Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
Comments 40001 to 40050:
-
Tony Noerpel at 21:23 PM on 4 December 2013Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
Hi Kevin
great work. Do you have yearly anomalies to compare with NASA here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Is you data for figure S2 available?
Thank you
Tony
-
michael sweet at 20:53 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Poster,
You need to keep in mind that AGW only became politicized in the last 10 years or so. Most of the established scientists, like Hansen, Schneider and Jones were studying AGW long before that. There is no reason to suspect that the older AGW scientists were affected by ideology when they went into studing climate. In addition, surveys of AGW scientists indicate that they are a varied group of individuals, as would be expected. It is a denier meme that the scienitsts are biased, no data exists to show that. This just means that the members of the AMS have listened to these denier memes, not that they are true. You need to consider how biased you are, suggesting that this meme might be true without supporting data.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:42 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
dhogaza @30, point taken. I read your initial post too superficially.
@32, I am aware that the AMS seal of approval, which A Watts has, and which does not require a bachelors degree has been superceded by a new AMS certification which requires a bachelors degree (at minimum). I cannot, however, find any information about when the Associate member category was introduced, other than that it was prior to 2003 and (presumably) after 1922. Can you cite a source indicating the time at which associate memberships were introduced? Further, can you show that members at that time that did not qualify for full membership under the new rules were allowed to retain full membership?
-
dhogaza at 15:14 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Tom Curtis:
"dhogaza @18, the survey was limited to full members, ie, it excluded associate and student members. Therefore all respondents to the survey either have a bachelors degree in meteorology, or equivalent academic knowledge; or have demonstrated "professional or scholarly expertise" in meteorology. That later category likely includes Anthony Watts based on his being an author of a relevent scientific publication."
The AMS requirements were not as stringent in the past, as I indicated in my first comment. Watts is there because he's old enough to have escaped the need for a degree. He was a member long, long before he was an author of a relevent scientific publication.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please explain what you mean by "relevant scientific publication."
-
dhogaza at 15:11 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Poster:
" I am not aware of any other areas of science so strongly influenced by political ideology."
Evolutionary biology.
Note that the influence of political ideology mostly disappears among those who are actually versed in climate science research, according to this (and other) surveys.
Just like evolutionary biology ...
-
dhogaza at 15:09 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Tom Curtis:
"However, it is not true that most, or even a significant number of those surveyed lack scientific credentials on meteorology."
I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics. That does not make me a mathematician.
If getting an undergraduate degree in meteorology makes one a "scientist", as "Licorj" might suggest, then obviously I picked the wrong degree. I could've been a "physicist" by earning a BS in physics, etc etc.
I don't really buy it, though.
I do have mathematics credentials, though, due to my BS Mathematics. That is not inconsistent with my not being a mathematician. The vast majority of respondents to this survey will have "scientific credentials" in the same sense that I have mathematics credentials. This does not make them scientists (Licorj's word) any more than my credentials make me a mathematician.
On the other hand, if you want to declare me a mathematic, can I put that on my resume and quote you? :)
-
Poster9662 at 14:41 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
What is a very disconcerning conclusion from this survey is the finding that political ideology was the second strongest predictor of respondent's global warming views. So why is global warming so influenced by political leanings? I am not aware of any other areas of science so strongly influenced by political ideology. Surely this needs discussing as it seems possible a climate scientist with a particular political view might conceivably and perhaps subconsciously, allow this view to influence his/her science. I'm surprised that this aspect of the report has attracted so little attention here
Moderator Response:[JH] Climate science is not influenced by "Political (partisan) ideology." Rather, Political ideology is the filter through which many people view and interpret the science.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 4 December 20134 Hiroshima bombs per second: a widget to raise awareness about global warming
I have been reveiwing my analysis @30, and have found that I made a crucial error. It turns out that IKE integrates air density times wind speed squared over volume, not as I mistakenly claimed the kinetic energy over time. The result of the integration is the kinetic energy of the hurricanes winds at a particular time rather than the total energy released by the hurricane. It still considerably understates the energy of the hurricane as it does not include changes in internal energy, changes in gravitational potential energy, and the kinetic energy of waves (and no doubt other factors), but is a measure of the energy of part of the hurricane. As such, its inclusion in the widget is not a mistake, contrary to my claims. I still maintain there are prefferable indices for the widget.
-
andreas_s at 13:14 PM on 4 December 2013Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
great
-
Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Scarecrow57 @20:
"The Study then states “93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” Line 357. You took it upon yourself to twist the results and stick in the word Significantly. The Study does not say that. (You are losing credibility fast here)."
The study reports that of those members of the AMS who (a) have a publication focus on climate, and (b) whose are of expertise is climate, 78% indicate that most of warming over the last 150 years is the result of human causes; and 10% indicate that human and natural causes are about equal. If they are about equal, that certainly indicates the human causes are significant.
Where you do have a point is with the further 5% who think that there is insufficient evidence to say whether the causes are mostly human or natural, but who indicate that there is some human causation. That indicates agnosticism about the level of either human or natural causation; and hence the proportions of both. That agnosticism may allow the possibility that it is mostly human caused, but may also allow the possibility that human factors contributed as little as, for example, 5% to the warming. I believe it is an over-interpretation by Dana to include this among those who think that humans are "a significant cause" of the warming.
On the other hand, Dana was upfront about the figures, noting in brackets where he got them from, and thereby allowing you to form your own opinion. In contrast, you deleted that explication, trying to portray Dana's claim as a misreporting of the data. There is a difference between incorrect quotation or misrepresentation (which you are guilty of) and a mistaken interpretation (which is all Dana is guilty of). The former results in a rapid loss of credibility indeed. The later does not.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:15 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
dhogaza @18, the survey was limited to full members, ie, it excluded associate and student members. Therefore all respondents to the survey either have a bachelors degree in meteorology, or equivalent academic knowledge; or have demonstrated "professional or scholarly expertise" in meteorology. That later category likely includes Anthony Watts based on his being an author of a relevent scientific publication. However, it is not true that most, or even a significant number of those surveyed lack scientific credentials on meteorology.
What is true is that a large minority of those sampled (43.9%) conduct no research in any area, and that only a small minority (12.7%) conduct research on climate; or which an even smaller minority (6.8%) have climate as a career focus. Acceptance of an anthropogenic cause for global warming is strongest in that smallest, most expert group, and declines with the fall of expertise. That shows that it is something other than expert knowledge that is driving the low levels of acceptance of an anthropogenic cause to global warming among meteorologists.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:04 PM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Scarecrow57 @21, all attempts to sample a population, including those which are fully randomized are "surveys". The term you are looking for is a "convenience sample". Convenience surveys do indeed have several disadvantages, including no gaurantee that they are representative of the population as a whole. Specifically with regard to surveys on controversial issues, it is likely that those with a strong opinion will preferentially respond, thereby distorting the result. It may also be the case that percieved views of the conductor of the survey may also bias results. That does not mean that convenience samples are useless, only that generalizing from such samples to the whole population is risky.
In this particular case, the questionaire was emailed to all members of the AMS (excluding associate and student members). There was an effective 26.3% response rate. It is possible, but unlikely that so large a response would be significantly biased with respect to the original population. This is quite unlike the most prominent form of convenience survey in which watchers of a particular news program are asked to phone in (thereby accruing an expense) with response rates well below 10% of the viewership, and unlikely to be more than a fraction of a percent of the population they represent. You may well have seen pronouncements that the later are scientifically useless (they are), but that is because of the multiple biases introduced by the sampling method plus the very small size of the sample.
Finally, Naomi Oreskes sampled all of a specific portion of the literature. Hers was not a convenience sample, and was not biased by the methodology.
The Cook et al survey was in two parts. The first part was an exhaustive survey of the literature as reported by one of two major indexing organizations. As such, it was not a convenience sample and is almost as close to exhaustive as you could obtain. Richard Tol has compared that sample to that from another indexing organization, showing that there are differences in the composition of the samples. What he does not mention, however, although it is very easy to work out, is that difference in composition would make less than 1% of a difference to the result. Even then, he has no grounds to assume the second sample is more representative than that actually used.
The second part of Cook et al was a convenience sample of all authors from the exhaustive survey with discoverable email adresses. Because it was a convenience sample of the entire population, and because there was a significant response, the results are not likely to be far of those of a representative survey. Never-the-less, caution should be applied in interpreting the results of that part of the survey.
-
tmac57 at 11:59 AM on 4 December 2013Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
Congratulations Kevin and Robert,and thanks for letting us be a small part of your efforts to help further climate research.
-
tmac57 at 11:41 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
If I were to take a guess at this question,I would posit that the experience of meteorologists facing the daunting challenges of greater than very short term weather predictions might incorrectly lead them to believe that it is impossible for other scientists to make any decadal or longer projections of climate with anything approaching accuracy.
This is of course the classis apples to oranges comparison that the title implies,but I suspect that there is an element of that bias going on.
-
paulhtremblay at 11:13 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Scarecrow: The Study then states “93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” Line 357. You took it upon yourself to twist the results and stick in the word Significantly.
Skeptical Science didn't put the word "Significantly" in quotes. Dana thought "Significantly" summed up the study. I would agree. Here is the full quote from the study:
93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change
If the majorities or experts find human activity as the "primary cause of recent climate change," isn't that the same as saying humans have contributed to AGW "Significantly?"
-
paulhtremblay at 11:07 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Then using sampling theory the sample size would be determined and the respondents would be selected totally at random.
I don't see how that is true. The only reason you choose a sample rather than look at the whole population is because of cost. Usually it costs too much too examine all the data (to call everyone in the US to find out the outcome of an election, for example). But if you can, you should always look at the complete population, or as much of the complete popuation as you can. Both Oreskes and Sketpical Science did so, so I cannot see how their studies are somehow invalidated.
The only way your argument might have some truth to it is if you showed that the the scientists' views included in either study were somehow not representative. For example, it might be that scientists who view AGW as human-caused might be more likely to respond. But you don't show any such bias in either study. The fact that both studies appeared in major scientific publications seems to refute a bias collecting the responses.
-
Don9000 at 10:58 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
From what I can see, the main take-away from this survey is that there are many people trained as meteorologists who are woefully ignorant about the state of the art in climate science. That's not exactly surprising here in the US, at least, given the fact that undergraduate meteorology programs rarely require much in the way of climate science coursework. A couple years ago, I informally checked out the requirements of several such programs in different universities spread across the country, and I didn't encounter a single one that required more than one course in climate science.
Even then, I think it is fairly obvious that taking a single undergraduate course in climate science is far from enough to claim expertise in that field. If that weren't the case, given my five semesters as a metallurgical/materials engineering student, I would be an expert in everything from thermodynamics to modern physics, to calculus (I took a couple of those courses twice, so I would really be an expert if this metric did apply), and cultural anthropology (my one free elective choice my first year at college).
A potentially more interesting question to ask is this: what were the beliefs of the professors teaching these undergraduate meteorology students on the subject of global warming/anthropomorphic climate change? If the professors came through the academic pipeline more than twenty or thirty years ago, I doubt they knew nearly as much as I do about the subject. Another is this: how has and/or is the subject of climate change been addressed in the core text books in meteorology programs. Stephen Jay Gould's interesting essay "The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone," reprinted in Bully for Brontosaurus, illustrates just how perverse textbook authors can be when it comes to rehashing old material.
When it comes to this kind of thing, I suspect a modified version of the old saying, "You are what you eat," really does tend to apply: "You believe what you are taught." If, as I suspect, meteorologists up through the year 2000 or so were educated in a near total vacuum where climate change is concerned, I don't see any reason to be surprised that holders of degrees in the field tend to be skeptics. After all, the bulk of their intellectual focus was on understanding weather.
-
Scarecrow57 at 10:07 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
One other thing here; This is a SURVEY. This is not valid research by any stretch of the imagination. To perform valid research the one would need to gather a list of all climate scientists. Then using sampling theory the sample size would be determined and the respondents would be selected totally at random. Anything that removes this randomness from the sample set invalidates the “study”. This lack of randomness is exactly what invalidates the Oreskes study as well as your own study.
This AMS study is the closest thing we have gotten so far to an unbiased study.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your personal opinions have little or no value in this venue. Please read the SKS Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
4TimesAYear at 09:58 AM on 4 December 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
There is no such thing as a "global" temperature. Think about it. Really. They are working with an "average" that won't melt ice anywhere; only real temps melt ice. Locally. 100 anywhere in the U.S. will not melt ice in Antarctica where they would be experiencing extreme cold temps that accompany it (think up to 128 degrees below zero)
You have to completely overlook larger forces like the output of the sun, the tilt of the planet, and alternating seasons - how the planet works - in order to blame climate change on our miniscule contribution to the overall amount of CO2. It is most unfortunate that the IPCC did just exactly that with their research - the focus was solely on man-made CO2.
By the way, you can't tell anything about reality with an average temperature. If I told you the average temp for a given day was 70 degrees, you could not tell me what the high or low was. Take a little time to digest that. There is no standard for computing average temps. No matter, because an average temp is not a temperature. It cannot melt ice anywhere.
We have world leaders who have suckered us into believing that there's a single "global" temperature and thrown good money after bad on something we don't and can't control. They have the cart before the horse. We don't control climate; it controls us. The climate determines whether or not you turn your furnace or a/c on, or whether you crank up your snow blower to get rid of what's accumulated in your driveway or whether you start your mower.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your personal opinions have little or no value in this venue. Please read the SKS Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
Scarecrow57 at 09:52 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
John, You have to help me out here. I read this study, then your article. You make this statement:
“…but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years”
Now my first issue is you seem to discount people who identified as Meteorology/Atmospheric Science (66%) as if they know nothing about this topic nor have they studied it. If you want to be taken seriously you must admit that people in Meteorology/Atmospheric Science are far more versed in the topic than geologist
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
The Study then states “93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” Line 357. You took it upon yourself to twist the results and stick in the word Significantly. The Study does not say that. (You are losing credibility fast here).Then we have the reasons for the Skepticism.
406 We found that perceived scientific consensus was the factor most strongly associated with AMS members’ views about global warming. This suggests that scientists’ thinking on scientific topics may be subject to the same kinds of social normative influences that affect the general public. Rather than rationally weighing the evidence and deciding for themselves, as would be expected under more traditional ideas of scientific judgment, scientists may also use the views of a relevant peer group as a social cue for forming their own views.
So what we have is a situation where these scientists are agreeing with the “consensus” just to fit in. Which indicates that if they take the time to look at the data and the science they will likely not come up with the consensus opinion.The bottom line here is that the 97% consensus is highly unlikely amongst those who study the climate. But hey, let us not forget; The consensus was the Wright Brothers would never fly and Robert Goddard would never build a liquid propelled rocket to get us to the moon. Fortunately in Science, the consensus means nothing.
-
Licorj at 09:33 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
dhogaza - I was assuming that the AMS is scientific association. Of course, all of their associated are scientists. There are not specific numbers about older weather forecasters(high school) repondents. I can not realize how manny they are.
-
dhogaza at 09:12 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Licorj:
"KR - Theoretically, the wheater forecasters should be the easiest kind of scientists, should expected to be convinced about AGW, by climate scientists.
Why, it is not happening ?"
Most weather forecasters aren't scientists. While in modern times most have a undergraduate years university degree, very few have a graduate degree, and very few are practicing scientists.
The most famous (ex-)weather forecaster in the denialist camp, Anthony Watts, only has a high school degree - he's old enough to have been certified as a broadcast meteorologist before the requirement (in the US, at least) for an undergraduate degree was adopted. There are plenty of older weather forecasters out there working in media who don't have an undergraduate.
What made you think they're scientists? When you watch the weather forecast on TV, do you think "oh, there's a scientist on TV!" ????
-
Licorj at 08:25 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
KR - Theoretically, the wheater forecasters should be the easiest kind of scientists, should expected to be convinced about AGW, by climate scientists.
Why, it is not happening ?
-
How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Licorj - Your comment shows a common misunderstanding, and a lack of knowledge regarding model predictions. I would suggest reading The difference between weather and climate as a relevant thread.
Climate science has a long history of accurate predictions regarding GHGs and temperature, starting with Arrhenius 1896 (and no, that date is not an error).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:48 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Licorj... But those climate forcasts are very likely to be extremely important for your grandchildren.
-
Licorj at 07:18 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
The main difference between wheather forecasters and climate scientists, is that while wheater forecasters give us very usefull and reliable information, including the uncertainty rates, the climate scientists, never had matched their predictions. At least, by now, I believe in wheater forecasts, but I don't believe in 100 years climate predictions.
Moderator Response:[JH] Unless you provide reputable sources for your global assertions about climate scientists, your statments constitute "sloganeering" which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Polcy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 4 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
jhnplmr... It actually is stated in the comments policy how to post images. But don't worry about it. Lots of people make the same mistake and we just fix it.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 4 December 2013Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
Excellent news!
-
Kevin C at 00:50 AM on 4 December 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
OK, it's all sorted. Paper is available here.We'll have a blog post up in the next day or so, but in the mean time a big thank you to everyone who conributed!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:44 AM on 4 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
MartinG, I consider the link between long term global climate modeling and near term regional weather forecasting as a continuum of forecasting that is modeled using different start point information with varying levels of accuracy depending on what is trying to be forecast.
On the nearest end of the continuum is the attempt to forecast things like what weather events will occur at an exact location and when they can be expected at a specific location. Such forecasts are based on observations of nearby existing weather patterns and climate features (like highs and lows) projected forward a short time. They do not consider the total global system, only the aspects that will have a near term affect of on a specific location. In regions near surface disruptions like mountains the forecasts are very unreliable. In some cases significant storm systems have formed in Calgary, Alberta (a place in the foothills of the mountains I am familiar with) without any real forecast that they would form, other than seeing the clouds rapidly build.
The global climate forecasting is based on global scale modeling. As others have commented it uses understanding of influences on the global system that are irrelevant in regional near term forecasting. It actually is the more reliable modeling. It is only 'surprised' by random impacts like dust from volcanic eruptions and El Nino/La Nina events which have short term affects on the global trend (affects that average out over a long term evaluation).
A similar averaging out of local weather is possible, but the resulting information is less meaningful for people wanting to know what next week's weather will be like. A similar uncertainty exists with what any specific regions future weather will be like decades into the future.
The real challenging forecasting is the prediction of weather in an upcoming growing season in any specific region. These forecasts are important to allow farmers to chose the most appropriate crop and actions for the anticipated weather during the season. This regional forecast being wrong ca lead to significant losses of crop production.
Probably the biggest concern about the accelerated change of global climate due to the influence of rapidly increased CO2 emissions accumulating in the environment is the increased uncertainty of the results. What is certain is that climate change will occur more rapidly as the global warming occurs more rapidly. The exact changes in weather in any specific location become more uncertain. That can make predicting the upcoming growing conditions even less reliable.
So, one of the biggest concerns about human impacts accelerating the rate of global warming is the increased uncertainty of important to know things like local growing conditions for the coming season, or the severity of extreme weather events in any given location.
All that said, getting energy from burning fossil fuels cannot be continued for the billions of years that humanity should be looking forward to enjoying on this amazing planet. It is a damaging dead-end activity that really needs to be stopped sooner than those who enjoy benefiting from it are willing to give up benefiting from it.
Moderator Response:[JH] This sidebar discussion of climate models is off-topic for this thread. If you and other commenters wish to continue the discussion, please take the discussion to a more appropriate thread.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:56 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
MartinG, while climate modelling will undoubtedly continue to improve it is unlikely that the results of climate models 10-20 years from now will be significantly different from those of current climate models. They will likely be more detailed and able to give us a better idea of regional impacts, but the overall prediction isn't going to change much (just as it hasn't changed much in the past 40 years).
I look at the difference between weather and climate modelling as a matter of significant unknowns. The same factor may have a large impact on one and no apparent impact on the other. For example, a strong wind lasting a few hours could drastically alter the local weather prediction, but would have no impact on the global temperature balance. Thus, uncertainty about local winds is a significant issue for weather modelling... but not for climate modelling.
Because weather modelling can be impacted by so many more 'small' and transitory factors it is vastly more complicated than climate modelling. There really aren't a lot of significant unknowns left in climate modelling. All the major factors have been identified and the remaining uncertainties are mostly around the precise values of a few of these factors (e.g. cloud feedbacks).
I've seen many meteorologists argue that climate models can't be accurate because weather models can't be that precise... but this just isn't valid because they are modelling different things. Climate modellers don't need to worry about every errant breeze... weather modellers do.
-
jhnplmr at 21:34 PM on 3 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
#349 HK
"That’s why much of the last glaciation endured through higher insolation than today without ending"
The sun reflecting off the widespread ice sheets offset the effects of the higher insolation. This positive feedback from the ice acts both ways, it slows the rise out of the glacial period but accelerates the rise once the ice sheets start to melt and less of the sun's power is reflected.
-
chriskoz at 21:32 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Tom@7, Rob@6,
I inferred that awhile ago. What I am wondering is: why Dana's articles are not clearly marked at the begining "this is a partial reprint from the Guardian; go here or the original" but hide that under the rather inhibitive link at the end.
-
chriskoz at 21:11 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
MartinG@9,
In fact GCM are exactly the same in climate science and meteo, AFA algorithms and results are concerned. The only difference is that air and heat transfer between cells are the average/prevailing signals and simulated in longer timesteps while weather predictions try to simulate momentous air/heat transfer based on latest observations within shorter timescale. Both use the same technique of parametrisation/randomisation of unknown or too complex to describe physical phenomenons. So no surprise climate science and meteo going head to head in their modeling accuracy here.
What differs those two are the long-term forcing: e.g. radiative balance changes due to carbon cycle disruption and geo feedback. Those forcings are obviously irrelevant on weather forecasting timescale, therefore a good weatherman can be totally ignorant of those forcings and still be doing a good job in his field. As we know, understanding of such forcings (that are the professional domain of climate scientists only) is essential to appreciate AGW. That explains why the incidence of AGW ignorance/denial is higher among weathermen rather than among climate scientists.
-
jhnplmr at 20:17 PM on 3 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
#349 HK
If you want to duplicate the graph I displayed on #339 you will find the temperature data on edc3deuttemp2007.xls. This gives EPICA Dome C ice core temperature differences from the 1000 year mean temperature (col 5). The age of the sample is given in col 3.
The Jul 65N Milankovitch data was drawn from orbit91 for the years BP and the data for the 10,000 years into the future was derived from the mean values of Jul 60N and Jul 70N in bein11.dat. A correction factor had to be used for the future years to give the same zero year point. I used 0.479775 instead of 0.4843 to convert langleys/day into W/m2. This gives an error of less than 1% in the absolute data but does not effect the date of the minimum point. I used the formula "=PRODUCT(AVERAGE(DV15:DV16),0.479775)" on my spreadsheet where DV15 and DV16 are the cells holding the relevant data. The location of these cells will obviously alter as you go down the spreadsheet but *intelligent copying" will make this easier.
-
jhnplmr at 19:37 PM on 3 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
"Response:[RH] Fixed image width.
What should I do next time I use an image?
Response:[JH] Keep your graphic width to 500 pixels or less."
Wouldn't it have been easier to say this in the first place?
Moderator Response:[JH] Lose the snark or lose your posting privileges. No more warnings.
-
MartinG at 18:27 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
I think we can learn something from meteorologists. They use models of the earth’s physical weather systems to forecast the future. 20 years ago I wouldn’t believe a weather forecast for more than one or two days ahead – but now in most situations we can rely on the basic forecast over 5 days to a week. Meteorology is an older science that climate science – but the adjusting of models to make better predictions in common to both, including the knowledge and experience of how we should use the modeling results when we know we don’t have all the factors yet in our software. Our Climate science models are mostly slight variations around what we know at present (the scientific consensus in the climate science anno 2013). And they all fail in some degree, indicating that we havn’t included all the factors in the correct way yet. Small wonder – it’s a vast subject and we have lots to learn. I expect that in 10-20 years our climate models will be very much better and we will look back and think how little we knew in 2013.
-
Andrew B at 14:28 PM on 3 December 2013What climate denial has learnt from tobacco denial
You've got to love it when Mr. Boehner goes after the wrong strawman about co2 being a carcinogen. Clearly he forgot for a moment that it was doubt about co2 and climate change, not tobacco and lung cancer, that he was supposed to be spreading.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:07 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Tom... I'm sure that's a reprint restriction put on Dana by the Guardian.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:53 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
I am wondering why we are requested to follow a link to the Guardian to read to the end of the article? The end, reproduced below, hardly seems a sufficient addition to the article to warrant inserting the link rather than just finishing the article:
"This is also evident from the fact that meteorologists with more climate expertise are more likely to accept human-caused global warming. According to this study, the relatively low level of consensus across all AMS members is due to a combination of factors: lack of awareness of the expert consensus, political bias, and lack of climate expertise.
In any case, the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming is still a reality."
-
Cugel at 12:09 PM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
In my experience, "Tory" is the more common derogatory epithet, as in "Tory Blair" directed at a New Labour Prime Minister. "New Labour" as a derogatory epithet is falling out of use, but not yet archaic.
Moderator Response:[JH] Let's shut this down. It's off-topic.
-
scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
If they are member/voter of Conservative, then how is the term a derogatory epithet?(unlike calling someone mildly centre left a commie, or someone mildly centre-right a facist).
-
Poster9662 at 10:47 AM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Chrizkos. Conservative is a noun and refers to a political party (or a member of that party) that is to the centre right of politics. Often Conservsative is used as a derogatory epithet by those to the political left of centre to denigrate those with whom they disagree. The word conservative is an adjective used to describe those who are inclined to accept the status quo and are not entirely comfortable with change
-
wili at 10:45 AM on 3 December 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #48
Nothing, even 'In the Works' on the new Nature Geoscience study on Arctic sea bed methane emission rates being revised upwards by a factor of 2+? Even though RealClimate, Arctic Sea Ice Blog are discussing this important paper?
Chriskoz does a good job of nutshelling Archer's points, but there's much more to discuss on this one.
I'm a bit busy, but I could try to summarize the various positions briefly in the next couple days, if you like.
Moderator Response:[JH] If you wish to write a draft article for posting on SkS, you should contact John Cook via the "Contact Us" link found on the bottom of this page.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:24 AM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
Chemware... And that was a quote made over a discussion of Relativity when it was a brand new theory. It was the scientific world grappling with understanding this dramatic and profound new theory.
Greenhouse gas theory is now about 150 years old. The same grappling around took place about 100 years ago promarily between Angstrom and Arrhenius. It was determined about 75 years ago that Angstrom was wrong and Arrhenius was right.
Since then science has, as with relativity, been refining its understanding of the theory.
Discussion of the current consensus on AGW is merely a way of weighing the relative risks involved with continuing to emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As in: Are you willing to bet the future of humanity on the position of 3% of scientists or 97% of scientists?
-
Chemware at 10:00 AM on 3 December 2013How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
The "debate" over consensus reminds me so much of Einstein's comment on the debate over General Relativity:
-
scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 3 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
JH: Fair enough.
jhnplmr: I have replied on a more appropriate thread.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you.
-
scaddenp at 09:07 AM on 3 December 2013CO2 limits will harm the economy
jhnplmr said on inappropriate thread:
"Nuclear, wind, solar and tidal?
I agree, while it takes less energy to get it out of the ground than you can get from it they (we) will continue to use it. I'm afraid that it is very difficult to get people to stop heating their homes, using computers, electric lighting and their cars. It isn't going to happen while fossil fuel supplies are available. Any government that tried to ban their use would get voted out of office."
Which is why there is such interest in carbon taxes, pigovian taxes, trading schemes. These effectively add the environmental cost (which isnt paid for in mining) to coal cost so that other energy sources become competitive. More acceptable to right-wingers (hey Milton Friedman thought costing externalities was acceptable), than just banning new coal fired stations.
Bottom line though is that you will pay more for kWh of energy in the future. Beats paying the costs associated with very rapid (ie faster than glacial cycle) climate change though.
-
John Hartz at 08:55 AM on 3 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
@jhnplmr:
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.
-
John Hartz at 08:36 AM on 3 December 2013We're heading into an ice age
@jhnplmr & scaddenp:
I deleted your most recent exchange because it was completely off-topic.
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
