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  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  706  707  708  Next

Comments 35001 to 35050:

  1. Models are unreliable

    Responding on this appropriate thread, to Donny's comment on an inappropriate thread:

    Spencer followed up his claim that you linked, with another claim this time about "90 models" but likewise severely flawed.  Hotwhopper clearly explained Spencer's biggest...um, "mistake"...of playing loose and fast with baselines.  There is also the issue of Spencer falsely giving the impression that the RSS and UAH satellite trends are consistent.

  2. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny @20,

    This is what portions of Siberia look like. Try farming that with or without heavy equipment.

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

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Activated link.

  3. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny @23...  Again, with Risbey, you fail to even grasp what you originally stated.

    Again, you said, "However the models have said a lot of things over the past 15 years.... a lot of which have been revised over the years because of inaccuracies."

    1) The models have not said "a lot of things over the past 15 years." The models have been relatively unchanged over the past 15 years. 

    2) The models have also not been "revised over the years because of inaccuracies." Models are coded based on known physics, they're not just plugging in random numbers to try to make things fit. Model outputs are the emergent results of the underlying physics, plain and simple. 

    Now, again, I would request that you retract your inaccurate statements.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Please put all replies concerning "reliability of models" on the appropriate thread in the followup that Tom Dayton has provided above. Debate works better to when you stick to one point at a time and substantiate your claims. Failure to do you will be treated as just trolling and be deleted.

  4. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny @21...  Roy Spencer's post shows absolutely nothing supporting the statement that, "[T]he models have said a lot of things over the past 15 years.... a lot of which have been revised over the years because of inaccuracies."

    The models state what they've always been stating. Climate modelers regularly improve their methods, but those have resulted in only very minor difference. In the article you post, Roy is only discussing the discrepancy between models and satellite data, where it's just as reasonable to assume that it's the satellite data that is getting it wrong.

    Also note, Roy is improperly centering the comparison between the models and the satellite data by arbitrarily chosing the start point of the data.

  5. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny,

    Please provide a reference to support your wild claim that a significant area of forest in Canada can be converted into farmland to replace California and Texas.  Provide a cite to show boreal forest will covert to farmland on a human time scale.  You have yet to provide a single reference to support your wild claims.  You obviously know nothing about soils or you would answer Bob Laidlaw's question. 

    Donny should be required to provide data to support his wild claims.  People who make uninformed claims only add to the noise, they do not add to the discussion.

  6. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Bob.... the boreal forest soil diffiencies are climate driven.....

  7. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Here is another study and question for Mr Honeycutt. ... why would Risbey et al (2014) be studying model simulation results with regard to ENSO and throwing around the term ocean heat uptake... if all models have been doing such a stellar job?  Seems like they are trying to figure out where the expected surface heat went.....and why the predictions are off. 

  8. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny:

    Sure, there is lots of land in Canada north of current farming belts.

    Some of us that can read maps can also read soil maps. Care to back up your flippant comment with some information to demonstrate that you know something about the soils in those "huge tracks [sic] of land"? I'll give you a hint: if you look in the prairie provinces, you'll find that current agricultural zones pretty much stop at the border between the grasslands and boreal forest. Further north than that, the soils are not very good. Can you demonstrate a single area in Canada where the northern regions have good soil for agriculture, so that shifting climate zones are not a problem for relocating farms?

    You're long on opinion, but awfully short on information.

  9. nospacesallowed at 02:16 AM on 11 August 2014
    Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    I agree with Mal. Even if you left it at "I think Global Warming is happening and a problem because the best global warming scientists (In the NAS) think it is a problem." that still would not be an argument from authority. An argument from authority only applies if the authority is not an expert on that subject matter, the claim is outside their field, there is no agreement within the field, the person is significantly biased, the area is not a legitimate discipline, or we don't identify the authority.

    I don't think anyone is about to tell you that they don't have to worry about their cancer because believing their doctor is relying on an argument from authority.

    TLDR, relying on expert opinions is not an argument from authority.

  10. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    I haven't been able to locate the downloadable data for the dataset identified as "HadCRUT4 hybrid". Does anyone have a link?

    Initially I thought this might actually be Cowtan and Way, but it doesn't seem to be.

  11. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    However. ... this is a compilation of models. ... that don't seem to have done so well. ..  www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

  12. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Ma Rodger...  I was responding flippantly to a non scientific jab with regard to where the new farming land would come from. There are huge tracks of land to the north of current farming belts... like southern Canada and across Asia.   .... but anyone here can look at a map and see that.   But rather than discuss these issues people like Rob Honey will probably ask me to find a study proving there is land in southern Canada.   

  13. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Another action that would increase food security and reduce the number of undernourished would be to stop using food for fuel.

    It's Final — Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

    To me is is unethical to use food for fuel. I also find it peculiar that we did not figure out upfront that using food for fuel would reduce the amount of crop availabel for food and increase food prices.

  14. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny @11.

    For myself, I feel you are being asked to produce too much by the commenters here. It is correct that a troll is more than somebody who holds a contrary opinion. However you do manage to make some egregiously troll-like statements here. Take, for instance, your reply to the flippant question "Where is the new farmland going to come from, under the glaciers in Greenland?" You reply:-

    "and yes we know that Greenland supported crops not that long ago. .... hence the name."

    This outlandish assertions raises some big questions. Of course, Greenland is a big island, four-times the size of France. But 81% of it is covered with a permanent icecap. How much of this ice is going to melt away by 2050? And how is that area of exposed bedrock to be converted into productive farmland to help feed the world, again by 2050 (that being the subject of discussion)?
    And your assertion that Greenland was named thus because it "supported crops not long ago," flies in the face of the usual interpretation of the naming. (That usual interpretation runs " That summer Eirek went to settle that land which he had found, and which he called Greenland, for he said that many men would desire to visit it if he gave the land a good name.") So, on what basis do you dismiss this usual interpretation?

  15. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/water-and-conflict-in-syr_b_5404774.htmla

     

    Drought has driven the already tensions in the area higher contributing to the fighting. Like California, they are overusing their groundwater supplies to make up for the drought.

  16. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Michael Sweet.  Tom Curtis @14 has replied to your condemnation of Steve McIntyre in what can only be described as a very gracious post.  You suggest  

    "Ashton, perhaps you could copy this data to Climate Audit and tell us his reply".

    Tom Curtis has done exactly that and has entered into a fairly extensive dialogue with Steve McIntyre that you might like to read.  It does appear at the moment to be an unfinished dialogue.

    Moderator Response:

    [Rob P] Note that any further comments on that subject are off-topic and will likely result in deletion. Thread-derailment is frowned upon here, but you are being given the benefit of doubt in this instance.

  17. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    Donny, if you have formed those opinions without expert command of the scientific arguments against them, then you are a denier.  On a complex issue like climate, encompassing as it does all of the natural sciences, a genuine skeptic who is not himself a specialist will acknowledge that there are actual experts, who know more about the subject than he does. A skeptical but self-aware non-expert will reserve judgement at least until he knows what the real experts think.

    A genuine skeptic also recognizes that some experts are more credible than others.  One who is scientifically meta-literate knows that the US National Academy of Sciences collectively represents as high a level of expertise as any scientific body in the world.  This is not the argument from authority, it's the argument that unless you've put the time in to become an authority yourself, what's good enough for the NAS ought to be good enough for you.

    The NAS and the Royal Society of the UK have jointly published a 36-page booklet titled "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes":

    nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

    The booklet, aimed at an educated lay audience, addresses 20 common questions about anthropogenic climate change including yours, with answers drawn from the combined expertise of two of the world's most respected scientific societies.  You don't need to accept their conclusions with full certainty, but rejecting them without showing the world why they're wrong makes you a denier.

     

  18. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny, you say "I disagree with the hypothesis that dry spots will necessarily be dryer and wet wetter."

    Big deal.  You give no well articulated reasons.

    This is also not "just" a hypothesis. Research has already found an increasing incidence of both dry and wet periods over the last 30 years, exactly as you would expect with global warming. For example research by James Hansen on climate data over the last 30 years. You can find this on the NASA website.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html

  19. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    michael sweet @9, I cannot accept the thanks, and must revise my condemnation of McIntyre who did look up the relevant data.  I have expressed my apology to him at Climate Audit, and will do so again here.  McIntyre in fact looked up both the 2008 and 2012 reports from the FAO, and discusses primarilly the change in estimates between them, due in part to a revised methodology in 2012.  That change along with changes in estimates of population, population height and dietary energy supply reverse the trend in world hunger from 2002-2007 as previously reported in FAO reports.  The turn around is a net change of 53 million between 2011 and 2012, with a further 22 million change between the 2008 and 2011 reports.  The change consists primarilly in an increase in estimated hunger in 2002, but with a decline by 35 million in estimated hunger in 2007.  Both figures were further revised upwards in 2013, by 38 million for 2002 and and 8 million in 2007 in the 2013 report, while the 2012 figures were revised down by 25 million.  (All years are approximate because the FAO does not report for single years, and changes the range of years reported from report to report).

    McIntyre did lead of his article with the discrepancy with the 2013 report, which is not something for which the IPCC can be blamed.  He also compared the world figures (reported by the IPCC) with the undeveloped nation only figures (shown in the graph above).  That did not justify Ashton above not mentioning the rest of his article, nor my unaccountable (except for extreme tiredness) failure to notice it on my first read through.

    Finally, McIntyre certainly quotes the IPCC out of context.  The IPCC wrote:

    "Many definitions of food security exist and these have been the subject of much debate. As early as 1992, Maxwell and Smith (1992) reviewed over 180 items discussing concepts and definitions, and more definitions have been formulated since (Defra, 2006). While many earlier definitions centred on food production, more recent definitions highlight access to food, in keeping with the 1996 World Food Summit definition (FAO, 1996) that food security is met when ‘all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’. World-wide attention on food access was given impetus by the food ‘price spike’ in 2007-08, triggered by a complex set of long- and short-term factors (von Braun and Torero, 2009). FAO’s provisional estimates show that, in 2007, 75 million more people were added to the total number of undernourished relative to 2003–2005 (FAO, 2008); other studies report a lower number (Headey and Fan, 2010). More than enough food is currently produced per capita to feed the global population, yet about 870 million people remained hungry in 2012 (FAO et al., 2012). The questions for this chapter are how far climate and its change affect current food production systems and food security and the extent that they will do so in the future
    (Figure 7-1)."

    (My emphasis)

    McIntyre only quotes the two sentences after the bolded section.  Most probably, in the context of the entire paragraph, the first sentence that McIntyre quotes, and that he dissects, is intended to illustrate the "impetus" to "World-wide attention on food access".  As such, it is an appropriate citation although the sentence containing it is insufficiently clear.  It may also be that the IPCC does not accept FAO revisions which are at odds with other data, a fact that may explain the FAO taking time to respond to criticisms of its index in the 2013 report.   Notably, the FAO 2013 writes:

    "Moreover, given that both the probability distribution f(x) and the threshold level in (1) are associated with the representative individual of the population – that is, a statistical construct corresponding to an individual of average age, sex, stature and physical activity level – they do not represent, respectively, the empirical distribution of per capita food in the population and a threshold level that is meaningful for any actual individual in the
    population."

    (My emphasis)

    The underlined sentence indicates that if, in a given nation, the proportion of food eaten by one sector of the population increases, with a consequent decrease for another portion of the population, this will not be reflected as in increase in hunger in the FAO data.  That is significant in that there was a sharp increase in food prices in 2007/8 that is likely to have caused such a shift in consumption habits and may have caused a spike in hunger that is not captured by the FAO methodology.  However, while I can see this as a possibility, I do not know enough about the subject to know if it was actually the case, ie, whether the wide spread increase in hunger reported at the time was accurate, or the currently revised figures of the FAO are more accurate.

  20. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny said... "However the models have said a lot of things over the past 15 years.... a lot of which have been revised over the years because of inaccuracies."

    I'm also going to formally make a request that you substantiate this statement before you make attempts to post anything else. Until you either substantiate or retract this statement I'm going to suggest the moderators delete any additional comments.

    It's a very serious claim that you've made here and it needs to be rectified before moving forward.

  21. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny... The problem is that you're disagreeing without even knowing what you're talking about. You're presenting a "different opinion" that is not based on any science. 

    As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

    If you can't find any research that supports your opinion then, well, that opinion isn't worth very much. My suggestion would be to do your research. If you can find something that supports your position, then present it. If you can't find anything, you should probably consider changing your position to conform to the available facts.

  22. New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming

    clarification:   As you did correctly summarize in your post, Jones et al's main conclusion was that GHGs dominate the observed warming.   But that statement of having cause 200% of observed warming is just bad wording.    Thanks again.

  23. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    I'm not sure you should call me a troll because I disagree with your opinion.   However the models have said a lot of things over the past 15 years.... a lot of which have been revised over the years because of inaccuracies.   Yes heat can dry areas out.... but it will also produce a larger percentage of the globe to be covered in water thus increasing water vapor and cooling from evaporation.   Why do you get mad that I would want to explore different opinions?   I disagree with the hypothesis that dry spots will necessarily be dryer and wet wetter.  I also think it is funny that the moderator tries to influence opinions. ... instead of just moderating discussion/debate.   I am no expert but do have a degree in environmental biology with a interest in weather and climate.  Wili... why would you want to censor someone with a different opinion?  

  24. New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming

    This line seems to be poorly written:  "Overall, Jones et al. (2013) concludes that greenhouse gases have caused between 100% and 200% of the observed global surface warming over the past 60 years"

    The other statements seems to accurately portray conslusions of the Jones paper (aerosols and other natural variability caused us to warm slightly less than expected by balancing/off-setting a portion of the GHG-caused energy gain), but your wording above seems to have confused some folks.   Thanks.

     

  25. One Planet Only Forever at 06:35 AM on 10 August 2014
    Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    In addition to the points by NowhereMan,

    A denier will also try to claim that the benefit that a portion of the current generation of humanity would have to give up to reduce the impacts on future generations is worth more than the potential consequences that will be faced by the future generations.

    This type of 'economic evaluation' is obvious nonsense because it is the same as saying it is OK for a person to benefit from an activity that is likely to create consequences that are only faced by their neighbour. Yet it is done by many who attempt to justify the unacceptable activity they wish to have expand or be prolonged. And the worst of them deliberately overstate the case in favour of the current day trouble-makers and deliberately understate the future consequences. Some even go as far as to claim that what hapopens in the future is less important than what happens today, using Net-Present-Value discounting of future costs.

    In addition, there is the presumption that the economy they want, full of unsustainable activity, will magically continue to grow like it did in the past making the future so much wealthier. That is more clear nonsense because none of the actions of today's developed economy they want to prolong or expand will produce any lasting benefit into the future.

  26. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    Thanks.

  27. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny at 7--I shouldn't engage with a troll (should these be aloud on this site?) but really, your statement here is just stunningly...well, let's just call it simplistic. Every global warming model I know of (and just common sense, if you bother to think for more than a few seconds) predicts that  some places (mostly those that are already rather wet) will get wetter, while other places (especially those that are already dry or in the interior of continenents) will get drier. Heat, after all, dries things out, and where predominant weather patterns don't bring ample rain, that drying will be intense. Of course, many places will (already are) swing between more and more intense drying spells, and every more severe downpours--both very bad for vegetation (and most every other form of life).

  28. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Tom,

    Thank you for looking up the data on McIntyre.  It is typical for him to produce shoddy reports and claim others have made the mistakes.  Will he audit his own report and rewrite it to reflect the actual data available at the time?

    Ashton, perhaps you could copy this data to Climate Audit and tell us his reply.

  29. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny,

    Your post hardly rates a response but I will give you one more post.  I have a Masters Degree in Organic Chemistry.   I teach chemistry at the College level (google Hillsborough Community College Chemistry).  I noticed that you post no qualifications yourself.  On Skeptical Science people are usually judged by the quality of their arguments and data, not their degrees.  So far you have produced no data or links that support your wild claims.  The OP supports my claims that food prices will change.  It has been pointed out above that the OP did not consider drought (or sea level rise) in their analysis.  This makes the decrease they predict a better than best case analysis.

    It is well known that the Vikings raised only cattle, it was too cold to raise plant crops (potatoes and cabbage are now, for the first time, raised in Greenland).  It was called "Greenland" as a sales tactic, some people are still fooled by this.  Under the ice is only rock, as with most of the Arctic.  Read Collapse by Jahred Diamond.

    Increased food prices in the USA hardly need to be referenced but here is the first of many articles how AGW related drought has caused price increases in beef.

    It has been predicted for decades that AGW will cause wet areas to get wetter and dry areas to become dryer.  This includes a single location becoming dryer during the dry season and wetter in the wet season.   The increased temperature will drive water cycle faster than in the past.  Your claim that you are not aware of this indicates that you have not done your homework.

    You have yet to provide any data or links that support your wild claims.  Please remember that an unsupported claim can be dismissed with a hand wave. 

     

  30. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    Donny, here's one unofficial answer to your questions. You might be a denier if:

    • You suggest that natural variations in climate represent a reason not to worry about human-caused climate variations.
    • You point out that climate is and always has been changing without examining the rate of such changes and why the rate of change is important.
    • You state that "CO2 concentration is only a small part of the complex system that drives temperature" as if this information is new to climate scientists and is not incorporated into their models.

    My personal experience in this field suggests one other indication that you're a denier:

    • You probably are a denier if you pose the above claims in a manner that gives you an escape if these claims are shot down: "I was only asking questions!"

    Of course, maybe you're really not a denier, and so this doesn't apply to you. But if that's the case, you might want to modify your rhetorical style a bit. Being upfront about what you're arguing for, what you think you know, and where your information comes from is a good way to avoid unfairly being labeled as a "denier".

  31. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    wili@9, SkS linked a few days ago to this NY times article, which in turn linked to this MIT article.  To quote the NY times: "In 2009, the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model estimated that if we do nothing to curb greenhouse emissions, there’s a 10 percent chance that temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, causing wholesale destruction of life as we know it."

    For Lloyd to garble the deep ocean lesson to conveniently cast doubt on AGW was forgiveable 20-30 years ago.  But 120 years after 19th century Physics first predicted this trend, and 50 years after it first made the desk of the American President?  Its 2014, not 1984: Nobody speculates the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could slide into the sea; today we measure it sliding into the sea.  Lloyd and his publisher Murdoch are going to end up 'unintentionally' killing a bunch of people. So consider this: how often do the words 'Murdoch' and 'unintentionally' appear in the same sentence? I'm simply submitting that maybe he knows what he's doing, in Climate Change, as in every other facet of his life.

    Lloyd did not 'make a mistake'.  And if his behavior is not ignorance, what is it?  Its knowledge.  They are doing this with intention.  So, next question is: Why?  That's the question we should be asking and we should not flinch from the answer, 'overwhelming evidence' or not.  At this point, many lives are hinging on that answer.  Why are they intentionally doing this?

  32. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    The problem is that people tend to generalize and put everyone who disagrees into one box. The climate is always and has always changed.   There is no"normal". Am I a "denier" Doug if I think the climate would be warming even if humans were not adding any CO2?  What about if I think CO2 concentration is only a small part of the complex system that drives temperature?  There are too many aspects to the argument to label everyone who disagrees with one aspect. ... a denier. 

  33. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Michael I love the "scientific graph" under the"food security" heading. ...   [snip].   Just your assumption alone that gw will cause drought even though it's predicted to also produce increased water vapor tells me all I need to know about your scientific background.  How about you provide some evidence backing your wild claim.... and yes we know that Greenland supported crops not that long ago. .... hence the name. 

    Moderator Response:

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

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

    [RH] Inflammatory tone snipped.

  34. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Ashton @4, the IPCC wrote (Section 7.1):

    "World-wide attention on food access was given impetus by the food ‘price spike’ in 2007-08, triggered by a complex set of long- and short-term factors (von Braun and Torero, 2009). FAO’s provisional estimates show that, in 2007, 75 million more people were added to the total number of undernourished relative to 2003–2005 (FAO, 2008); other studies report a lower number (Headey and Fan, 2010). More than enough food is currently produced per capita to feed the global population, yet about 870 million people remained hungry in 2012 (FAO et al., 2012)."

    I cannot find the FAO document referenced for 2008, but was able to find "The State of Food Security in the World 2008", which writes (2nd Key Message):

    "High food prices share much of the blame. The most rapid increase in chronic hunger experienced in recent years occurred between 2003–05 and 2007. FAO’s provisional estimates show that, in 2007, 75 million more people were added to the total number of undernourished relative to 2003–05. While several factors are responsible, high food prices are driving millions of people into food insecurity, worsening conditions for many who were already food-insecure, and threatening long-term global food security."

    Therefore the 75 million increase cited for 2007 is an accurate report of FAO figures of the time. 

    The 2012 citation is to the "The State of Food Security in the World 2012", which states (key messages):

    "The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 presents new estimates of the number and proportion of undernourished people going back to 1990, defined in terms of the distribution of dietary energy supply. With almost 870 million people chronically undernourished in 2010–12, the number of hungry people in the world remains unacceptably high. The vast majority live in developing countries, where about 850 million people, or slightly fewer than 15 per cent of the population, are estimated to be undernourished."

    So, again the IPCC accurately cited FAO figures.

    Why, then, the evident discrepancy between the IPCC figures and the "The State of Food Security in the World 2013" quoted by McIntyre and shown in Figure 1 of the report (as posted by McIntyre)?

    The answer is largely given by showing the equivalent figure from 2012:

    If you look at the green line, it is revised upward from a plateau around 900 million  in the early twentieth century to show a peak at about 940 million in the later figures.  At the same time, the end figures are revised downward.  The downward trend McIntyre finds so obvious, therefore, is a result of revision of earlier figures - a revision that had not taken place in the documents to which the IPCC had access.  Indeed, even if the IPCC got rid of its policy of looking only at documents available by a certain date (to prevent a process of continuous rewriting and reassessment preventing publication), the revised figures were not published until October 2013, by which time the IPCC report was essentially complete.

    There you go, thirty minutes of research and writing time and we find the IPCC mad no errors, but that more recent FAO documents have revised the figures on which the IPCC relied.  Too much trouble, apparently, for McIntyre who was content merely to wrongy tarnish the IPCC with shoddy research.

  35. CO2 effect is saturated

    Dan Smith @279. Further to Tom Curtis's response I would add that the following statement is incorrect.

    However, rising CO2 levels cause a rise in relative atmospheric humidity .... So CO2 causes higher humidity and that causes global warming.

    There is no physical mechanism that allows CO2 to "suck" more water vapour into the atmosphere except its ability to warm the atmosphere itself. In other words, if the CO2 warming potential is saturated (which it is not) then water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere would not be able to rise.

    This is the OFFICIAL IPCC explanation that there is a supposed consensus on.

    This statement is simply incorrect. I would challenge your respondent to find this explanation in the IPCC reports, available here.

  36. Joel_Huberman at 23:25 PM on 9 August 2014
    Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    I've read only the abstract of the Tai et al. study, plus the description here. Based on what I've seen, I suspect that Tai et al. may not have considered the effects of predicted drought. My suspicions on this point were aroused by the top map (for RCP 4.5), in which yield increases were predicted for western USA--precisely the region where the impacts of drought are predicted to be most severe.

  37. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Although this may  be regarded as heretical, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has given a reasoned critique plus the use of appropriate references to show globalyield of most major food crops has steadily increased.  The number of under/mal-nourished dropped by 17% between 1990 and 1992   and dropped further from 995 million in 1992 to 827 million in 2013.  He notes that there is a significant difference between the IPCC report and the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)of the United Nations with the IPCC reporting an increase of 75  million and the FAO a decrease of 46 million in the global number of the undermourished.  The data  from the FAO suggest that global undernourishment may not be as severe as previously thought.  The URL is www.climateaudit.org

    Moderator Response:

    [Rob P] The post is about falling future crops yields due to rising surface temperatures and air pollution. The issue here is not about past trends, but future ones. 

  38. CO2 effect is saturated

    Dan Smith @279, your respondent is thoroughly confused, having mistaken a response to temperature increases (the water vapour feedback) for the initial cause of temperature increase (the radiative forcing).  The theory that CO2 is saturated, ie, that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause not increase in radiative forcing does, however, contradict the IPCC:

    In fact the IPCC gives the formula for radiative forcing due to a change in concentration of CO2 as being:

    ΔF = 5.35 x ln(C/C0),

    where ΔF is the change in radiative forcing, C is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in part per million by volume (ppmv, or ppm), and C0 is the CO2 concentration in the period to which you are comaring, and ln is the natural logarithm.  The specify this in the supplementary material to chapter 8 (section 8.SM.3), as they have done in the two preceding reports.

    Anybody who thinks CO2 is saturated does not understand the basics of the greenhouse effect.  The change in CO2 concentration reduces IR radiation to space.  Ignoring the stratosphere, any increase in CO2 concentration means the IR radiation to space must come from a higher level, and hence cooler level.   Because the amount that a gas will radiate depends on its temperature, this means it will radiate less to space, and hence the total IR from the Earth to space will decrease.  To restore radiative balance, some change in the atmosphere will need to occur.  As changes in the atmosphere are driven by changes in temperature, and as increasing temperature increase radiation (and hence radiation to space), that will certainly require an increase in temperature.  I have explained this in more detail here.    

  39. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    wili @9, I am not specifically aware of the study.  I have seen reports of the MIT Integrated Assessment Model which is pessimistic both in terms of radiative forcing for a BAU scenario by 2100, climate sensitivity, and impacts relative to other models.  Further, I believe there is a remote risk of human extinction from global warming, primarilly due to the increased risk of nuclear war in a world massively, and adversely effected by global warming.  Therefore I was willing to entertain ubrew's assertion as a basis of discussion, but probably should have made it clear I was supposing the existence of the study rather than confirming it.

  40. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    Could someone provide a link to these "MIT model results" mentioned by ubrew and by Tom Curtis?

  41. CO2 effect is saturated

    I am technically a laymen in the world of climate change, but I have a decent understanding of climate change principles. I am by no means near the level of understanding as all the people posting on here. But I have a quick question that I don't think would require much thought for most of you. 

    I was in a back and forth with someone on a comment board and he brought up the saturation argument. I then sent him the link to this article. He then said that this article contradicts the IPCC:

    "CO2 has reached its reflective saturation limit, we accept that. However, rising CO2 levels cause a rise in relative atmospheric humidity and water vapor is amount the most powerful global warming forces. So CO2 causes higher humidity and that causes global warming. This is the OFFICIAL IPCC explanation that there is a supposed consensus on.

    If you can’t see how your source contradicts the actual explanation the climate scientists give at IPCC and you can’t admit that you had no clue as to the actual explanation, we are done, I have no more time to waste on you."

    I don't see what the contradiction is. Am I missing something? Thanks for any thoughts.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You are correct. There are no contradictions between the OP and the IPCC report. The role of water vapor is explained in the SkS rebutal article, Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works.

  42. michael sweet at 08:20 AM on 9 August 2014
    Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny,

    This is a scientific board.  The OP uses data to show that there is great risk that billions of people will be left undernurished by AGW.  They only look out to 2050, after that it will be much worse.  Your argument from ignorance has no standing.  You must provide data to support your wild claims.

    If fact, currently in the USA the cost of beef has gone up substantially due to AGW related drought in the midwest.  California is losing billions of dollars from AGW related drought damaging agriculture.  Where is the new farmland going to come from, under the glaciers in Greenland? 

  43. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    To elude that more people will go hungry if the climate warms is so ridiculous it's almost funny.   Globally much more land would become viable farm land than would be lost. Not to mention CO2 is a plants best friend.   Everyone should agree that using up all the fossil fuel this planet has is a dumb idea... however making up "consequences" is just going to hurt credibility.  

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Please see Dai et al and CO2 is plant food to come to a rather more informed position. 

  44. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    The deep oceans aren't cooler per se, they simply hold less Heat Energy than they once did but the Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that can only mean the Heat Energy went somewhere else .... like towards the surface.

    Heat is a definitive term, cool, cold hot are relative terms denoting more or less Heat Energy. Cold has no Magic Powers to destroy Heat Energy although it seems to be a very common misconception from the Scientific Mental Midgets that deny the Reality of Global Warming because they simply aren't intelligent enough to grasp basic physics .....

  45. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    this is why we are in a hurry and that means the risk of using a combo of nuclear power + renewables to get fossil fuels retired faster is far less than insisting on 100% renewables which causes fossil fuels to hang around longer

  46. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    After having a brief look at the paper, it seems to contain a lot of information regarding my question on the blog post of July 28th.

    The write:

    A total change in heat content, top to bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10e22 J in 19 yr for a net heating of 0.2 ± 0.1 W m−2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al. 2005, 0.6 ± 0.1 W m−2; Lyman et al. 2010, 0.63 ± 0.28 W m−2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011, 0.55 ± 0.1 W m−2.

    Even though they find a smaller total heat content increase than the other studies I find the summary at the beginning (first 2 pages or so) very helpful. For the rest of the publication I would greatly appreciate a blog post summing up its contents as my background knowledge on this is quite limited.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Added link to earlier question.

  47. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    ubrew12 @5:

    1)  The accusation that people know of potential genocidal consequences of a policy and intentially promoting it for that reason is offensive and should never be entertained except in the case where you have overwhelming evidence in support of it.  In this case you do not.  It is mere speculation that should not be intertained by any rational or decent person.

    2)  Specifically with relation to the Australian, I am (or was) a long term reader and know how some of their columnists think quite well.  Some of them are eminently rational even if I frequently (in one case nearly always) disagree with them.  Among these are Paul Kelly, Dennis Shanahan and Greg Sheridan.  They are not the type of people who would find potential genocide in anyway attractive and they would certainly move heaven and earth to stop it if they thought it was in prospect.  Some others of their commentators I also know well and more or less despise them, but I cannot think of the slightest reason to think that poorly of them as to accept your suggestion.

    3)  The MIT model results are in any event an over estimate of the risk of extinction from global warming.  That's OK.  Scientific results will never be precise, particularly in an area as complex as climate science.  As a result you will get models that overshoot, and models that undershoot.  The thing to do is not to fixate on the results of a single model, particularly (as with the MIT result) it is a clear outlier.

  48. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    I got snipped for a too forceful reference to what I think Lloyd and his publisher are doing, but I'm going to persist once more in the charge in a more politic way. There is now a 10% chance AGW will cause humanity to go extinct (MIT model results), so the chance is very high AGW will, at a minimum, significantly 'thin the ranks' of humanity in the near future. The 'misinterpretation' of Climate conclusions over the last 40 years can no longer reasonably be ascribed to tribal pride or fossil influences. We must now entertain the notion that Lloyd and his publisher are knowledgeable of AGW's lethal outcomes and are hastening us there intentionally. They are comfortable doing so because they read in themselves a superior survival probability in such an attritious environment. So Lloyd did not misunderstand the deep ocean findings. He did not make a mistake. Instead, he did his part to help set a multi-generational and multi-ethnic trap whose targets are your children.

    Lets at least entertain the notion that this is happening.  History suggests that at times like these, by the time the targets say something, the trap has long been set.

  49. It's planetary movements

    Before they changed the name to "technical analysis" to fool the unwary, hucksters used a similar "curve fitting exercise" to ensnare investors. It was called 'chartism'. But once so many economics textbooks had debunked 'chartism', they change the name to something sounding more respectable, not to be confused with genuine financial time-series analysis.

    But I see no campaign as successful as the past campaign against chartism to persuade the public this "Jupiter/Sun Gravity Model". Forbes has jumped on this bandwagon, too. Worse yet, Scaffeta got his chartism published in a supposedly "peer reviewed" journal.

    I haven't done the calculations myself, but it seems to me that a quick back of the envelope calculation of the force on Earth due to Jupiter and Saturn even at it's peak would show that they can't even lift a feather, far less influence the Earth's orbit and therefore climate. Why the 'peers' of the peer reviewed journal never did this calculation is a mystery to me. It should be a cause of disgrace for them, too.

    Reviewers who give a pass to garbage like this need to be outed and publicly humiliated.

  50. Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

    The Australian, in pasrticular their env columnist Graham Lloyd, have developped quite a history of climate science misrepresentations. Some of them, e.g. recent incorrect critique of 97% concensus in Cook 2013 by Richard Tol - misrepresented by Lloyd - have been discussed here.

    More comprehensive list of Lloyd's biased coverage is available here. Clearly, based on that history, we need not to be surprised at this latest development; furthe3r may expect more distortions of climate science from Mt Lloys in the future.

    But it is hartening that scientists do not ignore those incidents but fight back the misinformation straight at its source, as Carl has done here. Another example of a scientist who "fights back" is Michael Mann who not only writes comments/op-eds to the affected newspapers but also enters legal battles if required to stand his ground. Others should also be encouraged: their time doing it is well spent. I'm personally thankful for that: great job guys!

Prev  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  706  707  708  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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