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  441  442  443  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  Next

Comments 22401 to 22450:

  1. Watch: Before the Flood

    I actually like the movie. However, as expected the "backlash" from getting agricultural science wrong is in fact happening as I predicted. It is much like the backlash on energy fueling denialism. (pardon the pun) So to try and counter in some small way this nuance, I compiled a mock interview will many of the agricultural "giants" that are influencing using regenerative agriculture as a biological carbon capture and sequestration (BCCS) mitigation strategy. Most these viewers are not farmers or scientists, and quoting scientific studies or facts seems to fall on deaf ears. But hopefully this may have an effect. It seems to have in at least some cases.

    “As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard - father of organic agriculture

    So yeah we need those animals on the farm.

    But why are they a problem?

    “The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

    So that is the problem? The feedlots and the vast acres of monoculture corn and soy supplying them. Why are those bad?

    "We try to grow things that want to die, and kill things that want to live. That is pretty much how (industrial) agriculture functions." Colin Seis

    Oh I get it, pesticides!

    But I heard pesticides are safe, why would killing a few weeds and grasses and insects fungi etc. be a problem? Who cares about a few bugs, and worms?

    “It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures.”
    - Charles Darwin 1881

    What about weeds?

    A flower is an educated weed. -Luther Burbank

    OK I get it. We define whether something is a pest or not. In a different context a pest could be beneficial, as flowers are food for bees and pretty too. But wouldn't it be expensive? I like organic foods but the price at the market seems a bit higher.

    "Ecosystem function is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services." -John D. Liu

    So would changing the way we do agriculture help?

    “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal

    Solution? That's pretty strong words. Even as big a problem as climate change? How can that be?

    "The answer lies in the soil." - Fred Streeter

    The soil? Really?

    To forget how to dig the earth and to tend the soil is to forget ourselves. ~Mahatma Gandhi

    Wait! That's philosophy! I mean in practical terms!

    "The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    What's so special about the soil besides the worms Darwin talked about?

    “When you increase organic matter, good things happen.” -Jay Fuhrer

    What good things?

    "When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber." -USDA

    OK, I think I am starting to see how these are connected. Less pesticide inputs and  the important creatures survive and can do their job! What would that radical change look like? How is agriculture done differently? Is it just the cow?  Or can this work for other animal species?

    "The pigs do that work (by rooting in the forest and that creates the temporary disturbance on the ground that allows germination for higher successional species.) And so it allows for those pigs to be not just pork chops, bacon, and that. But now they then become co-conspirators and fellow laborers in this great land healing ministry ... by fully respecting the pigness of the pig." Joel Salatin

    That's interesting, the pigness of the pig! So how would we figure out the pigness, cowness, chickeness, or even the tomatoness and wheatness or any other of our agricultural foods?

    "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison

    I think I get it now! It took the greatest minds in the history of sustainable agriculture. But now I understand what to look for when grocery shopping! Thanks so much everyone!

    There is more carbon missing from the soil than extra in the atmosphere.

    So forget about the guilt trip. If the meat and vegetables you eat are raised properly on land that is increasing in organic carbon, you'll actually be helping mitigate climate change with every bite!

  2. US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days

    Hi William, I like your suggestions and will look into drawing the 2nd. Your first suggestion my be covered already by one of our illustrations here:

    Human vs natural CO2 emissions

    The first diagram in this post is based on the graphic I've linked to. 

  3. 2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45

    Jonbo69:

    Check out:

    Trump just proposed ending all federal clean energy development

    He’d end all research on solar, wind, efficiency, batteries, clean cars, and climate science, too.

    by Joe Romm, Think Progress, Nov 4, 2016

  4. New research from last week 11/2012

    The original article (not just the summary in Wollny) is at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100637#page/367/mode/1up  It's 17 pages long, by Andrée as mentioned earlier by Doc Snow at 03:48 AM on 23 March 2012, and in German.

  5. 2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45

    If Trump wins the presidencey we know he's going to srew up the climate, but additionally I am also wondering what will happen to the funding of climate science and also the independence of the main scientific institutions and organisations seeing as they are all supposed to be involved in some socialist conspiricy to get people to pay more tax? Are we likely to see climate scientists face prosecution? Any guesses?

  6. Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016

    In Leonardo DiCaprios movie he talked about a certain thickness of ice that had melted off Greenland.

    That sounded like the scariest part of the movie to me: but was it true?

  7. Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016

    PluviAL, in short I agree enitrely: science is heavily political but it always was.

    The people lead: Governments follow! This is what we all don't realise yet the media moguls know that our lack of information as a general public is the key to the status quo continuing to buy our representative governments.

  8. US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days

    All you need is a graph on global sea ice... highlighting 2016 against the sattelite record.

  9. 2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45

    You missed the most important news, from Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul.

    "I am very proud to have invited Canadian Dr. Tim Ball, Tony Heller (AKA Steve Goddard http://ow.ly/j3rq305NUEP) and Jennifer Marohasy to appear at a climate seminar at Parliament House next Tuesday evening."

    Where apparently he'll be "will be announcing his report on the Climate Science evidence of CSIRO".

    That'll teach those pesky actual scientists!

  10. US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days

    William @3, I totally agree. However you can imagine what the deniers will say. "Volcanic emissions of CO2 in recent decades are underestimated, the figures are junk science concocted by people promoting big government (or some other ulterior motive, or grand and completely silly conspiracy theory).

  11. Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016

    I see it more dire: Science is documenting frightening trends, scientific professionalism depending on sustention of credibility, must systematically emphasis prudent conservative interpretations, especially in light of ruthless backlash, and backstabbing, by economic interests leveraged in politics; the result is constant error on the conservative side. What this means is that we will always find surprises on the negative side, because science would not err on the pessimistic side on this issue; we see it in IPCC reports every time.

    My pessimistic interpretation, is that we will find strange extremes, like that tectonic motivation is affected, maybe primarily motivated by ice, and water loads choreographed by lunar gravitation. I know I am being the lone-deranger on this lightly held hypothetical-theory, but it’s an illustration of the strange surprises to expect.

  12. US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days

    The graphic was great.  None of the deniers will read the text and few would understand if they did.  How about two more graphics.  a) The total yearly emissions from all geological sources vs the total yearly emissions of us and b) Our yearly rate of emissions vs the rate of emissions during the laying down of the Siberian traps.  Then we can send this to our denier friends in a form they can comprehend.

  13. Watch: Before the Flood

    Mired in desperation, while buoyed by tears of joy in the hope in the heroic efforts and achievements, this video is a delicious way to welcome one more day in which contribute my little bit to help, especially as my 3 year-old worked herself into my lap to watch the saving of, or destruction of her world. Thanks for finding this, and for all the effort SkSc contributors make toward this critical comunal effort; this is what all the statistics and arguments offered in SkSc really mean.

  14. US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days

    Joel_Huberman @1, your source suggests the Siberian Traps released 30,000 GtC of CO2 over the period of its erruption, ie, over a period of over a million years, representing an annual emission rate of around 0.03 GtC per annum.  In contrast, since 1850 humans have emitted 560 GtC at a mean annual rate of 3.4 GtC.  Since 1965 (ie, over the last 50 years for which we have published data), we have emitted 370 GtC at 7.4 GtC per annum.  Since 2010 the average annual emission rate has exceeded 10 GtC per annum.  In short, we are emitting CO2 at rates that far exceed those during the deposition of large igneous provinces.

  15. US Passenger Vehicle Emissions Comparable to 1980 Mt. St Helens  Eruption Occurring Every 3 Days

    Interestingly, the Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs; massive, long-time volcanic activity) that have been associated with major extinction events in our planet's geologic/biologic history have released multiple thousands of gigatons of CO2 over their lifetimes. If we humans are releasing 46 gigatons per year, I suspect that we're emitting CO2 at a rate comparable to that of LIPs--natural events that wiped out large portions of extant species.

  16. Watch: Before the Flood

    Just finished this up last night.  The weather station in Greenland is possibly the most disturbing.

    It reminded me of when my parents and I vacationed in the Northwest and we visited Glacier National Park.  At the time (I don't know if they still do this 20 years later) they had a series of signs that posted were the glacier extent ended.  So of course, the signs just kept going back farther and farther.  I don't think I appreciated at the time that the glacier was disappearing; I probably thought it would come back eventually (within my lifetime), but that clearly was my young ignorance. 

  17. Watch: Before the Flood

    My wife and I watched the film together.  Afterwards we were musing on the corporations, politicians and media that are complicit in the campaign to sabotage climate action.  Her comment was that these guys don't have their heads in the sand, they have their heads in the tar sands!  Hmm, I wonder if there's a cartoon in that!

  18. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    Tom @3: Thanks for your feedback. 1) On mandatory %renewable requirements on energy consumed, I still worry that the ratio of btu per capita will simply go up in step w/ reductions in %FF/total consumed energy. We will consume energy with whatever money we have available; as prices drop, we will use more. Net effect: no reduction in carbon emissions, until higher prices drive industry & markets to lower cost solutions. 2) Cap & Trade is a viable solution (Shi-Ling Hsu rates it as #2 best option in Case for Carbon Tax), but he & Hansen's complaints seem logical, a) not as effective as free market cost, leakage likely, b) arbitrary carbon ceiling limits likely lower industry's cessation potential, c) middle-man economic burdens. 3) Agree that 100% fee & dividend may be hard to pass, and sadly the end result may instead be some sort of payroll tax offset (like mentioned on Dicaprio's recent BTF video). Yes, this would not have the broad reaching efficacy as the full CCL CFD proposal. But, what is missing is not getting congress to act, what is missing is political will from the public (but I would be naive to think that is an easy nut to break, but the growing Climate Solutions Causcas, with 20 & growing congress members, gives one hope).

    Lastly, it is likely that I believe in CFD so much because Hansen gave such a convincing argument for it (& its simple logic) in his Storms book, which was my first indepth introduction to AGW science.

    John @4&5: Thanks for your feedback. 1) Pre Mar-2016 (when I joined CCL), 18 hits came up for 'Citizens Climate Lobby', but only 6 of these 18 articles had any real mention of CCL (others were only CCL authors or the word 'Citizens' separately or no mention of CCL at all, not sure why they were hits). What I was thinking about was an article with CFD and CCL blaringly in the title. 2) But, alas, I admit, I was wrong! One of these 18 articles (HERE, dated 6-18-2013, by Dana) was all about CFD and CCL. A very good promotional article, with CFD and CCL blaringly in the title! Thanks SkS for promoting CCL at that time; I am sorely sorry that I missed the opportunity it gave me then. Although, at that time, there was no CCL chapter in my town. Now, there are chapters in almost every district. Maybe it would be good to occasionaly re-run this article as it is very good, and may help other people like me to connect the dots & get involved. 2) Dana's concluding paragraph was so apropos to my situation. Here is how I think many the average reader (like me) feels: Struggles for some way to help, some way to get involved. Extremely depressed because he/she has come to realize that everything he/she has ever done their whole life (30+ years, in my case, of engineering over $100 million of manufacturing expansions) was all based on wrong economics and therefore was all wrong! And, more so, realizes that he/she can't do any real good now because they are enslaved by the status quo, as their family's subsistence depends on abiding with the status quo. There really isn't much a person like this can do but lie to their colleagues thru-out the work day and feel, deep down, that all they are really doing is screwing the people of the future. 3) I am sure that the SkS vision includes empowering individuals like this to get involved in as effective ways as possible; after all, it all boils down to getting carbon emissions down, using any good means possible. Now, based on my readings, I had assumed that all would have agreed that CFD is king, and that everything else is less effective, hence my frustation why CFD and CCL isn't promoted more. (My error, as I see now that there was in fact one such good article). Maybe I'm not so right on CFD being king, but one thing is true, the CCL organization is extremely talented, organized and wise. And, it gives a person, like me, something (powerful I think) to finally work for, and that makes all the difference. Now my life is not a complete contradiction of my morals. For this reason of citizen empowerment, I would hope that SkS would repeatedly rally to promote CCL, and its effective vision of CFD, its depth of talent & passion, its deep organization and the grace of its spirit. There may be many a person, like me, still out there that may need a smack over the head, i.e. an article that connects the dots and says in blaring letters: 'Go Here to Help!'

  19. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    Tom Curtis @3, I can't fault your logic and cap and trade makes a lot of sense in theory, however I have one reservation related to the politics. Firstly my understanding is cap and trade involves globally trading emissions permits and forestry credits, etc. You do realise that the integrity of those permits etc would be very suspect given the nature of many of the countries in this world and their institutions?

    If it all goes wrong by the time we work out what's really happened, global warming will be well beyond 2 degrees. Global cap and trade seems a bit idealistic. Other systems to reduce emissions just seem more transparent to me.

    By the way I was a fan of cap and trade when it was first proposed in my country, as it seems to push some responsibility back onto markets. It's just doubts have crept in and markets sometimes work in sub optimal ways.

  20. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    https://www.beforetheflood.com/ says the film will be available for free on Natl Geog channels until 7 Nov.

  21. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    5-4-3-2-1: Counting Down Obama’s Legacy on Climate Resilience by Christina DeConcini & C Forbes Tompkins, World Resouces Instittue (WRI), Nov 2, 2016

  22. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    sauerj: You are critical of SkS for not promoting the Carbon Fee & Dividend (CFD) advocated by the Citizens' Climate Lobby. Doing so would not be consistent with the stated purpose of SkS as set forth in the "About" section of this website. You can access the SkS purpose statement by  clicking on the "About Us" button located on the bottom of this webpage.   

  23. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    sauerj:

    Your criticism of SkS's lack of attention to the Citizens' Climate Lobby does not hold up well to scrutiny. Please enter the words, Citizens Climate Lobby into the SkS Search box and click Go. Also enter the words, Citizens' Climate Lobby into the box and click Go.

    BTW, the official name of the organization is Citizens' Climate Lobby, not Citizen's Climate Lobby.

  24. Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3

    chriskoz @2, while I think spelling names correctly is desirable as a matter of ettiquette, the variant spellings of Katharine only because of variant faulty reproductions of the original greek name,  Aikaterine; followed by various phonetic spellings of the word.  In short, Katharine is only Katharine because some among our ancestors misspelt Katerine.  So while it is a point of etiquete to spell names as the person who they name desires, it is a small point of ettiquete - and hardly worth down voting a post over. 

  25. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    sauerj @2:

    1)  Your analysis of supply and demand is incomplete.  Specifically, if the demand for fossil fuels were reduced by (for example) a mandatory requirement that 10% of standing energy requirements, increasing by 5% per annum, be supplied by carbon free sources (renewables plus nuclear), the initial result would be a drop in demand for fossil fuels, resulting in a price drop.  That price drop, while working to sustain demand, would also render more expensive sources of fossil fuels uneconomic.  Those sources of fossil fuels would close as a result, reducing the supply and therefore tending to increase the price.  Even low price sources would rallel increase in price with a sufficiently large drop in supply.  That is because reduced production would increase the relative proportion of fixed costs relative to total costs of production.  Consequently, parallel regulations for road and rail transport would quickly render nearly all current sources of fossil fuels uneconomic except at a high price to a small residual market.  Therefore it is not true that fee and divident schemes are the only effective measure to tackle global warming.

    2)  In particular, cap and trade schemes are economically almost identical to fee and dividend schemes, provided the return on the auction of permits be distributed in a like manner.  Cap and trade schemes, however, have the advantage of easy coordination across seperate national markets.  This can be achieved by setting equal per capita targets for all nations, and allowing trade of excess emissions permits from poorer to richer nations.

    3)  The CCL scheme, like most fee and dividend schemes, proposes an equal per capita fee.  While this is easilly justified on the good, libertarian grounds that the global atmosphere is a commons, and that therefore each individual has an equal right of access to the commons.  It follows that each individual has an equal right for compensation for any fee charged for exploitation of the commons.  I am cynical, however, about the political rights rhetoric about individual rights, regarding it as a mere subterfuge to disguise a pattern of legislating in favour of the interests of the wealthy.  Therefore I do not expect any scheme such as the CCL's with equal per capita dividends to ever recieve bipartisan support in either the US or Australia.  Schemes which return a small equal per capita dividend plus a bonus pro rata on tax returns is more likely to do so.  One that makes the bonus pro rata on pre tax income is even more likely to do so.  While I have objections to both those variants, the important thing is to get action on climate now - and focusing on the equal per capita dividend is unlikely to do so.

  26. 2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #44

    Perhaps the most apt climate change cartoon I have ever seen.

  27. Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3

    #2 Your complaint would have more traction if you had not MISPELLED mispelled a common word.

    I am often guilty. A neurological problem of mine called Benign Essential Tremor often helps me generate mispellings, a.k.a. typos. Composing in a word processor document and then pasting helps greatly.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH]  Please note that the use of all caps is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

  28. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    c

    A little rain on the parade: I have trouble understanding how any carbon cessation strategy, other than a carbon tax (preferrably a revenue-neutral carbon fee & dividend, CFD as proposed by Citizen's Climate Lobby, CCL) is ever going to cut carbon emissions down to sustainable levels. So, I am perplexed why we are not unifying behind the simple logic of CFD, and make this the #1 focus. It may be hard to enact, but anything else, I feel, will ultimately be a waste of time. I believe the following data backs this up.

    This LINK link (last chart) indicates that US energy efficiency (by unit GDP) has gone up 58% since 1990. Therefore, you'd expect carbon emissions would have gone down by 58% during that same time. Not so; this next LINK link (1st timeline chart) indicates that US carbon emissions have stayed flat-lined since 1990; this means that US consumes 58% more stuff than they did in 1990. Why did these conservation measure do nothing to reduce carbon emissions? My simple brain says, because of the flywheel inertia effect of supply vs demand economics keeping the fossil fuel demand up. Maybe I'm over simplifying, but I think I'm more right than wrong.

    The following is what keeps ringing in my head: Anything but putting a price on carbon (which is a morally legitimate inclusion of their future external costs), no matter how "environmental" right these other efforts might seem, is a near-complete waste of time (other than for the message, and your own personal future adaptation to a carbon-free economy). You might have reduced your personal footprint, but all you really did was keep the cost of FF's down, and because of that somebody else or, more likely, some large-scale industry (which must operate on a least-cost, capitalistic basis to survive) will be more than glad to use the FF's that you so heroically tried to keep in the ground. In other words, you didn't accomplish a thing (other than broadcast a message and adapt only yourself to what will eventually be required). But, in terms of achieving real net change, you did nothing.

    Now a counter argument would say that since renewable energy cost is falling below FF energy, then this will drive conversion. Yes, but not really! 1) What is missing in this argument, is that, because of the lowered FF cost, the demand per capita will simply go up. We will just "add on" the renewable energy onto the FF energy we were using before. I think the above data proves this. And, further more, 2) Electricity, even renewable electricity, will still cost ~4x more than gas, and ~2x more than oil (energies used for their high-temperature, thermal combustion potential, for example, drying). To replace this with electricity (using other high-temperature energies, i.e. hydrogen electrolysis or bio-diesel for example) will therefore cost ~3-5x today's FF costs. This is a near-impermissible hump of economic survival proportions for many status-quo, business as usual industries (all driven by US & OUR us & our market demands). Simply getting renewable electricity slightly more competitive over FF electricity (as FF prices will simply drop along side with renewable prices) will not be near enough to promote re-tooling industries that require these high-concentrated energy demands. Ultimately, CFD is required to overcome the flywheel effect of supply vs demand economics. I believe nothing short of this will be effective. ... And, the industries that do not survive the new economics will simply wither away, as they should for the sake of future generations. 

    Is not this cessation logic predominantly true? Or, is it too polarizing to be the primary battle cry? Why are not other groups (350, Climate Parents, Interfaith, Catholic Covenant, etc) not promoting this logical strategy? ... Likely Answer: Maybe these activist group leaders understand all of this, and they know they are seen as political adversaries by those we need to get on board (in congress). So, they purposely do not toot the CFD horn, as they know that will give a foothole for pundits to poison the political will that CCL is fragilely trying to build. Yes, that makes good sense. ... Wisdom! ... However, I do think SkS itself could toot the CFD horn a bit louder. Case in point, I knew about the power of CFD back in 2009 when reading Hansen's Storms (he probably mentions CCL in that book, but it didn't sink-in then) but I didn't know that the CCL organization even existed until 6 years after of reading SkS posts. And, I only heard about them when local chapter did a call-out in a local newspaper. That lack of attention by SkS is not good, sorry!

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Post slightly edited per request of commenter.

    Please note that the use of all caps is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

  29. Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

    Hi. I've been visiting SkS for some time now and generally find the explanations of the science of CC a useful balance of technical detail with layperson language. The filtering by knowledge level is a novel and useful tool (I usually read all levels!).

    I've been exploring the topic of consensus and the flip-side, denial. So I've just read both Cook et al 2016 and the "petition paper" by Robinson et al (both of which are linked to in your article but at which I arrived quite indepently).

    It is clear from reading Cook et al and your article above the value of understanding who is providing the opinions. Cook et al finds that the higher the level of expertise in climate science, the greater the level of consensus. Analogies of getting a heart condition checked out by a motor mechanic are relevant when comparing the findings of Cook et al (ie 97% of expert climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity) versus the OISM petition, signed predominantly by non-climate, possibly non-practising, unpublished, general scientists.

    So it is useful that you and other websites, notably the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html) have tackled the credentials of both the signatories and the creators of the petition and Robinson et al paper. Thank you.

    However, I think it would also be useful to tackle the paper itself. Climate change is bewildering to non-scientists, and when one comes across a paper as apparently credible-seeming as the Robinson et al paper, it is difficult for a non-scientist to sort the credible science from the rubbish. Robinson et al's theory about solar irradiance looks pretty good on the graphs, and the longer-term fluctuation in earth's temperature also makes our current increases look pretty modest.

    So I've done just enough preliminary digging into those aspects to convince myself that the Robinson et al paper is at best incomplete in its presentation of evidence (for instance, this webpage about solar irradiance http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), and in reality, deliberately misleading.

    Yes, go ahead and expose the poor credentials or vested interests of those with opinions that contrast the majority view or have a disporportionate influence, but we need to not simply write-off everything that those people say as rubbish simply because of those credentials or interests. The discrediting of those views should also be focused on the validity or otherwise of their scientific claims, backed up with credible science and analysis. I think it is far more powerful to expose the errors or holes in their arguments than to simply call them fraudulent.

    You have all the relevant science within this site. I suggest that it would be a useful counter to the OISM petition and paper for you to list the scientific claims made in the paper and provide links to the relevant science or other references as you did with the list of studies on consensus. Then your debunking of the petition and paper would not need to rest on the absurdity of the perceived size of 31000 signatories as a representative sample. 

    Regards, Kirdee.

  30. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    As it is system that corrupts man of course regulated markets are responsible: what is representative democracy if not just another system waiting to game those who participate in it?

  31. Barack Obama is the first climate president

    ...we transitioned from the worst climate president ever (Bush) to the best (Obama).

    It goes without saying that with the next president, we must not go in a big time yo-yo to the dark ages & the worst imaginable fool (whose name is forbidden in my household, so I won't even mention it here) worse than Bush, who would destroy in no time, everything Obama has done.

    As the election day nears and the absurdity of the fool having a real shot at the White House looms, I start to worry. Not really about the unusually low morale nor about total ignorance of reality by the fool:  Congress, even Republican, would not easilly allow the foolishness to take over US politics. But at stake are the very things we're talking about here: there would be no opposition within the Republican Congress to destry all climate legacy Obama left, e.g. starting from KXL veto overturned.

    But let's hope all my talk is just unnecessary scare and the next president Hillary Clinton will strive to at least match if not surpass Obama/s legacy.

  32. Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3

    I raised the issue of Katharine's name few times here.

    Now I started down-voting all posts where Katharine's name is mispeled. It'd be nice to have some bot to automatically send an email to the offending commenter reminding their mistake.

    William@1 you have Katharine Hayhoe's name boldfaced at the title, how could you've missed it?

  33. Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 3

    Kathaerine

    Talk to us about how power companies are integrating privately owned renewable energy generating systems into their grids in such a way that it is worthwhile both for the power company and for the small investor in renewable energy.  This is the barrier to greater uptake.  The cost of equipment has reached the level of economic feasiblility.  The power companies all over the world are dragging their feet.  What models are there out there that we can point to.  Power companies are like sheep.  They need a leader.

    Moderator Response:

    [GT] Spelling corrected.

  34. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    I think the difference is related to producer vs consumer, though.

    Few consumers are going to make the effort to specifically demand sustainable foods in the volumes that would make a difference. People have to eat and they essentially eat what is available to purchase.

    Careful and creative regulation could do a lot to shift the practices of producers in a manner that could have a significant effect much more quickly.

  35. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    Rob,

    Yes overall you can help by reducing the beef you eat, but you can help even more by simply chosing grass finished rather than corn finished. And we can help even more by not subsidizing the over production of commodity grains and converting that acreage back to grassland/savanna/forest depending on what the top successional biome is local to that region. And that strategy is the very best because grassland/savanna/forest all can support food and fiber production at the same time as supporting wildlife biodiversity. In most cases even more food and fiber per acre than commodity grains. Grasslands still support grazers and grain. Savannas still support both grazers and nuts, fruit, timber and omnivore species too. And forests can be managed as both timber and food forests. All it takes is good careful management and all 3 can become carbon sinks without disrupting the food supply or economies, actually improving both.

  36. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    I was actually concerned they were going to overplay the beef thing much more. At least they didn't make the bogus claim that 51% of greenhouse emissions come from meat, like some do. They made the more rational and supportable claim that agriculture accounts for 18% of man-made CO2e (if I remember correctly).

    Overall, yeah, you can help reduce your carbon footprint by limiting how much beef you consume. 

    (I was thinking the same thing about the Chik-fil-A connection when watching. :-)

    I get my hackles up a bit when lifestyle changes get overplayed when the big nuts to crack are primarily systemic issues related to the sources of energy. It's terrible framing to say, essentially, "If you were to just behave as I'm saying you should behave then all will be well." It's a perfect way to get people to reject everything flat out.

    In all that could have gone wrong, I think they did a really good job of sticking close to the science and projecting the incredible sense of urgency we face.

  37. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    Starting at 51:00 all that is misleading regarding agriculture. I did find some other flaws, but I'll let others discuss the parts that were misleading in their fields of expertise. My field of expertise is agriculture. Yes agriculture is a big problem, but it certainly isn't the cow to blame, it's the feedlots and the vast acreage of corn and soy grown to supply feedlots and biofuel industries.  Feedlots and all factory farming is a emissions source for both CO2 and CH4, properly managed grasslands are a net sink for both. So why would they blame the cows unless rather than actually stick to the science, it was rather spun to fit a certain dogma?

    Some people might be swayed by spin, but when science is spun, it generally has a backlash later when people realise they were played for the fool. I would be much happier if they actually addressed the root of the problem than give ridiculous advise like just eat more chicken. LOLZ like a silly Chick-fil-A advertisement. :D

  38. Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest

    Swampfoxh @ 8, sounds like an interesting book. Any clues in the book why we would have a regular drought cycle like this?

    I'm curious what would happen every thousand years to trigger this, as its such a long cycle.

  39. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    RedBaron... Would you care to expand on what science you think the movie got wrong?

  40. Coal doesn’t help the poor; it makes them poorer

    Suggested supplemental reading:

    Coal Will Not Cure Global Poverty, Denier Roundup/EcoWatch, Oct 26, 2016

  41. Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest

    You attention is directed to Bill DeBuy's book "A Great Aridness" for a look at corroborate research on the recurrance of drought in the southwest.  Essentially, he points out that prolonged droughts in that reagon have been occurring about every thousand years since the end of the last Ice Age, the last severe drought beginning around 1050 CE and ending roughly 1200 CE.  Obviouly, its been about 1,000 years since those days.  Of course, the present climate change appears to strongly exacerbate this recurring phenomenon.  He notes that this SW area was essentially depopulated during the anestral megadroughts making the present situation extremely grave for the populations now living in that geography. 

  42. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    Saw the movie. Unfortunately they got a lot of the science wrong. I am fearful the backlash will cause more harm than good.

  43. Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

    There is no global warming phenomenon caused by humans.

    Proof? Not one environmental impact study can predict the weather. Not one person studying weather patterns can get it right at all.

    If you show me someone, anyone that can get the weather prediction right, 100% of the time, all the time, then they are credible. Otherwise its a crap shoot. The differences between today and a thousand years ago is 1 degree fluctuation. Plus or minus 5 degrees. Global warming is a myth. This site is oil sponsored propaganda. How much did they pay you to publish this site? DiCaprio is a spokesman for US oil special interest. Canada's oil is dirty? All oil is dirty! Lol! It doesn't matter though. The truth will be revealed one day.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Blatant sloganeering. 

    [PS] This is a site to discuss the science of climate change. Demonstrating that you have very little knowledge of the science and only strawman arguments are not of any interest. Should you wish to change this, then the "arguments" and search box on top left is a great way find out about myths that you obviously believe. Try "Scientists cant predict the weather" and "Climates changed before". If you are only interested in bandying unsubstantiated conspiracy theories around then WUWT is the site for you not here.

    Final Warning

    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, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.

  44. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

     

    Some non-expert comments to Giancarlo and Terry, in lieu of a more informed response.

    Giancarlo - yes, it'd surprise me a litle if increased drought hasn't been unambiguously detected, although it has been unambiguously projected.  Would be interested to take that figure 5 in Hao up to present and see if the trend is positive yet.  I find examples of projections in the USA in the National Climate Assessment, and in Cook, B. I., Ault, T. R. & Smerdon, J. E. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400082 (2015) covered here and here.  Cook also detects extreme drought in the Levant.  It does seem there has been differences of emphasis in the literature recently.  Sheffield et al 'Little change in global drought over the past 60 years' seems like a downward estimate compared to the usual measure (PDSI) of past drought, and is put in context by John Holdren in an article reproduced on this site.  He also refers to a summary in research by Schwalm et al that 'severity and incidence of climatic extremes, including drought, have increased'.  Spinoni et al (2013) finds a small increase in each of global drought frequency, duration and severity from 1951-2010, but big regional variations that are disruptive.

    Responding to Terry's graph, this is nice work, but I'm sure someone must looking at this professionally, who you may be able to contact.  The increase in thunderstorms you show is so dramatic it must surely be an artefact, maybe of increased reporting?  Secondly, a correlation between two time series each of which are increasing may well come to >90% (even more so if smoothed), but be misleading since both are dependent on time. 

    It strikes me that new measures may be useful for examining trends in 'extreme' weather rather than total weather, for example, maximum hourly rainfall, variance of rainfall, or collating data on water tables and aquifers.  Not sure how realistic or expensive that would be.

     

  45. Welcome to Skeptical Science

    curiousd@31, apparently Chris Colose joined NASA GISS just this month, and consequently has a new email address.  For that he deserves congratulations.  For the rest, I am not a correspondent with any of the people listed, and am finding the email addresses by google search.  If I were you, and if the email address you have is current, I would make Dr Pierrehumbert the first point of contact.  My experience in contacting scientists is that so long as you remember that any help they provide you is a courtesy by them, not a right of yours; they tend to bend over backwards to help honest enquirers.  Given that all three of the people I recommended, and SOD, have a history of trying to help explain AGW, I very much doubt that they would be different in this regard; and Dr Pierrehumbert would be acknowledged by the three others as the most expert on this topic, not to mention best informed about what he meant when he wrote his text book.  Here is a more recent email address for him.  

  46. Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest

    LaughingMan@4: Unless the beavers have a wicked 'rain dance', I don't think they're going to be as helpful as you imagine in many places.

  47. Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest

    bjchip@1: Maybe one form of how Earth will 'Ring' was anticipated in the 1972 film 'Silent Running'.  Bruce Dern plays a biologist who maintains a spaceship filled with the last natural plants from Earth, and responds with rebellion when he's asked to clear them out for cargo.  I don't think many natural ecosystems can respond quickly enough to avoid catastrophe; for them, 'Ringing' brings fracture.  I think humans can respond more rapidly (but probably after much difficulty), and may have to act forcefully to prevent species extinction in a few decades or so.

  48. Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 2

    I asked a few weeks ago after Katharine Hayoe's earlier videos featured on this web site how as a Evangelico Christian she resolves the contradictions between the Bibilical version of creation and the physical evidence of much longer time frame.  In this video, when she speaks of much longer time frames than the Bible, she is siding the the physical evidence.  I presume that many Christains take the Bible as a metaphor more than a historical document.  I hope she can speak to these Christian believers to support Climate Change believers so that we can work together to solve the problem.  

  49. Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

    Just found a new entry on Snopes about this:

    Not All Climatologists

  50. CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming

    New paper from CERN experiment : "A significant fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere." 

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/26/science.aaf2649

Prev  441  442  443  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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