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  791  792  793  794  795  796  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  806  Next

Comments 39901 to 39950:

  1. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    It appears that Andy Lee Robinson composed the music to go with the video. The youtube link is as follows: Ice Dream by Andy Lee Robinson

  2. One Planet Only Forever at 06:07 AM on 27 December 2013
    Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather

    I follow the climate change issue because it is one of the issues that relates directly to the many unacceptable economic developments that have occurred in the global economy because of the success of people with unacceptable attitudes, people who greedily pursue more benefit for themselves any way they can get away with.

    Economic models could be more reliable if they included more rational evaluations, including the potential influence of unethical uncaring people pursuing short-term personal benefit through unsustainable activities like the burning of fossil fuels and deliberately discounting or ignoring or not caring about the harm their pursuits will create or the risk of harm of their pursuits. The economic evaluations could also be more accurate if ‘value’ was not ascribed to activities that are fundamentally of no future worth, activities that cannot be benefited from in the future. They could also be more accurate if the evaluations did not discount future risk or challenges.

    Many current economic evaluations and modeling are fundamentally flawed. Some evaluations actually try to justify the more fortunate in a current generation gaining benefit from activities that cannot be benefited from by the entire population, cannot be continue to be benefited from by people in the future, and which create added challenges for others (particularly for those in the future). The evaluations compare what their creators believe is the lost opportunity for benefit by a current generation (meaning themselves), to what they believe the costs others will face will be. That is fundamentally irrational and extremely callous, basically saying it is OK to benefit in a way that others can't and that creates problems for others as long as the trouble the evaluator believes their actions create are less than the benefit they believe they get. The more irrational evaluations go one step further and ‘discount the costs others in the future face' by applying the economic principle of 'net-present-value'.

    So, the real problem with economic models and evaluations is the way the 'value' of things is measured. Evaluations that excuse damage or the risk of damage and assign value to unsustainable activity are bound to be ‘inaccurate’. These evaluations have led to the development of unsustainable and damaging activity that is a ‘constant struggle to sustain, let alone grow’ with battles and tragedy inflicted by those pursuing more of the limited unsustainable benefit they want to get the most of for themselves.

    The desire to ‘sustain or grow the benefit obtained from unsustainable and damaging activities’ is almost certainly behind ‘popular’ attempts to claim the climate science and its models are flawed or inaccurate or can be ignored.

    Admitting the unacceptability of unsustainable or damaging activity is the first step to more rationally evaluating the economy. Admitting the unacceptability of development that has led to the current global economy is the first step in recognizing what activities need to be ‘valued’ and what activities need to become ’worthless’. Only then can there be any expectation of reliable economic model predictions and evaluations, and the development of truly sustainable economic growth.

  3. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #51

    Very interesting paper linked to by DennisMyers there, thanks! You can see how the overt funding from the likes of Exxon and Koch industries has shifted to covert, with the slack being taken up by the Donor's Trust. Hey, what billionaire with ties to fossil fuels *wouldn't* toss a few million at the think tanks?


    And... for all of theose CCCM origanisations, a million goes a *far, far* longer way than it does for actual climate change researchers. They don't have to collect any data in the field or do any original research. All they have to do is cherry pick, and dream up creative lies, half-thruths, and distortions.

  4. One Planet Only Forever at 05:30 AM on 27 December 2013
    South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage

    Reply to Tom Curtis @15,

    Thank you for clarifying. I suggest for you to be clearer by referring to CO2 amounts as GtCO2. GtC is a term for Gt's of Carbon, not Gt's of CO2. Admittedly, I should have recognized the terminology you used since 3% reductions of emissions is a pretty rapid rate of reduction, more consistent with RCP2.5.

    As for the 'economics of this issue', the current way that things are valued is significantly flawed. Therefore, any measure of what is going on economically using the flawed ways of measuring things is fundamentally flawed. Probably the most serious economic flaws are the way that value is ascribed to activities that are fundamentally of no future worth, cannot be benefited from in the future, and actually cause future challenges. The most irrational application of that fundamentally flawed evaluation is the way some people try to justify the acceptability of gaining benefit from activities that cannot continue to be benefited from by people in the future and which creates added challenges for those in the future. Some will compare what they believe is the lost opportunity for benefit by a current generation (meaning themselves), to what they believe the future costs others will face will be. That is fundamentally irrational, basically saying it is OK for me to benefit in a way that others can't and that creates problems for others as long as the trouble I believe my actions create are less than the benefit I believe I get. The most extremely irrational examples of those evaluations actually go one step further and ‘discount the costs others in the future face' by applying the economic principle of 'net-present-value'.

    So, the real problem is the way the 'value' of the economy gets measured. Damage to the future is excused and unsustainable activity is allowed to 'have value'. Admitting that growing any unsustainable or damaging activity is unacceptable is the first step to more rationally evaluating the economic of this matter. Admitting the unacceptability of development that has occurred in the current global economy is the first step in recognizing what activities need to be valued and what activities need to become ’worthless’.

  5. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    There is more screed on ESA Cryosat2 published by NASA dated from March this year which might be of interest to some. The video (which is unavailable at the NASA link) is available here. Cryosat2 shows higher volumes than PIOMAS but the two otherwise are strikingly similar.

    I assume, come March the freezy season data from Cryosat2 will again be compared with PIOMAS. With the Cryosat2 data report we've heard this Autumn, it will certainly be interesting to see that comparison.

  6. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    It's recovering I tell you!  Just you wait.  Its turned the corner at the bottom and is heading back to the good old days.  Just don't ask me to put any money on it...

  7. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    william, daily ice volume data can be obtained from PIOMAS

    The Robinson video above takes the lowest daily value from each year in the PIOMAS record. The Cryosat values you cited were averages for the month, and as you noted not even the month during which the minimum occurs. I don't know if more detailed Cryosat data is available somewhere, but agree it would be very nice to get more than a couple of updates per year.

    Poster, there isn't so much a discrepancy in reporting on ice volume as there is inaccurate 'spin'. It is entirely true that 2013 had "about 50% higher" ice volume at the minimum than 2012... but that 'huge increase' was still lower ice volume than every year prior to 2010. Basically, when you start to get near a zero value any minor upswing can be a large percentage increase.

    Nine of the last twelve years (all except 2008, 2009, and 2013) set a new record low Arctic sea ice volume. Put another way, in 2002 the lowest ice volume ever was set at 10,792 km^3... but by 2012 the new lowest ice volume ever was only 3,261 km^3. That 2013 'surged' to 4,946 km^3 doesn't change the fact that is still less than half the 2002 minimum.

  8. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Regression to the mean....

  9. February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update

    weekly areal data over the years in graphical: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,194.msg5554.html#msg5554 I don't have the volume numbers.

  10. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    To follow briefly on Michael's point, Arctic sea ice area at summer minimum has exceeded the previous year's summer minimum fifteen (15) times out of the past 34 years, yet the overall trend is strongly negative.

  11. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Poster,

    I think you are confused because you expect a new record to be set every year.  This year was the sixth lowest recorded sea ice extent in the record.  It is well known that in the past 200 years there was never a time where sea ice was anywhere near the lows of the past decade see 110 year record here.  Do you consider sixth lowest in a long, noisy record to be "recovering"?  I do not.  The nature of noisy records is that sometimes the area goes up, even though the longer trend is down.  We will have to wait a few more years to determine if the prognosis is for continued collapse or if the sea ice will stabilize at some level near where it has been the last few years.  In the first case there will be little ice left in summer in 5 years or so and in the second the ice will remain at a low level for a few decades before melting out.  If next summer is like 2013 the ice may "recover" a little bit more. Frequently years repeat the previous year. If it is like 2007 a lot of ice will melt.  In 2008 the NSIDC suggested years like 2007 occur about every decade. Are we due for another 2007 or 2013?  What does your crystal ball say?   

    Since the ice is above 2012 but much below the amounts present 20 years ago, I would say it was a recovery for the ice but it is still in very bad shape from the melt in previous years.

  12. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Skeptical Science

    Merry Christmas to all and congrats to SKS! (Congrats for being the only pro-AGW site of the many that I visit to wish readers a "merry xmas".  ;)

  13. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Skeptical Science

    And a Merry Christmas and a happy new year from over the ditch.  Meanwhile at the South Pole we have http://www.smh.com.au/national/antarctic-tourist-ship-trapped-by-sea-ice-20131225-2zwjr.html

  14. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Like William@1 above, I am somewhat confused by conflicting claims on arctic sea ice.  Ads William states the cryosat is proclaiming "Measurements from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn.  The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. and "About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice – which survives through more than one summer without melting – with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.This year’s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year."

    I find it difficult to reconcile the opposing claims rgarding sea ice although it is necessary to note that the cryosat does state "While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend."“It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study. LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link.

  15. Global warming will intensify drought, says new study

    It is anything but clear that we aren't going to reduce CO2 from fossil fuel.  When the Dallas Morning News is advocating for a carbon tax whild noting major industries, including energy companies, that have changed their positions you know there is opportunity for change.  I personally believe in a significant revenue-neutral tax with 100% equitable distribution of the revenues to American citizens.  The plan promoted by James Hansen would do a great deal to reduce and ultimately get us off of fossil fuels in the relatively near future.  For oh so many reasons, we need to go there.

  16. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Lovely music. Is it commercially available? It complements the terrible potential of the graphic, but sweetly. I feel like a lovelorn lover drinking him/her-self under the table.

    Happy holidays everybody.

  17. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    I'm sure we have all being waiting for the update of Mr Robinsons fantastic video on ice volume.  Many thanks.  What I wonder is where he gets the information to plug into the formula.  The ESA Cryosat2 has been advertized as the best thing since sliced bread with respect to measuring ice volume and so far, just a few days ago, I finally found a site that said minimum ice in October 2012 was 6000km3 and 9000km3 in October 2013.  Is this the best they can do.  Such slack approximations delivered months after the fact and not even for the most important month.  Why don't they have a web site like the NSIDC which reports results with a one day delay.  If they are in the typical 90 minute orbit, they cover the Arctic 16 times each day.  If I was in the European Common Market, I would be asking what the Eropean Space Agency is doing with my money.

     

     

     

  18. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

    If we have a positive feedback of amount of water vapor to the Earth's temperature, who stabilize tempereture for the last billion year?  Why our planet not frozen as Mars or wapored as Venus?  

    There is a theory of Biotic Regulation by Prof. Victor G. Gorshkov, where that stabilization entity is suggested to Forest - http://bioticregulation.ru/news.php?nn=42

    You can find a lot of information and arguments on that site.

     

     

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] Positive feedback does not necessarily mean runaway warming, as is explained in a post here on Skeptical Science; after you read the Basic tabbed pane there, read the Intermediate and then the Advanced tabbed panes.  Another way to find that post is to enter "positive feedback" in the Search box at the top left of any page.  There are several influences on the Earth's temperature, some acting over long time frames and some over short time frames.

  19. There is no consensus

    It's also worth noting (once again, since people seem to so easily miss this important point) that Cook et al is not a survey of scientists' opinions. It is a survey of the positions expressed in the research papers.

  20. There is no consensus

    Mytheroo @575, Cook et al specifically included a secondary rating of a random sample of "neutral" papers to determine if they were neutral becaue the simply did at least implicitly endorse or reject AGW, or whether they were neutral because they endorsed the view that the evidence was inconclusive.  They then took those abstracts that at least implicitly endorse or reject AGW, plus a proportion of all neutral abstracts equal to the proportion in the sub-sample of neutral abstracts that were neutral because they indicated the evidence was insufficient to either endorse or reject AGW.  They report the proportions in each category of this group of abstracts in Table 3, under the column, "% among abstracts with an AGW postion".  The percentages are:

    97.1% endorse AGW

    1.9% reject AGW

    1% uncertain on AGW.

    The percentages among authors of papers are:

    98.4% endorse AGW;

    1.2% reject AGW;

    0.4% uncertain on AGW.

    So, using your terminology, 1.8% of authors of rated papers published papers which are "skeptical", with 25% of those authors publishing skeptical papers which are agnostic, while 75%  published skeptical papers which rejected AGW.

    Those percentages do not directly translate into percentages of the climate scientist population holding particular opinions as some authors published both papers rated as endorsing, and papers rated as neutral.  There is no contradiction in that in that authors opinions may have changed over time, and papers deal with only a small subset of the data, so that an author may in one paper say that a particular subset shows AGW to be true, while in another paper say that the seperate data does not support a conclusive decision.

  21. There is no consensus

    Mytheroo....  You can think of it this way: How many research papers that relate to evolution are going to state a position on whether evolution is real or not?

    The more accepted the basic science is, the less papers are going to actually express a position. Thus, Cook et al is saying, of the papers that do state a position, 97% accept man-made global warming.

  22. There is no consensus

    Mytheroo...  My first question for you would be, have you read the entire paper yet?

  23. There is no consensus

    Hi all, I chanced upon this site looking for some condensed evidence into AGW. I'm not a climate scientist though I have a good basis in science.
    My main issue is that most things I read essentially say "climate change is happening therefore we must tackle man-made climate change" without making the link between climate-change and man-made climate change.
    The headline for this page is "97% of climate scientists endorse AGW", and yet reading the small print this seems not to be the case.

    It seems some feel that to be a skeptic you have to reject AGW as possible. This would then suggest there were only about 1% of papers that were skeptical.

    In fact, skeptical means you feel the evidence has not proved the issue one way or the other.

    In the abstract study, only 32% of the 12000 papers endorsed AGW. 1% rejected. This leaves 67% skeptical. 

    One of the problems with the wording of this article says the papers will be segregated into various categories, but it doesn't state whether the "no position" category means "we cannot endorse or reject AGW based on the evidence in this paper" or if it means "we just haven't mentioned endorsing or rejecting AGW".

    Stating "we are taking no position in the matter" is very different to just not talking about it in the first place.

    The Self-rated section helps a little but still the "no position" problem is evident. Did the authors write "I take no position with regards to endorsing or refuting AGW" or did they just leave the section blank?

    As it stands, the only facts that can be deduced is 64.8% of climate scientists endorse AGW (97.2% of 1400/2100)

    So again where everyone says the science is convincing, the facts speak for themselves etc, yet again the headline is purposely misleading using the wrong numbers to make the point it is trying to make. This is just bad science in my book, and just reinforces my impression that AGW endorsers overstate the argument, and in turn that raises my doubts. My experience has been that the skeptics (not deniers) don't overstate the science. I am currently a skeptic for this reason alone, but I am worried about being a skeptic if that doesn't do justice to the actual science. Hence my occaisional search for the science that lead me here :)

     

    So, am I missing something in the numbers? What % of authors stated "no position" versus the % that just didn't mention it at all?

    Am not intending to flame, or dismiss this study, but currently this study says to me 35% of climate scientists are skeptics.

  24. Global warming will intensify drought, says new study

    It is clear that we aren't going to reduce or even stabilize our output of Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel so the next best thing is to prepare for sudden heavy downpours puntuating long periods of drought.  Think Australa.  Way back in and before the time of Christ in the deserts in the vicinity of Southern Israel there was a civilization called the Nabateans.  It was and still is a very dry area puntuated by extreme rainfall events.  With only hand tools, they build channels to transfer water into huge caverns that they cut into the live rock.  If we made the same effort in proportion to our ability that they made in proportion to theirs we would, for instance, turn the floods in Australia back into the interior to sink into the ground and charge up the water tables.  Underground, evaporation ceases and there is not a better place for agriculture than a desert, if you have water available.  Look at the Arava valley north of Elat to see an example.  We could also get serious about sea water green houses which can use any saline, brackish or alkaline water for growing plants.  Google it to see how they work.  The smart money is on some huge disruptions of our climate system and no significant action to reduce carbon outputs so preparation is our only option.

    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/09/i-wish-id-thought-of-that-growing.html

  25. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    Yes, encourage economic transition through net metering and carbon tax.

    But that's not really enough for what the situation is demanding right now. As the widget at the top right of the page should make clear, we are dropping bombs on our childrens heads.

    If there was an industry in your neighborhood mass producing bombs that you knew they were planning to drop on your house and your neighbors houses, would you call for merely a slight increase in the tax on bomb production to encourage that company to move into some other line of business?? In WWII, did we decide that greed would win the war for us if we just let the market do its thing?

    The top climatologists of the world are saying we need cuts of 6-10% or more NOW, if we want any remote chance of having anything remotely like a viable planet left. Advocating doing nothing and just 'trusting the market' sounds rather...Chamberlain-esque, at best.

  26. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Hmm, the whole point of a carbon tax is that people will try to avoid it - don't use carbon based energy and you can avoid the tax completely.

  27. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    "Nor should we assume that such a tax would be sufficient to solve the climate crisis. In my opinion, this would only be a good start, we'll need lots of regulations..."

    I'm not sure this is the case.  If the price on carbon emissions is adequate to reflect the environmental cost, that should be all we need.  Of course its not anywhere near that simple, because like any tax people will try and avoid it.  But a well designed carbon tax of the type Hansen envisages would work.

    Sometimes there is an element of Catholic guilt about all this.  A desire to self-flagellate.  We don't need to.  

  28. Global warming will intensify drought, says new study

    Thanks for this excellent article. When I read the title I thought, "That's odd; I thought I just read that Trenberth had concluded almost the opposite." Then I saw that explaining the difference between the two studies was very nicely explained.

    From the article 'below the fold':

        "Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense."

    That can't help but remind me of the "flash drought" that developed so rapidly last year (and is still largely with us, though shifted west a bit.)

  29. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    This Bloomburg report says that a major electricity generator in Germany is planning on closing 7% of its generating capacity in Nothern Europe because of low prices.   The low prices are caused by less electricity demand and renewable generation.  It is not peer reviewed, but hopefully it will be confirmed.  It is clear that the German price for electricity will go down next year partly due to their renewable policies.  When renewables are cheaper than coal they will be rapidly built out.  That time may be now!

  30. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Yes, fair enough, but it's hard to find examples of climate scientists that somehow think climate physics is wrong. Spencer also readily accepts AGW theory while wishing for a lower sensitivity. They are "skeptics" in sense that they are in denial about the published literature on sensitivity. Both have ideological bias which means they are trying to find a theory which will give a sensitivity such that no climate action is needed. Ie they have an a priori position on sensitivity and are thrashing about trying to justify it. I think such probes are good as they strengthen the science and they argue through the science literature. Not so great is misleading statements to the naive (eg congress).

  31. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #51

    There is a new paper out that details the funding of the anti-climate change machine. It's a very interesting paper. (PDF)

    http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Link activated.

  32. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    scaddenp #22 Dr. Lindzen positively does not deny AGW. I've viewed one of his talks to lay persons in which he gives his estimated range of transient climate response (TCR) at ~+1.0C (I've forgotten his low end) to +1.6C due to his opinion on cloud changes (vs Dr. Hansen's stated best guess of +2.8C). As far as I've seen, Dr. L's actual science point is that he considers AGW feedback's to be greatly overestimated by the consensus, so obviously he considers +CO2-caused warming to be factual and significant. I'm assuming Dr. L and Dr. H mean TCR because the ECS is a long time in the future and IPCC calls TCR "a more informative indicator".

  33. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    As Michael Sweet explains, I think we are going to be saved by greed. According to FERC, the U.S. now generates only 29% of its electricity from coal vs 42% from natural gas. Those numbers were essentially reversed just five years ago. When the 'fracking' boom made natural gas cheaper than coal there was a sea change in U.S. electricity generation. However, natural gas prices are already starting to rise again while solar and wind costs continue to decline. Natural gas has killed off coal use in the U.S. much faster than renewables could have, but soon we may see renewables killing off natural gas just as quickly. The past few months there has been more renewable (more solar than wind) power added to the U.S. grid than fossil fuel (almost 100% natural gas) power. Natural gas is still the biggest new source for the year as a whole, but even just over the course of 2013 the balance has shifted and it seems likely renewables will be the majority new source for 2014 and later.

    As wind and solar continue to gain steam the huge economic benefits currently given to fossil fuels will be withdrawn and even shifted to supporting renewable power. Already we are seeing efforts by utilities to charge ridiculous prices to connect renewables to the grid being beaten back in most cases (Spain not-withstanding). That loss of control will only continue to get worse for the fossil fuel lobbies. We may not be at 7% global wind and solar next year, but over the course of this decade financial pressures are going to move solar & wind to the forefront. Unless some significant new factor is introduced I'd expect nearly all new electricity generation being added by 2020 will be renewable.

  34. Climate Risk Index 2014: Haiti, Philippines and Pakistan most affected

    This article fleshes out the map of climate effects in my mind as I have never imagined before. I imagine a river of humidity coming off of the Atlantic and slamming into the Easter coasts of Mexico and the USA, a similar river from the pacific slams in to the eater coasts of Southeast China and Asia. The island on the way are hit the hardest, the Philippines and Cribbean. Energy from the Indian Ocean is diverted by the highest mountain range in the world affecting the Pakistan Delta the worst.

    The dry side of climate change, I guess is why Poland and Russia are on the list of places most affected, but what about the US West and Northern Mexico? Are there such scientifically derived maps?

    I look at my one-year old and fear for her future when I see the 2013 arctic ice curve approximate the 2012 extreme maximum today. I have done every thing I can to contribute to a solution. I am thankful for the community here for your efforts.

  35. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    I think the fact that solar and wind power have both come way down in price the past five years will help enormously.  The past decade. governments have shown that they will not take sufficient action to prevent damaging AGW.  Texas now has the most wind power of any US state.  They are not building wind in Texas to save the environment, they make more money than any other method of generation.  This Think Progress link describes extraordinary growth in solar installations in the US.  This is also economically driven.  

    Look at how fast coal was replaced with gas when gas became cheaper.  Coal export terminals are being cancelled.   That is because coal is becoming uneconomic.  How can China (and India) continue to install more coal with no air to breathe?  They are ramping up renewables for economic and pollution reasons.  Solar has reached grid parity in India with coal, while coal is difficult to buy in India.

    The best way to encourage renewables now is to encourage laws that enable high values of electricity from net metering.  Utilities (and the Koch brothers) have realized that their business plans are about to be upset and are trying to keep out rooftop solar by charging them an arm and a leg for connection to the net.

    A student in my class showed us his Dad's new Chevy Volt.  I asked if he bought it to help the environment or to save money.  He said 100% to save money. If enought wind is installed and/or solar comes down enough we may yet have a chance to change the projectory of the CO2 curve.  People will do the right thing for the environment if they save money.

  36. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
    I wouldn't count on economic contraction saving our sorry asses. Even declining emissions still add to what's already there, especially for CO2, which is very long lived. So we have the situation that, even if economies start to fall apart, atmospheric concentrations will continue up. As Hansen has pointed out we really need to be at no more than 350 ppm (we're near 400 ppm now). There is still an energy imbalance and the situation will continue to get worse. The only mitigation that's possible now is complete collapse of the world's major economies where "collapse" is the dictionary definition, "to break apart and fall down suddenly".
  37. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Well I dont know about the statement "in the old days". This still happens all the time and is frankly how science debate should continue to be done. Slow is good. Science should not be a spectator sport. A scientist who is convinced of AGW can still strongly criticize the methodology or interpretation of another scientist publishing supporting evidence.

    On the whole, pseudo-skeptics prefer blog science, where any garbage can be served up to a willing audience without the inconvenience of having to get things right so it passes peer-review. Peer-reviewed comments or counter-papers against published science is rare but happens (eg O'Donnell et al 2010 paper on Steig et al 2009). On the other hand, skeptic papers often draw a response. (look for cites of papers published by Lindzen, Spencer, Douglas and Knox etc). You have to remember though that there are very very few actual climate scientists that deny AGW.

  38. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    The links at your "Reviewing top U.S. climate news stories of 2013" and at your "Climate Change 2014 Crystal Ball" both go to the same site. Is that intentional?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] No, it was not intentional.

    The correct url for Reviewing top U.S. climate news stories of 2013 is:

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/12/reviewing-top-u-s-climate-news-stories-of-2013/

    The url in the OP has also been corrected.

  39. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C


    Maybe a global financial collapse will come along just in time to save our sorry a$$e$, lol. But I wouldn't count on it. The collapse in 2008 barely made a tiny, temporary blip in the trajectory of the rise in C emissions.

  40. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    wili @ 1

    If the world's finance system collapses, as many pundits are saying it might well, then, depending on how the chips fall, there could easily a reduction in economic activity to the extent required. If that happens, climate change will be the least of our worries.

     

    I suppose the net outcome is that we are, as you point out, in a mess, and it is really only a question of timing. I just hope that the denial community are pleased with themselves. Of course, considering their behaviour, I expect that they have a spare planet to go to. The sooner they go to it, the better.

  41. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C

    I would expand the first sentence of the first article:

    "This was the year when climate change came out of the closet..."


    To: "...announce that we're all f'ed."

    Consider these questions:

    --Does anyone anywhere think that wind and solar can grow to from about 1% of total energy sources to being over 7% in the next year?

    --Does anyone think that economic growth can happen while energy use rapidly shrinks?

    --Does anyone think that the world will suddenly plan a 6% or more shrinkage of the world economy, or a 10% or more shrinkage of the industrial nations' economies?

    If the answer to all of these is "no" (and that is clearly the only honest answer to them), then we have to agree that two of the world's top climatologist essentially said that we are now completely and utterly beyond hope.

    (J. Hansen said we need immediate at least 6% annual reducsions in emissions; K. Anderson, 10% annual reductions from industrialized countries to avoid 2 degrees C increase. Potsdam Institute, IEA, World Bank, PWC, and a number of others have said much the same.)

  42. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    MartinG@19,

    I would love to see a forum where scientist A presents his new findings on AGW, and scientist B takes issue with some of the content – followed by scientist A countering these comments. In the old days this was done in scientific literature (peer reviewed of course), but this process is I believe too slow for our modern times. Of course I am dreaming again

    No, you're not dreaming, your exact scenario is happening as we speak, e.g. here on SkS, or on realclimate (where Gavin is most active contributor) and on other blogs. Some comment threads are very interesting, sometimes enlightening for myself. Your old "peer review debate" is happening fast in the digital blogosphere now.

  43. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    It's worth noting that Gavin's own understanding of advocacy has evolved in the last 4-5 years, as the digital media took over the bulk of science communication from TV/newspapers that dominated earlier on.

    In his lecture, at about 11:20-12:20 of video pointed by BaerbelW@7, Gavin admits his definition of advocacy as "deliberate cherry-picking a piece of apparently useful data  without consideration of any alternative explanations" (source) was wrong. Scientists have the same right to be advocates as any other citizens but in doing so, they need to make explicit distinction between their advocacy - based on personal moral values and their science - based on objective facts.

  44. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Its an article with many interesting points. But I am missing one aspect. Our research is based on observations of the past and present, and our advocacy is related to predictions of the future and what we should do about it. In natural sciences nature is always one up on us by being incredibly more complex than our numerical models and theories can capture, so we have to work with uncertainties. The best way to do this is with scenarios – so that we can say for example there is a 60% chance that our emissions will bring uncontrollable consequences to the planet (this number is just an example – nothing to do with the facts!!). Then the scientist can advocate radical action based on a 60% probability of calamity, without having to falsely argue that all is certain – and thereby laying himself open to the observations/theories which support the other 40%.
    I believe the biggest threat to action on climate change is the polarized and unscientific nature of the debate, both in the blogosphere with its brainwashed extremests, and to some extent among climate scientists. I would love to see a forum where scientist A presents his new findings on AGW, and scientist B takes issue with some of the content – followed by scientist A countering these comments. In the old days this was done in scientific literature (peer reviewed of course), but this process is I believe too slow for our modern times. Of course I am dreaming again ! But I am wholly in agreement with denisaf that we should open our eyes  – its not just about CO2 – it’s the way we live which is unstainable.

  45. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    I am a retired aeronautical scientist. I have learned four fundamental scientific principles late in life. They are:

    1. All the technological systems of civilization irreversibly consume the limited natural material resources, including oil, in producing the, infrastructure (from cities down), goods and services society has become so dependent on. This is an unsustainable process.
    2. This process produces immutable waste material which is polluting land, sea, air and organisms (including human beings), with climate change being only one of the unintended deleterious consequences.
    3. Natural resources will have to be used to operate and maintain the vast array of technological systems, including the infrastructure, during their limited lives. As these resources are running out, the demise of much of the infrastructure this century is certain.
    4. The extravagant usage of the limited natural resources has enabled the exponential growth of the global human population but this will end and a dieoff follow as natural resources become scarcer and the infrastructure crumbles.

     

  46. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    A good article highlighting the dilemma within which the science community finds itself. What involvement in the end-to-end communication exercise? how far it should go in presenting impact analysis (physical and social), and solutions that might be construed as political interference.

    We appear to be suffering from a ‘communications gap’ with the perceptions of a wider audience tainted by media misinformation and misdirection... perhaps this is the most significant barrier to public acceptance and active participation.

    Tackling the problem from a purely scientific standpoint will have limited success.
    Communications cannot be a ‘one size fits all’. The tailoring of content and emphasis, delivery channel and messenger, are essential to penetrate any particular 'market' sector. Start thinking like an advertising agency, establish the message to meet the ‘requirements’ of the audience and manage their expectations.

    What is the value proposition?

    The market has numerous dimensions and permutations:

    Off the top of my head:


    1) Scientific and academic publications key source and empirical baseline – Communicated by scientists and scientific publications - A mainly technical audience.
    2) Science journalism through scientific articles in science magazines, blogs , podcasts, presentations etc. – Targeting the more technically savvy audience, science professionals and students. Perhaps a first port of call for latest news and links to published articles?
    3) Science journalism through higher end quality documentaries, TV, radio podcasts etc. - Scientifically aware and with particularlinterests.
    4) Science journalism through popular and entertainment media, TV, radio, YouTube, press articles and social media. A generally wider and diverse audience (certainly the largest segment ).
    5) Activist and environmental organisations, mainly communicating to the converted. 


    Our friends in the denial community operate within 3, 4 and particularly 5.

    This is where most effort should be invested for greatest impact. Engaging the audience has to be at a more emotional and organic level, not through overstatement but in ways that command their attention to risks and consequences. Financial and economic consequences along with family wellbeing tend to deliver the most immediate response.

  47. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    .

     

    >>When asked where to engage the public, Schmidt said: “You have to be tactical and find places where you can be heard. … avoid comment threads of most major newspapers.”<<


    True, so very true.

    I'm not one for posting every minute on blogs, but I do read the london Daily Telegraph online most days: it's shocking the number of blog posters that come out of the woodwork whenever there's anything to do with climate change who are utterly abusive and ignorant of the most basic science. In general nowadays they get a free run because experts have run out of patience with repeating the same rebuttals over and over again to a readership that lacks the will to look at anything that doesn't match their convictions. Non experts (like me) eventually give up for the same reason and the constant abusive language.

    Whilst personally persuaded of the fact of MMGW, I can't help feeling that any amount of CO2 per capita reduction is completely negated by the increase in population - roughly three extra "emitters" per second.

    The problem, like so many in the present, fundamentally boils down to too many people and I don't see any realistic prospect of that changing voluntarily.

     

    .

  48. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Climate scientists should speak out in the daily media, but need to tread a fine balance. Certainly they could comment on the science and refute sceptical arguments, and discuss their personal feelings and backgrounds. James Hansen is a good communicator, concise and gets to the point.

    However they should avoid being drawn into debates as such. Determining the scientific truth shouldnt become a public spectacle like a court room, complete with emotive battles. I also feel climate scientists should avoid comments on political issues, and mitigation measures unless they have specific expertise.

  49. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Wpsokeland @ item 9, you imply solar energy is higher than normal and is driving climate change. The sun has been cooling slightly over roughly the last 40 years, and the research evidence can be found on this website, and obviously a cooling sun cant generate global warming.

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] ...the counterargument to the myth "It's the Sun."

  50. Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out

    Excellent article.

    The summary of the rules and cautions for advocacy were especially succinct.

    "Scientists must be careful, however, and follow a handful of rules of engagement that will protect their integrity as a scientist as well as their rights as a citizen. Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles, Schmidt said. The individual should:

    - communicate his/her values fairly and truthfully;
    - make the connections between his/her values and policy choices explicit;
    - make sure to distinguish his/her personal conclusions from the scientific consensus;
    - acknowledge that people with different values would have different policy choices; and
    - be aware of how his/her values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.

    Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:

    - Individuals misrepresent and hide their values.
    - The basis of their policy choices is unclear.
    - There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal scientific conclusions are widely held.”

    These are excellent rules for all of us to follow and consider.

    However, when important public policies are being discussed, it is often very difficult to differentiate between data, information, and interpretation, i.e., there are few instances when science can be separated from advocacy.

    Advocacy is not a bad thing, but when science is used to support government policy, NGO advocacy, or business operations, the scientists who interpret the scientific information, or indeed construct the scientific experiments, are engaged in advocacy.  They should also follow these rules.

    Too often businesses, governments, and organizations gloss over the very critical values that are used to frame their scientific work, analysis, interpretation, and communication.

    So broadening the scope of these rules:

    Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles … . The individual or organization (government, non-government, or business) should:

    - communicate his/her and the organization's values fairly and truthfully;
    - make the connections between his/her and the organization’s values and policy choices explicit;
    - make sure to distinguish his/her personal and the organization’s conclusions from the scientific consensus;
    - acknowledge that people and organizations with different values would have different policy choices; and
    - be aware of how his/her and the organization's values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.

    Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
    - Individuals or organizations misrepresent and hide their values.
    - The basis of their or the organization’s policy choices is unclear.
    - There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal or the organization’s scientific conclusions are widely held.

     

Prev  791  792  793  794  795  796  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  806  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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