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  709  710  711  712  713  714  715  716  717  718  719  720  721  722  723  724  Next

Comments 35801 to 35850:

  1. New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made

    At first I thought the title was an Onion headline! Do we really have to prove that basic physics is a bit more reliable than economics when it comes to predicting global warming??!! Apparently so!

  2. Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

    KR, the 'skeptic' insistence on using faulty data is a widespread phenomenon;

    'Mann should have factored in the erroneous tree ring proxy data after the divergence period!'

    'There were other tree ring data sets near Yamal which were not selected for sensitivity to temperature changes and thus show wildly innacurate results if improperly used as temperature proxies... those should have been factored in to temperature anomaly data series!'

    'The XBT network had problems with some buoys incorrectly determining depth and thus skewed temperature results... those incorrect values should be included in ocean temperature change analysis!'

    'Guy Callendar excluded CO2 readings taken outside sources of major emissions from his analysis of atmospheric CO2 changes over time! Fraud! The massively inflated local readings must be included!'

    Et cetera. The same crazy argument comes up over and over again. If we just include enough provably erroneous data this whole global warming thing would go away.

  3. The History of Climate Science

    I needed an explaination for the dynamics of the interglacials and found it here. Thanks...

  4. Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

    Note that the biggest upward adjustment appears to be - you guessed it - 1998. i.e. the adjustments have contributed to the apparent hiatus. That's partly an optical illusion due to 1998 being an extremum, but Zeke's land-only graph with differences here suggests that it is genuine.

    It may be worth a look to see where the differences are combing from geographically, and see what a comparison with the more complete Berkeley and Hadley data show.

  5. Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

    The reemergence of this meme was to be expected : the argument "there is a pause" cannot be held out anymore, so they have to attack the record or say "it's natural variability because of El Nino".

    Goddard chose the former, because he is deep entrenched in conspiration theorism. Expect other sites to choose the later (for example Curry).

  6. Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

    Nice one, Dana. Added this as a rebuttal to both articles in rbutr. Onr of the others added is from Monbiot who wrote about Booker's inability to get anything right.

  7. Philip Shehan at 14:02 PM on 26 June 2014
    The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    Thank you Dikran Marsupial and KR.

    KR, I saw your comment at Jo Nova and replied there before proceeding here.

    If you read the whole thread, you will see that I had my suspicions that autocorrelation was the source of the problem.

    I also looked at your links to your previous discussion on Jo Nova.

    I too had a sense of déjà vu as you put the arguments about statistical significance and the usual replies. In fact those from "The Griss" were a cut and paste job of the kinds of tirades of abuse he indulges in.

    Odd that we have not crossed paths on this before but you like me are probably only an occasional contributor over there. Very nice to have some back up though. It can be very lonely trying to discuss science in a civil manner with the “skeptics” and it requires a very thick skin.

  8. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A

    Another important study out this week:


    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13456.html


    And an article on it:
    LINK

    In short, Greenland, like WAIS, is much closer to a major tipping point than we had thought.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link.

  9. Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors

    I just noticed that the "24 errors" PDF reproduces the number 17904 three times in succession in table 1, column 4, each time corresponding to a different percentage.  Presumably the second to occurences are errors that you may want to correct.

  10. Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

    As I once commented on a contrarian site, in a blog post decrying temperature corrections:

    It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.

    The blog authors were, predictably, displeased by that comment. When the corrections are removing errors, and increasing the accuracy of your data, the contrarian preference for raw data is a choice for inaccuracy. And decrying those corrections says "conspiracy theorist" in large type.

  11. Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

    Thank you for this post.  A climate denying friend of mine recently submitted to me the telegraph article, as evidence against global warming.  With a quick google search, it was clear that Tony Heller and Christopher Booker were fringe, anti-science bloggers, but I didn't have a good direct argument against the evidence they submitted.  This post helped with that.  Thumbs up guys!

  12. Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming

    ubrew12 @#2:

    Paul Krugman's take on Henry Paulson Jr.'s New York Times Op-ed, The Coming Climate Crash is instructive:

    "Given the state of U.S. politics today, climate action is entirely dependent on Democrats, With a Democrat in the White House, we got some movement through executive action; if Democrats eventually regain the House, there could be more. If Paulson believes that he can support Republicans while still pushing for climate action, he’s just delusional."

    The Loneliness of the Non-Crazy Republican by Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal, New York Times, June 22, 2014

  13. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    Philip Shehan - I've added a comment on the JN thread to that regard. And noted to Vic Gallus that I've told him this before, only to be ignored. 

  14. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    Philip Shehan - The difference is indeed, as Dikran points out, due to autocorrelation. The assumptions made in a basic ordinary least squares fit (OLS) such as in MicroSoft Office are of data with uncorrelated white noise, where there is no memory, where each successive value will have a variation defined only by the probability distribution function of that white noise.

    Climate, on the other hand, demonstrates considerable autocorrelation, which could be considered as memory or inertia, wherein a warm(cold) month is quite likely to be followed by another warm(cold) month - due to limits on how fast the climate energy content can change. This means that noise or short term variation deviating from the underlying trend can take some time to return to that underlying trend - and not just randomly flip to the opposite value, bracketing the trend.

    Therefore determining the trend under autocorrelation requires more data, meaning a higher trend uncertainty for any series than would be seen with white noise. The more autocorrelation is present, the higher the uncertainty, as it becomes less clear whether a deviation is due to some underlying trend change or to a persistent variation. 

    Again, as Dikran notes, the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 describe how the autocorrelation of temperature data is computed and (as described on the calculator page) applied in the SkS trend calculator. 

  15. Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming

    In New York, Oct. 2-Oct 26, Theater Three Collaborative will be producing a play "Extreme Whether" that tells the story of the attacks on American climate scientists, in an engaging fictional way. Can art help? I'm not so sure.

    It feels more and more to me that Naomi Klein is correct.  The deniers understand that free-market capitalsim may be at stake here, and are perfectly willing to sacrifice a liveable climate for $.

  16. Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming

    This is all very well and of course important, but only underlines how ludicrous it is to quibble about the exact scale of the overwhelming scientific consensus telling us we have to act now to mitigate a terrible risk.

    Sensible people hit the brake before they hit the wall, even when they are unsure what they have seen is a wall. And especially when they have a car full of children. To deliberately undermine attempts to protect against risks at either of these scales is beyond my comprehension.

    Ask these quibblers at what level of consensus they would join the general call for action.

  17. Dikran Marsupial at 20:14 PM on 25 June 2014
    The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    I suspect at least part of the problem is that the SkS trend calculator correctly takes the autocorrelation of the data into account instead of performing ordinary least squares without this correction.  This makes the error bars wider to reflect the fact that there is less information in an autocorrelated time-series than there is in an uncorrelated time series of the same length.  

    Note the trend calculator gives the following note: "Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011)", so if Vic really wants to know what is causing the difference, he should probably start by reading the paper that explains how it works.

    See also section titled "Uncertainty increases with autocorrelation" above

  18. New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    Terranova @1&4.

    Further to the previous commenters, if you read the paper's abstract and understand its implications, you would note the error in OHC measurement being discussed amounts to "a global average of ~0.01°–0.025°C, ~1–2.5 × 1022 J," values which are large but a factor of 10 smaller than the rise in OHC that has been recorded in recent years.

    Thus you are wrong when you say @1 "In fact, the study shows the uncertainty in temperature measurements in either direction and at different depths and different latitudes. They ... do not infer ...  that the oceans are warming." Or do you consider that the authors of the paper are ignorant of the size of increase in OHC?

  19. Philip Shehan at 19:26 PM on 25 June 2014
    The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    I often use Kevin C’s trend calculator when discussing statistical significance on “skeptic” blogs.

    This regularly attracts comments boiling down to the assertion that anything appearing on SkS must be rubbish, although I give reasons as to why I find it credible.

    On Jo Nova’s blog Vic G Gallus has provided an argument which is thoughtful and backed by calculations. His argument is that the confidence limits returned by the trend calculator are too large.

     I would very much like Kevin’s opinion on this.

    Vic has said that he is happy for me to put his case .

    Here are some of Vic’s points:

    For the GISS data from 2000 using a free product on the web ZunZun (you can use Excel if you have the ToolPack or just type the equations in yourself.) For the function y=Mx+C

    C = -1.3189290142200617E+01
    std err: 1.90197E+01
    t-stat: -3.02426E+00
    p-stat: 2.87675E-03
    95% confidence intervals: [-2.17979E+01, -4.58064E+00]
    M = 6.8552826863844353E-03
    std err: 4.72102E-06
    t-stat: 3.15506E+00
    p-stat: 1.89629E-03
    95% confidence intervals: [2.56634E-03, 1.11442E-02]

    Coefficient Covariance Matrix
    [ 1.34458894e+03 -6.69891142e-01]
    [ -6.69891142e-01 3.33749638e-04]

    0.07±0.04 °C/decade and not 0.07 ±0.15 °C/decade (FFS)

    Using GISS data from 1999, it comes out to be 0.097 ±0.04 °C/decade. I checked the coefficient using Excel and it was 0.097.

    A comment from me:

    Vic,

    I had a suspicion of one possible cause of the differences in the error margin output but thought it would take some time to check on so left it until now, but alas when I go to your links, the first fails and the second is not helpful.

    So I will pose this thought:

    Looking at the output figures in your post and the blurb on microsoft toolpack:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/214076

    I notice that standard error is mentioned.

    The algorithm I am using outputs the error margin as 2 standard deviations, (2σ).

    This is the usual marker of “statistical significance”

    Note that standard error is smaller than the standard deviation. So a standard error of 0.04 would convert to a 2 sigma value of greater than 0.08.

    This would save you from being kicked to death by skeptics who would be outraged at the suggestion that their beloved pause was in fact statistically significant warming, and your GISS value since 1999 of

    0.097 ±0.04 °C/decade (one standard error)

    would be compatible with that of Kevin C’s algorithm:

    Trend: 0.099 ±0.138 °C/decade (2σ)

    Vic replies:

    Look at the output.

    The standard error is stated and it is less than the standard deviation. The latter is not stated but the 95% confidence intervals which equate to 2xSD are.

    I have calculated this by putting the equations into Excel as well ( I do not have the ToolPack). The 10-15 year linear regressions for a number of examples and they were in the range 0.04-0.08.

    The entire thread begins here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/weekend-unthreaded-39/#comment-1493093

    Looking forward to a response from Kevin.

     

  20. Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming

    "[Convincing conservatives that AGW is serious]... can be achieved with informed messages... coming from sources that conservatives can trust."  Think about that: 'that conservatives can trust'.  This clearly does not include scientists.  We need to ask 'why' it doesn't, because this is a serious problem moving forward.  Science denial can doom a nation for a century or more.  Consider Asia between the 18th and 20th centuries.  The truth may be inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as Admiral Perry steaming into Tokyo Harbor, or the indignities that culminated in the Boxer rebellion.  Paulson's article is welcome, but he's a Banker who oversaw the finance system bailout of 2008.  Is he really 'what it takes' for a conservative to change his mind on climate?  For some of us, since 2008, bankers have got credibility issues of their own when speaking on Finance, much less Climate.  

    A deep suspicion of Science has been growing in Western Nations for several decades.  It's conclusions conflict with unrestrained commerce on several fronts, not just on Climate, and a concerted effort undertaken to paint Scientists as untrustworthy. Religion has often been enlisted to support this effort.  We need to keep in mind that Asia learned its lessons of the past, and will gleefully surpass us if we discourage the Science-minded among us.

  21. One Planet Only Forever at 14:29 PM on 25 June 2014
    An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    mancan18,

    I fully support striving to help others better understand of the basics. However, some of those people may challenge the basics about CO2 because they are aware of the "lack of significant warming of the global average surface temperatures since 1998 even though CO2 has continued to increase". That is when you need to be prepared to explain the added points I mentioned. There are many good presentations of those added points in the artricles posted on this site.

    There are also discussions about the "sensitivity" of the global average surface temperature to increasing CO2 levels, how much impact a doubling of the CO2 levels would create. Some people may prefer to believe that no more warming will occur even if signifcant amounts of additional CO2 are released because the increased CO2 since 1998 has not increased the annual global average surface temperature. I know that the averages of each decade continue to go up. And I know many other good explanations for the observed global average temperatures in 1998 and since then. What I shared should help you explain why what they prefer to believe is unbelievable.

  22. New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    dhogaza@5,

    Thanks for pointing it out. I usually do not nitpick on someone's words. In this case, I can happily concede that I misunderstood Terranova's comment, although I'm not the only one who could have done so, as your case indicating Terranova's imprecise language suggests. Imprecise language is far lesser issue rather than the lack of intelectual integrity we would have to conclude if we assumed Terranova meant precisely what s/he has written.

  23. Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming

    This is a question for John Cook regarding the graph labelled "These data come from research by John Cook, taken from a survey of a US representative sample (N=200)."

    Could you provide some more background on the research?

    I am particularily interested in how you ascertained the measure of your subjects "Public perception of scientific consensus of climate change".

    Could you tell us how you did this exactly?

    If it was via a questionnaire, could you tell us the form and wording of that questionnaire?

    Thanks.

  24. New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    terranova:

    "The authors do not state the oceans are warming as your title does."

    Nor does the title state that the authors' study states that the oceans are warming.

    "New study improves measurements of the warming ocean".

    That's very clear.  The study improves measurements of the ocean, which, as it happens, is warming.  The adjective "warming" modifies "ocean", and does not in any way reference "study".

    Nor does the title suggest that the ocean is "new" ... which is an equally silly misreading of the sentence.

  25. New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    First, I know the oceans are warming.  I am not a denier, or a skeptic on that point.  

    Second, the scientific community knows their is a lack of long-term measurements of the global ocean.  And, that the changes in the measurement systems over the years makes documenting and understanding change in the oceans a difficult task.

    Third, this referenced paper is an attempt to improve those measurement systems.

    Rob @ 2,

    I agree with your statement "another piece of the puzzle".  My original comment was only about what the paper said versus the article headline. But, I see your point.

    chriskoz @ 3,

    I did read the entire article, but again was only talking about the paper. I am not sure what you mean with your statement about integrity. 

  26. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    One Planet Only Forever

    Although I would never pretend to be a Climate Scientist, I do understand and readily accept the arguments that you refer to. However, if you are trying to influence someone with little scientific understanding and cannot understand the complexity of the wider argument then you do have to get to the basis of it, and that is CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas amongst others; we are burning fossil fuels and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere; infrared light from the sun warms the CO2 molecule and hence the planet; and that warming will cause Climate Change due to the increased trubulence in the atmosphere and ocean that the warming will cause. This is basic science. It's just as true for the globe as it is in the Lab or from scientific theory. Consequences of this basic science lead to the complex arguments like melting ice caps, retreating glaciers, increasing global temperature with or without analyses of El Nino La Nina and oscillation indices, more severe weather, etc. etc.  that you refer to.

    If someone doesn't even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and pumping more into the atmosphere warms the planet, then there is probably not much point trying to convince them anyway. It is probably better to challenge them by asking them directly whether they believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and to how many ppm we should allow it to rise to before we do something about stopping it. At the very least you will know whether you are dealing with a scientific illiterate or not.

  27. New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    Terranova@1,

    The authors do not state the oceans are warming

    If you click on to read the rest of JA's article on the Guardian, you find out what Lijing said in private communication with JA:

    "We assessed this problem in our paper and we are now working on improving ocean warming estimates.”

    That's the direct contradiction of your assertion. Assuming your intergrity, your assertion indicates you did not read the full article before posting your comment.

  28. One Planet Only Forever at 15:07 PM on 24 June 2014
    An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    mancan18@19

    The situation is a little more complex than you have presented.

    The short-term rather random but signficant influence of the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), on global average surface temperatures is a added complexity you need to include. Another complexity to include is the rather random but significant influence of particulate from volcanic releases.

    Many people are not aware of those influences and as a result believe that the global average surface temperatures currently not being significantly warmer than 1998 disproves that CO2 will do what the best understanding of the climate science says it will do. Such misunderstanding is due to a number of influences including:

    • deliberate efforts by people who understand these points but are not interested in best and most fully informing others about them because that would be contrary to their interest
    • a lack of effort by people to pursue a fuller understanding of this issue
    • a deliberate choice by some who do pursue more information to ignore information that is contrary to their interest and accept information that suits their interest.

    The best explanation I have for the preponderance of people who are reluctant to accept the climate science is that the current popular and profitable socioeconomic systems encourage people to prefer to believe things that will allow them to enjoy the most possible personal benefit. It is a powerful motivation. If clearly is a more powerful influence than reason and decency for some people.

    Even a higher global average temperature this year due to the warming of the tropical Pacific, not even as strong an El Nino condition as 1997/98, would be unlikely to change the minds of those who desire to believe otherwise.

  29. Rob Honeycutt at 13:02 PM on 24 June 2014
    New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    Terranova...  What you're doing, though, is avoiding all the other relevant research that shows that the planet is accumulating heat. Of course the authors don't state that the oceans are warming, since that is a fact that is conclusively shown through other research. 

    You can't take any given piece of research in a void. You have to think of it as just another piece of the puzzle, where there are many hundreds of other pieces already in place.

  30. New study improves measurements of the warming oceans

    This study is attempting to improve measurements of the "temperature of the oceans". Your headline is misleading from what their study says. Their title alone states their position: "Uncertainties of the Ocean Heat Content Estimation Induced by Insufficient Vertical Resolution of Historical Ocean Subsurface Observations".

    The authors do not state the oceans are warming as your title does. In fact, the study shows the uncertainty in temperature measurements in either direction and at different depths and different latitudes. They offer ideas on how to improve the accuracy of measurements, but do not infer that they have improved them, or that the oceans are warming.

  31. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #25

    'garned'? er...

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Oops! Fixed. Thanks.

  32. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    Classifying people into left, right, socialist, communist, greenie, or fascist  is not going to reflect the scientific consensus along political lines. Such terms are lazy pseudo-intellectual classifications of people so that opposing political arguments in a debate can be easily dismissed using a stereotype.

    With regard to global warming and climate change, it seems that people who believe that AGW is actually happening seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding of some aspect of the science, while those who don't believe that AGW is happening do so more for political or commercial reasons than for scientific reasons.

    To the wider public, the AGW debate appears to be more political than scientific and may be the cause of the disinformation/ignorance gap. Also, the scientists and political groups arguing that AGW is happening spend more time on the indications and the impacts of AGW, rather than the basic science behind the theory which isn't articulated often enough in a manner that the wider public understand.

    The whole global warming debate can be easily summed up in terms the public can understand:

    * That CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to the interaction of the CO2 molecule and infrared radiation from the sun causing it to warm, just like microwave radiation in a microwave oven heats water molecules and cooks our food, or long wave radio waves being bounced off the ionosphere to make long range radio communications possible, or ultraviolet light causing sunburn, or ozone stopping ultra violet light making life possible on the planet.

    * That CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere mostly from burning fossil fuels and land clearing, and if the planet doesn't warm as a result, then some of our understanding of the basic science which forms the basis of our technological society is seriously flawed. This is the basis for the Global Warming argument.

    * That warming of a fluid or gas increases the turbulence of the motion of the atoms of the gas or fluid. It is true in a container in a lab and it is true for whole planet. This increased turbulence will change the weather patterns which will change the global climate. This is the basis for the Climate Change argument.

    Everything else is the mere observation of the data and the interpreting what it means. That is where the confusion occurs.

    The basic science can be easily understood.  despite all the noise of the current wider debate.

    If the planet doesn't warm due to increasing greenhouse gases then that indicates a deep flaw in our scientific understandin and those who believe it won't warm believe in magic.

  33. Dikran Marsupial at 06:05 AM on 24 June 2014
    1934 - hottest year on record

    To add to the existing answers from DSL, in response to scott's question "Why do you only use the 48 states ...?"

    because the temperature of the contiguous US states (i.e. the USA excluding Alaska and Hawaii) is a temperature index widely used by US national meterological organizations, such as NOAA (the National Temperature Index).

  34. 1934 - hottest year on record

    Scott4,

    1. where does it say land "mass"?  It's surface area.
    2. What is the surface area of the Earth?  Wiki says it's 510,072,000 km2. Now, what is the surface area of the 48 contiguous?  Wiki says 8,080,464.3 km2.  Divide one by the other.  Maybe wiki is wrong, but I suspect that someone would have noticed by now.
    3. How many states were there in 1934?

  35. 1934 - hottest year on record

    Where is your source for the 48 states being only 2% of earth's land mass? Why do you only use the 48 states and why only land mass?

  36. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25A

    Re #7

    Whilst not exactly a definitive statement as to SSTs, one of the FAQs on the UK Met Office web site states ...

    The most plentiful measurements of temperature over the oceans are sea-surface temperature measurements. Air temperatures measurements are also made over the oceans, but these measurements are prone to a number of problems. During the day the sun heats the ship's hull causing temperature measurements to be artificially high. This can be avoided by only using measurements made at night, at the cost of reducing the number of available observations by half. Air temperature measurements from buoys are unreliable so those cannot be used either. In using sea-surface temperature anomalies we assume that the anomalies of sea-surface temperature are in agreement with those of marine air temperature. Tests show that night marine air temperature anomalies agree well with sea-surface temperature anomalies on seasonal and longer time scales in most open ocean areas. Globally the agreement is very good (Rayner et al, 2003).

    Hopefully that might be of some help.

  37. One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 24 June 2014
    An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    I agree that "socioeconomic-political terms" are not clear ways of communicating because they are "open to interpretation".

    For this issue a more meaningful scale would be one with the following limits:

    • Will fight to maximize potential benefit from things that are understood to be unacceptable (unsustainable and harmful actions).
    • Will forego potential personal benefit and fight for the development of a sustainable better future for all. ("sustainable" is another term needing to be defined every time as "something that all humans would be able to concurrently develop to do if they wished and that could be continued indefinitely on this amazing planet.". Many people merge sustain with prolong. Some people deliberately try to do that in their messages.)

    On that scale, the different levels of acceptance of any of the facts of this matter would be expected to appear consistently, and the reason for the difference would be clearer. Any results contrary to such expected results would deserve deeper investigation.

  38. CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    likeithot wrote: "...for me to "believe" in AGW there would have to be a clear correlation between the beginning of human CO2 emissions and evidence of warming."

    Um, there is a clear correlation between the beginning of human CO2 emissions and evidence of warming... so long as you are looking at the full picture.

    If you look at the five minutes after the first coal power plant went online, no you won't see any correlation. Nor is it clear for the first decade or two. However, look at CO2 levels and temperature levels for the first hundred years since the industrial revolution and there is a very clear correlation. Both have gone nearly straight up at rates faster than anything seen previously in century level resolution proxy data.

    Thus, this argument amounts to, 'I will cherry pick a time frame too short to see the correlation and then pretend it is not happening'.

  39. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B

    I do, actually, foth. I found some of them fairly clever, though.

  40. CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    Reply to likeithot from here.

    Thank you for responding. Now what climate science actually states is that climate will respond to the net effect of all forcings. A huge amount of climate science also goes into understanding the internal variability that is inevitable when you unevenly heat an ocean-covered planet. Unfortunately, important processes (especially ENSO) for determining surface temperature defy predictive modelling. So, to quote the modellers - "climate models have no skill at decadal level prediction".

    Given these constraints, and the multiple forcings at work in climate, what then do you think the data should like that would convince you that the attribution to CO2 is accurate?

    If you are stumped, then perhaps you should read the IPCC WG1 chapter on attribution to see the approaches that have been done so far.

    One very important consideration to think about is that while surface temperature has a very high degree of variability, you do expect total ocean heat content to vary a great deal less in response to a constant forcing.

    And as an aside, if you dont want to have your comment moderated, then try reading and complying with the comments policy. If you want to bluster with uninformed rhetoric, then there plenty of sites on the internet that will welcome your comments. If you want to discuss the science, then welcome, and please study what the science says so we can have an informed discussion.

  41. foolonthehill at 06:18 AM on 23 June 2014
    2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B

    wili

    My personal rating is that only 4 out of 12 of the presented cartoons have a direct relevance to climate change.

    Does anyone agree with my 33.33% result and can we form a consensus?

  42. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B

    A good source for future cartoons of the week (or month or year)?

    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Embedded link that was breaking page formatting.

  43. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    likeitnot (presently)@16 wishes to see "a clear correlation between the beginning of human CO2 emissions and evidence of warming" as proof that AGW is real, as the basis for such a "belief." Interestingly, such a 'clear correlation' can be discerned even though CO2 is not the sole agent of AGW.

    Scripps Institute present an excellent graphic of CO2 levels for various time intervsals. This shows the present CO2 increases can be traced back to the early 1800s.

    It then just requires a short trip to the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report to examine Figure 5.7 and note that the start of the present trend in rising temperatures also began in the early 1800s. Further, the recent rising temperature trend is not just unique in scale over the last millenium or two, but also unique over the entire Holocene era.

    I would consider that to be pretty clear.

  44. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    scaddenp:

    Maybe you'll get to read this before it gets censored, I don't know, but since you asked I'll answer.

    Since climate change is nothing new, for me to "believe" in AGW there would have to be a clear correlation between the beginning of human CO2 emissions and evidence of warming.

    On the contrary, neither the temperature record (warming trend from before introduction of human produced CO2) nor the glacial melt trend (a pre-existing trend from before any greenhouse effect from industrial CO2) coincide in time or scale to human production of CO2.

    Moderator Response:

    [Dikran Marsupial] Please do not challenge moderators to censor or delete your posts, this is rather childish behaviour, and in future will result in your posts being deleted.  Please read the comments policy and abide by it.  If you think that your post is likely to be off-topic, then simply make your comment on a more appropriate article and continue the discussion there (and post a comment here linking to the continuing discussion on the other thread).

    Note you would only expect to see such a clear correlation if anthropogenic CO2 forcing were the only forcing that affected the climate and in the absence of significant internal variability, so this article may be a good place to discuss your question..

  45. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    It would be interesting to compare how the climate science denialism has been evolving over time among US politicians. Does anyone have the appropriate historical data?

    I recall that in late 1990s during pres Clinton and early 2000s, the level of science acceptance in Congress, although lower than the climate scientist's 90% at that time, was roughly universal, i.e. there were no difference along political lines, or free market support. The latest schism as shown of the figure, is the apparent result of a successful denial campain by fossil fuel inductries and other special interest groups.

  46. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    As a hopefully informative side note on US politics, these politics are strongly shaped by the election system. Namely, by "plurality wins". Whoever gets the largest chunk of the vote wins that House delegate, that Senator, or the President. 

    The more common Parlimentary systems end up with more proportional representation, with small groups from many small parties, and as a result coalitions are required to obtain the majority, with the last 1-2% fringe addition having a strong effect on policy due to the need for those fringe parties to obtain a majority. 

    The US plurality method results in the current two-party system, with those parties (by the standards of other political systems) only slightly right and slightly left of center - as the parties _must_ appeal to the center/independent/uncommitted votors to win. 

    As a result, while there are extremist parties in the US, few have any influence - and the US Tea Party (an astroturfed movement driven by monied interests attempting to block regulations affecting their bottom line) exemplifies this, as the _only_ way they have made headway is by running as Republicans. Not as a separate party. 

    Now, back to the discussion...

  47. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    PhillipeChantreau @10, socialism is not committed to any particular form of ownership of property per se, and certainly not only to state ownership of property.  From wikipedia, we learn that:

    "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism."

    Of particular importance is that there now exist several versions of socialism in which while ownership of capital is social, neither it, nor decision making are centralized.  This is often to be achieved through industrial democracy.

    Further, it is also possible to be a socialist and favour a mixed economy either as an interim measure or as a long term compromise necessary because other values (democracy) take precedence and prevent measures that might otherwise be necessary to achieve what is considered to be the ideal economic system (for a given socialist theory).

    Having said that, the term is often, and outragiously abused in the US where its "popular" meaning appears to be anything but a fully libertarian capitalist state.

  48. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    The narrative behind likeithot's comment is that climate science is closed shop, somehow practised only by a cadre of people with a common political values, and possibly only in the US. It also believes that non-experts views on a subject are equally as valid. Yeah right. 

    Very well, the 97% consensus statement is about those who know what they are talking about. 

    Likeithot - going to tell us what future data would change your mind? Or are your beliefs so deeply founded your values that you cannot imagine data that would change your mind. Or perhaps, since you obviously havent read much climate science, you are going to propose data that is its odds with the science's predictions. (eg you seem to believe that decadal periods of neutral or cooling are at odds with the theory).

  49. An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    Believe it or not, but the Communist Party of the USA has its own website.

    The Socialist Party USA also has its own website.

    Caution is however advised — the NSA most likely records the email address of everyone who visits either site.

  50. PhilippeChantreau at 10:46 AM on 22 June 2014
    An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging

    I don't want to add a layer of pedantism to this exchange but I confess that  get quite irritated specifically by the way the word "socialism" is used in the US by most. Socialism means state ownership of the means of production, it should be used according to that definition. Indeed, it is not very applicable nowadays, but there are still nations in the world that could be called socialist.

Prev  709  710  711  712  713  714  715  716  717  718  719  720  721  722  723  724  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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