. Especially when considering all factors like climate change, health impacts of pollutions, etc


    One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,

    Constantly repeating this does not make it true. You have been provided with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. The Lazard analysis of levelized energy costs is putting unsubsidized wind+storage and solar+storage ahead of all but fully depreciated FF stations.

    Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.

    I don't dispute this for a second, but I fail to see why it is relevant. FF are now doing a great deal of harm and we have alternatives. We don't "owe" FF any loyalty for past benefits. That would be absurb.

    What puzzles me is why you obviously dont believe peer-reviewed analysis of alternatives but instead opt for what seems to me to be either uninformed opinion or worse, FF propoganda. You seem to be deeply commited to the status quo, and trying to find arguments to defend that. Why do you think that is and how do go about evaluating competing claims?

  20. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Plymouth Sid @ 107&108  :

    yes ~  "Sid for World Prez" sounds a good idea.

    And, my term "rant" was just a tad self-deprecating.  And, the definition of a Statesman : is a politician who rises above the usual hot mess of denial, sloth, etcetera.

    Sid, although the Venn Circle called politics does overlap with most aspects of everyday life, nevertheless SkS  does permit "political" discussion of actions & remedies ~ so long as the discussions keep away from partisan politics.

    And yes, the WUWT  blogsite does have its points : (a) It is very, very active as a website, both in articles per day, and in 100's of comments per day.   True, the articles are selective & slanted as outrage-stimulating propaganda . . . and the comments are highly repetitious venting.   But interspersed with a few useful comments (by a handful of real scientists who enjoy tweaking the Denialists' noses).   

    ~(b) WUWT  is a slanted mirror, enabling the viewer outside to gaze over the parapets of the Deniosphere ~ and into the Bedlam that lies within.   The denizens there are not insane [per legal definition] . . . but most are intellectually & morally insane.   Arguably, they are psychiatrically insane too.

    ~(c) Possibly . . . and arguably . . . WUWT  is a "good thing", for it acts as a flame to attract & amuse the climate nutter/moths of the Anglosphere, and give them a feeling that they are being "active" in their cause.

     

    Sid , the SkS  site is very much the opposite (of WUWT ) : it is a small site, run by volunteers, and provides only a few comments per day ~ but provides a wealth of easily-accessible climate science information for those who wish to educate themselves.   So the site cannot be expected to be the "mover & shaker" on the world scene (such as a President like yourself would desire).

    Sid, the SkS  site

  21. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#:~:text=In%20most%20years%2C%20the%20death,less%20frequent%2C%20or%20less%20intense.

    All the prrof of no increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc - can be found above.

    It is intercative - so put in the floods or drought and it will show the stat.

    Wprld in Data is the the gold standard of datsa sights - used by everyone during the pandemic 

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Empty assertions. That link means nothing more than "data exists"

    Your posts here are devoid of analysis.

    In that web page, I see increases in many of the metrics they provide. Have you actually bothered to read it, or are you just repeating links from some cheat sheet?

    As I stated previously, on this comment:

    Here is a prediction: you will continue to scatter your comments with statements that are discussed (and discredited) on other posts here that you have not bothered to read.

    Are you willing to make an effort to make my prediction incorrect?

     ...and here is the closing graphic from the link you provided: No signs of increase here, you think? Floods and extreme weather seem to be driving the increase.

    OurWorldInData disasters

  22. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic at 106.

    Thank you. 

    Some would say that the very essence of politics  ~ "is a hot mess of denial, sloth & inertia, and short-term self interest."  What scientists must try very hard to do is, somehow, to "enter the lists" and adjust the focus away from the short term.  (If I knew how to do that I would be "World President" ! )  

    Beware! ???? If you "rant" (no matter how justified, you will be moderated and chastised!  Notwithstanding, I thank you for the promt to look at WUWT ~ it, like the movie, is quite entertaining.

    Plymouth Sid

     

     

  23. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Bob Loblaw @105

    Thank you.  You are doubtless correct but the scientist in you should scream that what matters is what people actually do not what they say  (evidence not stated opinion). 

    At least one major branch of economics (which some would like to call a "science") would insist that the "price mechanism" in a free market economy cannot be bettered (that does not at all mean that it is error free!).    

    Re: This blog's policy on Politics would seem to allow some political/economic discourse on this thread's topic.  The "Movie" seems to me to be (unfortunately) very much about politics.

    Democracy, by which I mean one person one (SECRET) vote, can at times produce perverse outcomes as often as not as a result of campaigns of misinformation (such as "Climate: The Movie").  It behoves scientists (and the media) to produce effective counters.  This site goes a long way towards that but how far does it actually reach and can it be bettered? (Those last two questions are a cri de coeur and rhetorical.)  

    Plymouth Sid

  24. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Plymouth Sid @104 : you are certainly correct in your scientific assessment.

    IMHO, the "climate problem" is like a coin ~ one side is the mainstream science; the other side is the politics of How & When to take action against the problem.

    The science side is very straightforward ~ and only a handful of genuinely well-qualified scientists are nay-sayers or doubt-mongers (and even these, on closer examination, are often guilty of speaking out of both sides of their mouth).

    The politics side ~ is a hot mess of denial, sloth & inertia, and short-term self interest.  Of which we are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent.  Plus, we need better technology too, to fully replace fossil fuels.

    On SkS  here, I occasionally rant against the notorious WUWT  website (a website I view frequently, to experience some laughs . . . and some Schadenfreude).    WUWT  shows both sides of the coin continually ~ the participants there are largely in denial of the realities of climate science . . . and at the same time they exhibit a political extremism brimming with anger, selfishness, and uncharitableness.    WUWT  is a very toxic site : and the participants love "Climate - The Movie" and seem oblivious to its many severe flaws.

  25. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    Moderator. Thank's for the correct link. There was also a typo. The numbers are for deaths in 2010 and projected deaths in 2030. I'm having a bad day. Sorry.

  26. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Plymouth Sid:

    The choices that humans make can be guided by science, but those choices also include values that are not really amenable to scientific examination. You can use science to study people's choices, and associate the choices they make with other measurable items, but values are hard to measure. (You can record what people say about their values, or you can assign "value" labels to their actions or words, but there is a degree of subjectivity about individual behaviour.)

    As for politics: that also can be guided by science - but often it is not. Here at Skeptical Science, we try to avoid purely political discussions - but there are times when political issues do connect with climate science. The Comments Policy states this as follows:

    No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics. For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.

  27. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    Regarding claims that "currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change." Orginal source material below:

    https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

    The main factors  in the 400,000 deaths are (Numbers in 2010 and projected numbers in 2023)

    Diarrheal Infections 85,000 150,000
    Heat & Cold Illnesses 35,000 35,000
    Hunger 225,000 380,000
    Malaria & Vector Borne Diseases 20,000 20,000
    Meningitis 30,000 40,000
    Environmental Disasters 5,000 7,000

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The link provided is broken. I think this is the correct link:

    https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

    Confirmed as correct by the original commenter and corrected in the original comment.

     

  28. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    I have hugely enjoyed following this "blog" and am gratful that I checked this site before I swallowed "Climate: The Movie" whole.  It is a very entertaining movie if over long.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the issue of "Climate Change" has 3 parts:

    1.  Is this latest episode of "global warming" unusual in such a way that it deserves close attention?


    (I think the answer to that is a resounding YES ~ depite what the "Movie" says.)

    2. Is this latest episode of "global warming" mostly caused by us humans?

    (I think the answer to that is also a resounding YES ~ depite what the "Movie" says.)

    3. What shall we humans do to prevent what appears to be the consequences for "the world"?

    (Am I correct in saying that the answer to that question will not be found on this site because this site is about science NOT politics?)

    Plymouth Sid

     

  29. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

     Can renewables provide baseload power? 

      No , because we do not have the battery storage capacity . the USA currently has 7 minutes of storage capacity    .   - they need at least 3 months. So we are not even remotely close.

    Is renewable energy too expensive?

    Yes - because of the above - Renewables are cheap in theory but not in practice - not in practice because they don’ t do the job required . It is the equivalent of buying an expensive electric car and still having to use petrol.
    From source to the end user they are expensive - which is why the Germany despite having spent billions on subsidies for renewables have one of if not the highest energy costs in Europe. And why they had to rely on Putin's gas. You have to pay twice. 

     

     

     

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Until you read the links provided, don't bother commenting.

  30. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    You are again repeating yourself - treating one statistic as if it is the only thing that matters, and treating predictions about the future as if they mean nothing at all.

    Amongst other things, this is just getting boring. Please come up with a new argument, or stop wasting people's time.

     

    I have not just used one statistic - I have cited stats on flooding, drought, hurricanes, typhoons bush fires - and provided links for evidence.
    I don't think predictions for the future are meaningless - I just think they should be not be treated as firm evidence  and carry the same weight as hard facts. I don’t think I am being unreasonable there.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Providing links and citations requires actually providing links (i.e. a clickable source)and citations (i.e. a full journal name, title, etc. that someone can easily find). IT does not mean "I saw a study somewhere", which anyone can make up.

    You provided one link to one news article (on USA Today) that mentioned one Lancet study I had to find myself.

    You are now just provoking moderation.

    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.

  31. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.

     The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.
    One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,

    Spend money on R&D and keep investing in fossil fuels at the same time.
    To answer your question directly .
    Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.
    So by definition the inverse could unwind some of those benefits.
    Fossil fuels are the main reason we are safer from the climate than ever before - it seems pointless to risk throwing all the gains or somehow the gains away.
    Increased poverty brings many problems - expensive energy has inherent risks.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Your ability to remain uninformed is impressive. From the list of most common myths.

    Can renewables provide baseload power?

    Is renewable energy too expensive?

    Here is a prediction: you will continue to scatter your comments with statements that are discussed (and discredited) on other posts here that you have not bothered to read.

    Are you willing to make an effort to make my prediction incorrect?

  32. Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

    ubrew12,

    Tamino subsequently posted an OP titled 'Accelerations' which features this NOAA adjusted data (the last two graphics) showing a pair of break-points in the rate of warming, 1976 & 2013, with the pre-2013 rate being quoted as +0.165ºC/decade and the post-2013 rate measuring a rather dramatic +0.4ºC/decade. But that said, there will be very big 'error bars' on that last value. Additionally Tamino's adjustments did result in 2023 temperature being increased (by +0.02ºC) which, given the cause of the "absolutely gobsmackingly bananas" 2023 temperatures remain unresolved, may be very wrong.

  33. At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?

    William @1 , you are making multiple failings in logic.

    Bigly confused politicians tend to use a "word salad" ~ but William you are using a "logic salad".

    Maybe somewhere you have some good points to make . . . but it's certainly not obvious!   Please slow down a bit, and make your points one at a time ~ and use a carefully considered logical analysis.   The "close your eyes and use a shotgun" approach is unconvincing and counterproductive, if you are seeking to persuade readers.

  34. At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?

    Instead, the correct way to look at temperature trends is to examine them over multiple decades - 30 years is standard in climate science. So to answer the question, "where are we now?", one would look at the temperature record from 1992-2022.

    30 years is a tiny sample size - there has been 4.5billion years of weather. The next 100, 1000, or even 10,000 of weather  would not necessarily mean anything either way.

    It could be 3c colder or warming and still be natural variation . We just don't have the records . We have guess for large periods of milliosn of years - but nothing on any specific period of less than 1000 . 

    There could have been multiple periods of 100 years whne the temp when up or down by 1.2c. It is statiscally  likely there have been . because there have millions of 100 year periods. 

     

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] "We have guess [sic]" only applies if "we" means people that have ignored the huge amounts of evidence about past climates and what we understand about the climate processes that created that evidence.

    I am pretty certain that you are correct in including yourself in that "we", but your "we" does not include climate scientists.

    You can read more about what climate scientists know about past climates (and how this influences our expectations of future climates) by reading this SkS page. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one.

     

  35. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    scaddenp

    Thanks again for you reasonable reply - you do at least seem to believe in reason and the real world . It is refreshing 

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Why don't you actually try answering some of his questions?

  36. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

     "New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End."

    It is a prediction for the far future. 

    That currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change

    An obscure article with no credible data or evidence. What are the extra 400,000 dying of? Deaths have gone down . it is a familar tactic of citing existing occurances and saying it is climate change - it would be plausable if there were increases in what was cited - but it is not credible when there are fewer .

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You are again repeating yourself - treating one statistic as if it is the only thing that matters, and treating predictions about the future as if they mean nothing at all.

    Amongst other things, this is just getting boring. Please come up with a new argument, or stop wasting people's time.

  37. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #15 2024

    "Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind and Electric Vehicles, Eisenson et. al., Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University."

    Very interesting, informative and useful resource. Thanks!

  38. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    I think it's bizarre, that Durkin has basically made the same movie again. This is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" made over with the same players. One of the oddest parts of BOTH films is the contention of the claim that warming comes first, followed by CO2 rise, 800 years later. They even use the graph (at least in TGGWS) from the paper from Caillon et al. The trouble is, that paper clearly states that CO2 rose first in the Northern Hemisphere followed by warming. Highly educated scientists, some with doctorates, can't read a simple scientific paper, it seems.

    They wouldn't be trying to put one over on us, would they?

  39. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    "Would you not acknowledge that transitioning away from fossil fuels to a different energy form carries some risks in itself "

    William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.

  40. Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

    Tamino adjusts the raw data for 1) volcanic aerosols 2) El Nino/La Nina cycle, 3) solar variations.  The adjusted graph is much clearer that the global warming signal is accelerating upward, as should be expected from the input signal (greenhouse gases).  NASA GISS yearly averages, adjusted, shows the clearest signal: NASA GISS temp curve, adjusted, yearly avgsI got this link from this website a few weeks ago.

  41. Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

    Steveeeeej @1 : Also, google is your friend, independently.

    Dr Adam is intelligent, well-informed, yet a tad histrionic..

    I suppose that's better than being the opposite !

  42. Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

    steveeeej:

    If you are genuinely curious, you could try following the link behind "Dr. Adam Levy", near the end of the first line in the green box.

  43. Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

    Adam, 

    Please tell me what your credentials are in order for me to understand who I'm listening to.

    Steve Jesus

  44. Gigafact and Skeptical Science collaborate to create fact briefs

    Right on the money, Eclectic. 150 words is a tall order and every single one has to be considered. There's one in the pipeline on the topic of consensus where this area can be considered with more detail.

  45. Gigafact and Skeptical Science collaborate to create fact briefs

    Joel @1 ,

    like you, I strongly suspect that a new survey, of scientific papers published in the last 5 years, would show a 99+% figure "agreement".   The original gold standard ( the Cook study of 2013 ) was in a large number of papers ~ with a median date approx 2005  [note: approx date only; I haven't summed it precisely].   So that's a median date 15-20 years ago.   Almost ancient history !

    But that would be on evidence in published papers ~ and it might be a point or two lower in casual conversation with climate-related scientists.   Casual conversations or anonymous surveys of "opinion" , where other somewhat emotional factors come into play.

    Emotions were very evident in a survey of (IIRC) metorologists in the USA last decade ~ where only 90% were in "agreement".  Presumably the outlier 10% could not produce scientific evidence to support their position . . . but they could express a (casual) opinion that fitted with their rather extremist political affiliation.  A tribal vote, of sorts.

    None of all this could be pointed out in a 150-word bite.

  46. Joel_Huberman at 08:16 AM on 8 April 2024
    Gigafact and Skeptical Science collaborate to create fact briefs

    I suspect the % of climate scientists agreeing that global warming is real and human-caused is now, in 2024, much closer to 100% than when the 97% measurement was made.

  47. The science isn't settled

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on April 7, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  48. michael sweet at 16:10 PM on 7 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William,

    I am sorry, I don't usually comment on deaths caused by climate change

    This article documents that currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change.  Your claim of 12,500 deaths is grossly incorrect.  You have ignored the major causes of death caused by climate change.  If you ignore enough data you can make any absurd argument that you want to.

    The link to this headline was broken:

    "New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End."

    It appears that your death estimates are off by a factor of about 300.  Because your argument is so far from reality the people who post here at Skeptical Science are not familiar with the data.

  49. michael sweet at 07:39 AM on 7 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William,

    We generally feel it is a waste of time to listen to views that have no basis in facts.

    I note that according to Wikipedia:

    From June to August 2022, persistent heatwaves affected parts of Europe, causing evacuations and a confirmed death toll of 24,501.

    and " More than 70,000 additional deaths occurred in Europe during the summer 2003."

    You have neglected to count these deaths.  These are only European deaths, third world deaths are not counted.  You also do not count any deaths caused by starvation during droughts.  I note that most of the aliens crossing the southern border of the USA are climate refugees.  Are you willing to take in an additional 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 refugees when sea level really gets going?

  50. William24205 at 22:37 PM on 6 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    Nigelj - thank you for your reasonable reply - that did accept the evidence .

    So when I look at the big picture there is a strong case to stop greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a new zero carbon energy grid.

     Would you not acknowledge that transitioning away from fossil fuels to a different energy form carries some risks in itself ?

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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