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  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  635  636  637  638  639  640  641  Next

Comments 31651 to 31700:

  1. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR

    Tom,

    Thanks for the heads up on the full range of scenarios shown by AR5 ... I think the answer is therefore a simple one.

    Bell is basing his analysis on the basis of just the BaU scenario ... so examining the 2 extremes of the graphs (fig 6.11), I get a range of 0.5-1.9C above '90 (+/- 0.1C) ... which is what is shown in the AR% graph!

    Tony

  2. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Stranger 26, Mike Hulme gives every appearance of having become a post modernist.  Do not expect too much in the way of rational behaviour from him.

  3. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR

    Runrig, I disagree with KR's assessment.  The reason is that if you look at the IPCC FAR Chapt 6, fig 6.11, you will find it shows three panels.  Panel (a) shows the high (4.5 C per doubling) climate sensitivity estimate; panel (b) shows the moderate (2.5 C per doubling) climate sensitivity estimate; and panel (c) shows the low (1.5 C per doubling) climate sensitivity estimate:

    Comparing differences between 1990 and 2035, as best as I am able, the top of the range is BaU in panel (a), with an approximatley 3 C increase.  In contrast, the bottom of the range (scenario D in panel (c)) shows less than 0.5 C increase.  That, then, is the full range.

    Now, if the climate sensitivities had been reduced inline with KR's arguments, both the top and the bottom of the range would be reduced.  Instead, however, we find the top of the range shown in AR5 is 1.85C above the 1990 level, whereas the bottom of the range is 0.58 C above.  Both the top of the range and the bottom of the range have been contracted towards the median value, and by about the same proportion.  As a result, the bottom of the range shows a higher, not a lower value as required by KR's line of reasoning.

    Even if we restrict the analysis to the median value range shown in Fig 9 of the Summary for Policy Makers, the range shown in FAR is approximately 0.6 to 1.5 C.  If that is what is shown, the lower range is unadjusted (contrary to KR's explanation), and the upper range is increased.

    If I were to hazard a guess as to what the IPCC has done, it would be that they have used historical values for forcings from 1990-2010, and the scenarios thereafter.  If that is what they have done, it would contract both the high and low estimates towards each other as there will be less disparity in the forcing history.  That, however, is only a guess, and you would have to consult with one of the IPCC authors to get a definitive answer.

    Finally, I will note that if Doug Bell is going to complain about the "IPCC deception", it would behove him to show all three panels of the IPCC FAR predictions, not just the middle range values that he actually shows.  That strikes me as rather more deceptive than anything the IPCC may have done.  The excuse that he uses the values shown in the summary for policy makers (should he make it) is irrelevant in that the caption of the AR5 article explicitly refers to Fig 6.11 as the source of the projections shown.

    Further, even using Fig 9 from the summary for policy makers, he exagerates the warming shown substantially.  As noted, the difference between 1990 and 2035 for BaU in that chart is about 1.5 C.  He, however, shows it as greater than 2 C.

  4. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Thanks Rob.

    I know that the deniers using newspaper blogs will never be convinced. I know there are people who read the blogs who might not have strong opinions. We have a university bio chemist and a philosopher of science taking part in some of our discussions. I think that people who read the blog but have no strong opinion would find the AGW side on our blog much more credible just by the way they conduct their arguments. I think that might a benefit but I have to say I've no way of knowing.  I'm probably wasing time.

    I have have asked, even on this website why deniers wouldn't fund their own survery since it would only cost the Koch brothers of some other organization chump change to do it.  I figured they were afraid of the Richard Muller effect.

    I want to avoid being repetitious but I'm still bothered by the Mike Hulme thing. As a layman I just don't know what to think about his comments concerning the survey. It may be something I should let go of but I'd like to get in inkling of where he's coming from because if he’s so concerned about the huge amounts of carbon going into the atmosphere he sure doesn’t seem to be helping the cause.  Just the opposite.

  5. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    In reference to JCHs question above: November also saw a drop in average temps (and the media over here (Norway) was all over it, as it meant a reduction in the chances of 2014 breaking the record). If I remember correctly, there was a major Arctic blast into North America, due to a major north Pacific cyclone pushing warm air into the Arctic and pushing cold air into NA.

    It seems that we get a drop in the average global temp each time the cold Arctic air flows down into lower latitudes where we can properly measure temps, but we are unable to properly account for the heat that flows into the Arctic at the same time, causing a sizeable cool bias in the global average.

    If I remember correctly, most of the much hyped ''pause'' was caused by colder winter NH temps, while summer NH temp as well as summer and winter SH temps have risen steadily, without much trace of a pause. It would not surprise me if most of the ''pause'' was caused by not yet perfect methods for measuring the results of the shuffling of NH air masses during the NH winter. C&W and HadCrut 4 was a big step in the right direction, but I have a strong feeling that there is still a rather big cool bias, as indicated by the November temps.

  6. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR

    Thanks again KR - If you dont mind I'll post up your response here on the Phys.org thread.

    Tony

  7. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Stranger...  What most people miss about the Cook paper is that the main point is not the actual "97%" number. It's about the difference between the public's incorrect perception of the level of consensus and the actual level of consensus. 

    What "skeptics" always fail to do, whilst they twist and writhe over the data, is attempt to apply their own methods for evaluating the level of consensus. Or, perhaps they have and found out that something close to 97% is actually correct... and they don't want to report that.

    The importance of the research is, showing the difference between perception and reality on the part of the public relative to the level of acceptance of AGW tends to move people toward acceptance of the science.

    The people at your newspaper blog ranting about the research are going to do that no matter what. That's fine. Those people will never be moved and they needn't be moved. In fact, I would hold that it's better they aren't because they become a foil against which to communicate the stark reality of AGW.

    When I encounter these people I usually say one of two things:

    1) Okay, you don't like the research. Do your own. Show us what you believe the level of consensus is, but you need to do what Cook et al did and go through the tough process of getting your results peer reviewed. (And FYI, that ain't easy.)

    2) Since Cook et al took the self-skeptical approach of getting researchers to rate their own papers, the results are likely to be very robust. And that's not to even mention the other research papers that show similar results.

    So, we now have numerous peer reviewed papers showing a very high level of scientific consensus on AGW. We have no papers showing otherwise.

    "Skeptics" are batting a big fat zero right now on this topic.

  8. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR

    Runrig - I haven't dug into the history of _that particular figure_. However, the IPCC reports are of the current state of the art; the Myhre et al results were incorporated as far back as the 2001 SAR, and by now are likely just considered part of background literature/knowledge. 

    It's also noteworthy that the FAR projections were based on emission scenarios higher than actually occurred - I suspect some of the adjustment may come from using observed forcings to rescale FAR projections over intervening years. 

    Regardless, the fact that Bell hasn't come across the initial reference(s) to projection rescaling (based on forcing updates and historic emissions) shouldn't be interpreted as nefarious actions by the Illuminati, as he has apparently concluded. Rather, it means he isn't wholly familar with the literature. 

  9. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B

    And as reliably a ever, the Wall Street Journal shows up the other day with another "models aren't accurate" trope on its editorial page, using the same tired old short-term time frames. It is the very definition of tragicomedy.

  10. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    KR,

    Yes he is indeed, as has been rammed home to him by "Maggnus", but on the other hand has been polite and accepted some criticism and apologised on occasion.

    I have replied also on the appropriate thread.

    Thanks

    Tony Banton

  11. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR

    KR,

    Thankyou for that.

    It's what I thought - and what i told him.

    He still thinks that it is "deceptive" that the IPCC in that AR5 graph has the new ECS, without reference to it's being changed.

    Is that right?

    There is no mention that I can see.  I was hoping to pass on that statement from the IPCC to him

    Tony

  12. Water is far more valuable and useful than oil

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    World has not woken up to water crisis caused by climate change: IPCC head by Nita Bhalla,  Thomson Reuters Foundation, Feb 3, 2015

  13. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6A

    (Please note that I am not trying to start a political debate by the last comment. Just wondering if there is something that I'm missing. Is the strategy to get rid of coal first, but in the mean time give a green light to oil and gas? But we're still selling lots of coal even if domestic consumption is going down...Ideas?)

  14. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6A

    "Obama ignores Obama on climate change"

    Cute title. But really, what are we to make of this president at this point? Is he being completely disingenuous? Is there any logic, any method to the madness?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] All U.S. Presidents, including Barak Obama operate in a political world where many factors come into play when Presidential decisions are made. As we all know, energy has become an extremely complex issue in American politics. Therefore, your questions cannot be objectively answered in this particular venue.

  15. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    Runrig - I've replied on the more appropriate thread. Long story short, the rescaling was entirely justified by updated forcing information, and Doug Bell is engaging in conspiracy ideation. 

  16. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR

    Runrig - In the 1990 FAR report the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 was estimated by the equation:

    ΔF = 6.3 * ln(C/C0)

    In 1998 a far more extensive examination of radiative models and forcing was done (Myhre 1998), and the simplified equation (curve-fit to the radiative model results) was updated to a more accurate constant:

    ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)

    Constants for CH4, N2O, and CFC direct forcings were also updated in that paper. And later IPCC documents rescaled the FAR model results accordingly - entirely appropriately. 

  17. Mighty Drunken at 23:59 PM on 4 February 2015
    Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    Hi Runrig,

    It is best to keep comments on topic, here SkS has a relevant article, FAR Prediction. Assuming Doug has not messed up his baselines the answer is probably found in the linked article, the actual forcing being less than the BAU projection and we are tracking on one of the lower climate sentivity projections. His analysis seems a bit subjective, for instance he claimes, "At the 2035 mark the lowest prediction is around 1.7°C". My eyeballing puts it closer to 1.6C.

  18. Katharine Hayhoe's climate elevator pitch

    I don't think this is a good approach. Leave out the science and pull them over emotionally? If you want to talk on a personal relevant ground confront them with with actual data on the water problems in Texas. What is the problem and where can they see the consequences? Using some vague description to scare them is not helping in my opinion.

  19. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Thanks Tom.  The 97% controversy has been raging at our newspaper blog since the moment it was published. The Soon and Idso claims about your Cook et al was just the latest "skeptic" point that was to show how unriliable the study is.  I would think the 1200 authous representing 2000 papers should be a large enough number as you point out. 

    I read a blog exchange between Dana and professor Mike Hulme.  It's left me a bit confused or should I say very confused.  I'm not sure what Hulme's point is or where he's comming from.  His statement "..97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue...".  has been embraced by the deniers to claim Hulme is shooting down the paper.  It seems that he's down on the process not that there isn't concensus but unfortunately all he's accompolished to do is confuse.  Is he doing this to obfuscate?  The fact that he thinks were "beyound it" concerning concensus seems counter productive at this time. 

  20. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    Addendum to the above...

    Mr Bell outlines his arguments here...

    http://dougbell.wikidot.com/wiki:ipcc-deception

  21. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    Hi,

    Off topic somewhat here - but is very much related to climate science denial.

    I am a retired UKMO Meteorologist and I post regularly on Phys.org trying to rebut the AGW deniers that frequent the site.

    There is an ongoing thread ...

    phys.org/news/2015-01-climate-dont-over-predict.html

    Which primarily concerns the concerns of one Doug Bell in respect of differences between the original FAR graph ECS assessment and that transfered to the AR5 graph of all AR's overlain. I have pointed out a quote from SkS in this post.....

    "From:http://www.skepti...ming.htm

    "The IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) of 1.5°C (low), 2.5°C (best), and 4.5°C (high) for doubled CO2 (Figure 1). However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18% lower (for example, the 'Best' model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2)."

    I read it, that AFTER FAR the ECS was taken as 18% lower than the figure used then.
    The AR5 graph has the ECS ranges "rebased" to that figure.
    In the original FAR document, which you get your sensitivity figures from they are as was thought originally.

    The "missing" 0.4C ?"

    Is anyone able to shead light on the matter?

    Thanks

    Tony Banton

  22. Katharine Hayhoe's climate elevator pitch

    What Katharine sais here is the indicative of a long-standing opinion by many attribution climate scientists that AGW is not an environmental problem but rather a social/ethical problem. I.e. the intergenerational ethics, uneven geographical distribution of causes (emissions) and effects (adverse weather), arguments about allowances, are all social/ethical root problems that have no solution whatsoever. The environmental problem of changing climate is just the effect that cannot be fixed until the roots are not fixed.

  23. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    I've used the equation Republicans = Tea Party for quite a while.  I've not seen anything to disprove the fact.

  24. The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year

    yep, that's the one. It's been projected that the Arctic warms way faster than the rest of the globe. Greenland partially melts which raises the sea level which twists the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which cracks the buffer keeping the Antarctic glaciers from melting. Thus they melt and thus the sea level rises to the level where many current ports become inoperable thus the commerce stops thus follows the economic meltdown thus the world ends. 

    I really should stop writing in hangover.

  25. Water is far more valuable and useful than oil

    no worries, we can melt the glaciers and ice sheets to get more water... maybe I should disband myself of writing in hangover.

  26. New research reveals extreme oxygen loss in oceans during past climate change

    Wow, an important piece of research. Kind of cool we can get these records from the layers in the bottom of the ocean. I would have imagined there wouldn't be such an oxygen loss. Sure teh animals on land can move faster than plants so some oxygen loss (thus increase in CO2) would have happened when external drivers (sun and eccentricity whatnot) warm up the continents but also in the ocean? Nice to know but the reasons are not too clear here, small scale methane bursts on continental shelves using up the oxygen? This would of course not be seen on the ice core record since the methane wouldn't make it to the atmosphere. 

  27. Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory

    Telegraph. Not the first time they are in error. Might call them opinionated and incapable of learning of their errors. Some call this 'news'paper 'the torygraph', which quite well fits in my view these sorts of extreme rightwing 'newspapers' are nothing more than public, but encoded, message boards for their readership consisting of torys, the meaning of which derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber or brigand.

  28. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    cool, I think most people connect the word 'hot' with something that burns their skin in the childhood or some similar incident. Psychologically, it's then a question of discomfort. Discomfort in a hot car is one very commonly met occasion in the developed world, thus saying 'hottest year' connects to these uneasy feelings. Technically, we could say this was the 1st to 2nd least cold year, as the GW expresses itself better by raising the minimums first, but that would lead to a false sense of security since 'hot' is an expression associated with discomfort. 'Too hot' in turn associates with damage and is more a class of it's own. Thus speaking of 'too hot' or years should be reserved to discussions about agriculture, or health. Interesting. The year 2014 wasn't too hot but it was one of the least cold years, at least in here. Thanks Kevin C for keeping this record up to date.

  29. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Stranger @20, searching The Consensus Project database, I find just two papers with Willi Soon as a coauthor.  The first, on polar bears, was rated neutral because it does not include any discussion in the abstract germain to the attribution of recent global warming.  The abstract of the second reads as follows:

    "The authors investigate how the global monsoon (GM) precipitation responds to the external and anthropogenic forcing in the last millennium by analyzing a pair of control and forced millennium simulations with the ECHAM and the global Hamburg Ocean Primitive Equation (ECHO-G) coupled ocean–atmosphere model. The forced run, which includes the solar, volcanic, and greenhouse gas forcing, captures the major modes of precipitation climatology comparably well when contrasted with those captured by the NCEP reanalysis. The strength of the modeled GM precipitation in the forced run exhibits a significant quasi-bicentennial oscillation. Over the past 1000 yr, the simulated GM precipitation was weak during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) with the three weakest periods occurring around 1460, 1685, and 1800, which fell in, respectively, the Spörer Minimum, Maunder Minimum, and Dalton Minimum periods of solar activity. Conversely, strong GM was simulated during the model Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1030–1240). Before the industrial period, the natural variations in the total amount of effective solar radiative forcing reinforce the thermal contrasts both between the ocean and continent and between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres resulting in the millennium-scale variation and the quasi-bicentennial oscillation in the GM index. The prominent upward trend in the GM precipitation occurring in the last century and the notable strengthening of the global monsoon in the last 30 yr (1961–90) appear unprecedented and are due possibly in part to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, though the authors’ simulations of the effects from recent warming may be overestimated without considering the negative feedbacks from aerosols. The simulated change of GM in the last 30 yr has a spatial pattern that differs from that during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that global warming that arises from the increases of greenhouse gases and the input solar forcing may have different effects on the characteristics of GM precipitation. It is further noted that GM strength has good relational coherence with the temperature difference between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and that on centennial time scales the GM strength responds more directly"

    The first thing you will notice is that it says nothing to dismiss the attribution of at least 50% of recent global warming to anthropogenic factors.  On the contrary, it several times mentions CO2 forcing (an anthropogenic factor) as a relevant forcing, and as a cause of recent warming.  Specifically, it is stated:

    "The simulated change of GM in the last 30 yr has a spatial pattern that differs from that during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that global warming that arises from the increases of greenhouse gases and the input solar forcing may have different effects on the characteristics of GM precipitation"

    Given reasonable background information about the relative strengths of anthropogenic and solar forcing, that represents an implicit endorsement that >50% of recent warming was anthropogenic.  However, we don't need to dig that far in.  The paper uses climate models which are known, given historical forcings, to show humans as responsible >50% of recent warming.  Absent an explicit disclaimer indicating that the authors are not using standard historical forcings, that again respresents an implicit endorsement.  The paper was in fact rated as Explicitly endorsing but not quantifying, ie, a 2, and that is arguably a mistake.  (I would rate it as 3, implicitly endorsing.)  It is, however, a mistake that makes zero difference to the headline result of Cook et al.

    Now it is possible that Soon and his coauthors did clearly indicate the use of radically a-historical forcings in the depths of the paper.  The raters did not get to see the depths of the paper, however.  They rated on the abstract and therefore a rating justified by the abstract, though contradicted within the paper merely shows that abstracts often poorly communicate the contents of papers, not that the raters made a mistake.  Further, raters clearly rated abstracts, not authors.  If Willi Soon is really saying that he (rather than an abstract of one of his papers) was rated as endorsing the consensus, then he either completely misunderstands the study he is criticizing (nothing new there) or completely misrepresents it.

    Turning to Craig Idso, he also has to papers rated, one of which was rated as neutral.  The second, which was rated as implicitly endorsing the consensus, had the following abstract:

    "Since the early 1960s, the declining phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle has advanced by approximately 7 days in northern temperate latitudes, possibly as a result of increasing temperatures that may be advancing the time of occurrence of what may be called ‘climatological spring.’ However, just as several different phenomena are thought to have been responsible for the concomitant increase in the amplitude of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 oscillation, so too may other factors have played a role in bringing about the increasingly earlier spring drawdown of CO2 that has resulted in the advancement of the declining phase of the air’s CO2 cycle. One of these factors may be the ongoing rise in the CO2 content of the air itself; for the aerial fertilization effect of this phenomenon may be significantly enhancing the growth of each new season’s initial flush of vegetation, which would tend to stimulate the early drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and thereby advance the time of occurrence of what could be called ‘biological spring.’ Working with sour orange (Citrus aurantium L.) trees that have been growing out-of-doors in open-top chambers for over 10 years in air of either 400 or 700 ppm CO2, this hypothesis was investigated by periodically measuring the lengths, dry weights and leaf chlorophyll concentrations of new branches that emerged from the trees at the start of the 1998 growing season. The data demonstrate that the hypothesis is viable, and that it might possibly account for 2 of the 7 days by which the spring drawdown of the air’s CO2 concentration has advanced over the past few decades."

    Cutting to the chase, the authors are suggesting an alternative explanation to the fact that spring is coming earlier than it did in the past.  The standard explanation is that it is warmer earlier.  Craig Idso's alternative explanation in terms of the CO2 fertilization effect is found to be a viable hypothesis, that "... might possibly account for 2 of the 7 days by which the spring drawdown of the air’s CO2 concentration has advanced over the past few decades."  The might, possibly indicates not only uncertainty, but the upper range of the potential effect.  That is, it might account for 28.6% of the botanical effect of an early spring (and zero of the effect on animals).  That leaves around 70% still attributable to the traditional explanation, ie, the increased warmth.

    To my mind, that is not enough to rate the paper as implicitly endorsing the consensus; though only because the consensus is implicitly defined as relating to attribution on which the abstract says nothing.  Therefore this is a case of an abstract that was rated (3), but should have been rated, IMO, (4).  

    Note again that the ratings are not rating authors, and not rating papers.  However, Cook et al did include a rating of papers by the authors.  Comparison between it and the abstract ratings showed that by far the most common "error" was rating papers that endorsed the consensus as not endorsing the consensus.  Again, if Craig Idso understood Cook et al, he would know that to be the case.  He would know that pointing out one or two potential errors without pointing to the overall error statistics as shown be comparison of the abstract and author self ratings is a blatant cherry pick.  Indeed, that is probably why he claims the error, but does not draw attention to the results of the author self ratings.

  30. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Stranger: If you look at the rated abstracts, and search on "Soon" and "Idso", you will see that of the sampled abstracts Soon's (2 abstracts) were rated 3 (implicit endorsement) and 4 (neutral) respectively, while Craig Idso's abstracts (I found 2) also were rated 3 and 4. 

    This was a sampling protocol - not an exhaustive search of every paper published - but of the particular Soon and Idso fish/papers in the net the rankings were neutral or higher in endorsement of AGW. 

  31. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Stranger...  In terms of the big picture, that hardly matters. Cook et al took the extra step of allowing researchers to self-rate their papers, and the results were nearly identical to the SkS raters' results.

    If Soon and Idso self-rated their papers, then their ratings were recorded there. 

  32. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    I’ve been having an exchange over the Cook et al paper and would like some information concerning Willie Soon and also Craig D. Idso’s claim that they were mischaracterized in the survey as being neutral instead of showing that they were in opposition. I’ve looked for a response to the claim but I’ve been unable to find it. Can someone steer me to an explanation?

  33. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    The Carbon Tax, fully Pigovian, is as compatible with conservative economic viewpoints as one can find. Its regressive nature can be eliminated by returning it to Americans on a "count-the-noses" basis, which makes it compatible with liberal economic viewpoints.

    The only reason so many politicians oppose it is that they are in the pay (who cares what be the medium of payment) is that the payors do not want anything to interfere with their profits from fossil fuels. "Follow the money." Cui bono.

  34. Water is far more valuable and useful than oil

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    National Geographic takes a look at four arid regions looking to renewables for the energy-intensive work of squeezing drinkable water from the ocean in...

    Can Sun and Wind Make More Salt Water Drinkable? by Marianne Lavelle,
    National Geographic, Feb 2, 2015

  35. Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations

    Check out:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/02/tea-partiers-and-traditional-republicans-are-split-on-science/

    for a very similar story that goes beyond TEA party simple opposition to climate science, but shows opposition to mainstream science on nearly every hot button science issue.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Link activated.

  36. PhilippeChantreau at 04:22 AM on 4 February 2015
    Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm

    Tony, I don't totally agree. Once again, the statement only pertains to the probability of either very high or very low sensitivity. Technically, what you say is true: Because that probability is greater for very high, there is indeed greater chance that the real sensitivity could end up very high than very low. However, I think that calling that "underestimate" is a little misleading. It would be more accurate to say that, if senstivity is much more than predicted, it is more likely to be higher than predicted instead of lower. A little long and convoluted but more in line with the original statement.

  37. Water is far more valuable and useful than oil

    The article suggests that we will need to improve our 'water use efficiency' in the future. That is obviously the preferred course and would be very beneficial even ignoring climate change. However, I suspect we may go another route entirely... desalination. There is a ridiculous over-abundance of water on this planet, even considering our wasteful means of using it. The problem is just that most of it is 'salt water' in the oceans rather than the 'fresh' water we use for most applications. There has been a lot of research into more and more 'efficient' ways to desalinate ocean water. Logistically, it may be 'easier' (read, 'less expensive') to continue using water in all the wasteful ways we do currently and use desalination to make sure that enough is available than it would be to find and implement efficiency improvements separately for each of the thousands of ways we currently use water.

    Clearly we are going to need to make changes for our water usage to remain 'sustainable' in the future, but increasing usage efficiency is not the only solution. Though it is the better one.

  38. Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up

    I know the Sks energy widget uses Hiroshima bombs, and has also used kitten sneezes(I think?), but one of the "skeptics" sarcastically suggested that it count the number of T-Rex bites, which is a pretty sweet idea.

  39. Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm

    Oops. I wish there was editing on these posts. Of course, the last piece of the last sentence of my last comment should read "with an average of 0.15 (1.5/10)".

    Hits forehead with hand, and wishes he's prood-read the comment before posting. especially as "Combinine" should have been "Combining". Oh well.

  40. Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm

    Just to try another stab at what Phillippe wrote, in response to Paul W. I think another way of paraphrasing the first quote that Paul disgrees with is, "Regarding the estimate of climate sensitivity, it is less likely to be an overestimate of the real sensitivity than it is to be an underestimate of the real sensitivity". Or, to put it another way, "the real sensitivity is more likely to be higher than the estimate than to be lower than the estimate".

    Wili, yes, that sounds counter intuitive but consider that the average temp increase over the last 5 years was 0.1C. That's the same as 0.1C of warming (above the 2000-2009 decadal average) every year of the first 5 years of this decade. I suppose the trend continuing would be a further 0.1C of warming, on average, over the next 5 years which would be the equivalent of having each of those years being 0.2C warmer than the average temp of the last decade. Combinine those hypothesised next 5 years, with the last five years (5*0.1 + 5*0.2 = 1.5) and you end up with an average of 0.5 (1.5/10).

  41. Zeke Hausfather at 16:43 PM on 3 February 2015
    Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    Kevin and Victor,

    Robert Rohde published a white paper two years back doing something similar, sampling CMIP5 outputs at station locations and seeing how well different approaches do at reconstructing the correct field. 

    http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/robert-rohde-memo.pdf

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Hotlinked URL.

  42. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    Kevin C thanks for your considered reply.  I think your comment "Of course by creating a new version of the temperature record we have made things worse by increasing the scope for disagreement."  does you a disservice.  Not at all.  As you say in the next sentence "I hope it will be offset in the long term by the biases being addressed. And projects like ISTI and UKMO's EUSTACE are doing exactly that."  Exactly.  

  43. Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class

    Most of the attacks against the course were not worthy of anything more than laughter. The video has a fair number of hits (2410). Will you help it "become widely known?" Hope so.

    Here is is agin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb5XWjSKlA

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Then perhaps you would care to supply some actual substance with references as to why you think the attacks were laughable. This site is to discuss science. Participation depends on adherence to the comments policy.

  44. citizenschallenge at 15:06 PM on 3 February 2015
    New research reveals extreme oxygen loss in oceans during past climate change

    Good article.  It reminded me of very interesting video on YouTube posted Apr 7, 2013 "Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil."  At about an hour into the 90 minute program it discusses past periods of low oxygen ocean, high atomospheric CO2 and how that ties into oil formation.  Quite an interesting show.  Quite an amazing planet we are part of:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=59m00s

    How sad that so few appreciate it and want to learn about it.  :- (

  45. Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class

    Tom Harris, your "case closed" video again fails completely to show any case of mistaken argument by your accusers.  Rather, you resort yet again to the ad hominen argument that because your accusers are biologists, ergo they must be wrong.  This in a news report that talks of "the gospel of global warming", which repeatedly shows banners of "Green & Mean", "Enviro-fanatic crusade", and "Greenie Smear Job".  You are not responsible for the actions of the news program.  However, that you draw attention to the video rather than apologize for involvement in a program which is clearly a tawdry smear job, rife with misrepresentations and logical errors is damning to your case.  That your involvement consists merely in attempts to laugh of the accusations, and to damn by argumentum ad hominen suggests that (as above) you have nothing substantial to say in your defense.

    Perhaps it is case closed afterall, for it is hard to see either your case or your reputation recovering should that video become widely known.

  46. Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class

    I think the best way to understand how ridiculous and dishonest the attack on my Carleton course above is is to watch my TV interview on the topic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb5XWjSKlA

    Case closed.

  47. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    Victor: Emma Dodd's paper does exactly that: Start from a reanalysis and create a list of pseudo-stations using the coordinates of the desired stations. Create a synthetic temperature record for each pseudo-station from the reanalysis data at that coordinate. Then do a temperature reconstruction from the pseudo-stations, and compare with the known global temperature field.

    We do something similar (following Hadley) to get our uncertainties - the difference being that it is grid based rather than station based. It would be easy to answer the question 'how would the results improve if we had a station in this cell'? That's one possible approach to investigating the difference with Berkeley in Antarctica.

  48. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    Would it be possible to study with this dataset how much more accurate estimates of the global mean temperature would become with N additional stations in the Arctic, Antarctic and Africa? It would be nice to be able to put a price tag on better estimates that way.

  49. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    Ryland: Exactly. The public discourse is focussed on meaningless metrics which they demand scientists produce and discuss as if they are meaningful. Which puts scientists in an impossible position. Either we talk about what society wants us to talk about, which is a betrayal of the science, or we talk about the science, in which case the public draw the wrong conclusion based on the metric they are wrongly fixated on, i.e. we betray the public.

    The major motivation behind our work was the fact that a big chunk; likely the majority of the difference between the major records is probably bias (which can be fixed) rather than uncertainty (which can't). And the differences are being used to promote confusion, like this:

    • If 2005 wasn't hotter than 1998 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
    • If 2010 wasn't hotter than 2005 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
    • If 2014 wasn't hotter than 2010 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
    • If none of 2005, 2010 and 2014 were the hottest year, then it hasn't warmed since 1998.

    Now no rational person would make the argument in that form. But our cognitive biases enable us to make precisely this kind of argument to ourselves without thinking about it, and we do it all the time on all sorts of issues.

    Of course by creating a new version of the temperature record we have made things worse by increasing the scope for disagreement. That was a known risk, but I hope it will be offset in the long term by the biases being addressed. And projects like ISTI and UKMO's EUSTACE are doing exactly that.

  50. Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

    In the January 17th post by Dana stating 2014 was the hottest year on record I commented that the UK Met Office said it wasn't possible to categorically make this assertion.  This lead to some interesting discussions but it does seem from this study that stating 2014  is the hottest year ever may be premature.  The comment by Kevin C "Whether 2014 was hottest or not doesn’t really change our understanding of the science, but the media coverage should make it very clear that it is important for social reasons" is somewhat disconcerting.

Prev  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  635  636  637  638  639  640  641  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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