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  836  837  838  839  840  841  842  843  844  845  846  847  848  849  850  851  Next

Comments 42151 to 42200:

  1. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    The deniers have painted themselves into a corner, but the sad thing is that the can say/predict basically anything they want and the media will not report on it when denier predictions fail miserably, a year or two later. Remember all the hoopla over the sea level back in 2011? So when sea level rise accelerated again, could we read about failed denier predictions in the major papers? No. Same thing will happen when we beat the 2012 minimum, likely within 3 years from now. Deniers won't be questioned about the recovery that they were screaming about in 13'. Rather, they will be able to claim that the new record is due to a natural cycle and that they had predicted the record years ago. The major press won't ask a single difficult question. Sad state of affairs.

  2. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    Smith, linear is easier for the general public to understand, even if it doesn't capture the acceleration over the past decade.   

    Complex coupled models (CMIP3/5) suck at short- and medium-term Arctic sea ice projection.  My understanding is that the Arctic laboratory, especially when the ice is primarily thin, is subject to too many significant short-term forces to get a good grip on short-term projections -- weather, outflow rates into the North Atlantic, river outflow temp, ice flow within the Arctic, surface temp, ocean top layer temp, etc.  All of that combines to produce each unique melt and freeze season.  Someone may eventually figure out an indicator that works a year out, but the more accurate short-term projections will likely come when the fine mechanics of the Arctic are more robustly incorporated into models.  Projecting Arctic sea ice is halfway between projecting weather and projecting climate.  It's a tough gig, even if the general direction is clear.   

  3. What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints

    Yah, what KR says, Molecular Biologist, and I'd add that you'll probably want to engage the point that seems most fundamental to your understanding at this point.  You'll get a response wherever you post, and so if you post in ten places, you're going to be juggling quite a few threads, and those threads will have a good deal of overlap.

  4. What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints

    Undecided Molecular Biologist - That's quite a collection of arguments/questions, most of which show up in the SkS list of 'skeptic' myths. 

    Regarding your points and the associated myths:

    1. Climate has changed before, also  It's not us.
    2. CO2 was higher before.
    3. No idea what you're trying to say here other than "rocks".
    4. It's not bad, Plants and animals can adapt.
    5. CO2 is a trace gas.
    6. Models are unreliable, also It's not us and CO2 lags temperature.

    I believe the moderators would prefer each point be addressed in the appropriate thread(s). Far more importantly in regards to the structure of your comment, you should read about Gish Gallops, as your comment is really just a series of climate myths with out reference to evidence. 

  5. Models are unreliable

    I just saw "Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years", by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers in Nature Climate Change, Vol 3, Sept 2013, page 767. They contend that the divergence of models and observation is statistically significant. In trying to rationalize the discrepancy it seems to me that they don't consider the possibility that atmosphere-ocean heat transfer coupling methodology (particularly below several hundred meters depth) in the models may not yet be up to par. 

    What is the SkS take on this article? 

  6. Undecided Molecular Biologist at 03:42 AM on 26 September 2013
    What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints

    Hi all.
    I am a Molecular Biologist, and hence has a reasonable understanding of various sciences.


    I am also passionate about wildlife, both observing for pleasure on visits and also the crucial need to conserve dwindling habitats around the earth.


    The topic of this thread, which I stumbled across in reading the Guardian last week, is just what I have been looking for to pose some questions to see if they can be answered to help me with my utter confusion over the massive consensus with regard to the cause of global warming. Given my background, I hope you see that I have a decent level of knowledge of the science, as well as no agenda.


    1. Firstly, the earth is heating up right now, so no argument there. The earth has always heated and cooled, the distinction is the focus of most arguments these days is that "is this current heating man-made? And if so, is CO2 the main driver?"


    2. The earth has always experienced changing levels of atmospheric gasses. Indeed, when life started about 3bn years ago, almost no oxygen existed as gas, rather a massive amount of CO2 existed along with nitrogen. Billions of years (2.5bn) had to elapse of just pure simple, single-celled organisms changing the atmosphere spectacularly – they generated all the Oxygen we see today in the atmosphere (~21%) and indeed they removed all the CO2 to levels we see today = almost nothing / 0.03% = 390/400ppm by concentration is it right now?


    Indeed it is fairly miraculous that all the plants/photosynthetic organisms on earth – land and sea based - actually manage to get enough CO2 to fix in to sugars and other Carbon-based molecules. It is a miracle of efficiency that they do.

    We should note that many farmers increase CO2 concentrations many times atmospheric concentrations in enclosed environments in which plants thrive. They take up CO2 more quickly and efficiently, event at concentrations 3x, 4x, 5x atmospheric levels, which is still well under 1% of air.

    3. During the 2.5 billions of years when life was in simple form and extracted CO2 from the atmosphere, and indeed accelerated for much for the 500 million years since complex life appeared, this was the period during which all carbon-based ‘organic’ layers formed under seas and oceans. Important to stress that the primary “lock-up” of this carbon during this period is Limestone’s and similar rocks formed by millions of years of sediment layering of organic matter, mainly from foraminifera carbon fixated via CaCO3 and locked away. All the Alps, Himalaya, Andes etc contain massive amount of this rock that was once gaseous CO2 millions and billions of years ago during period when life thrived on earth. A far smaller proportion of later organic matter (500myo-1myo) had the right conditions to enable formation of oils, gasses and coals i.e. fossil fuels.

    4. The earth has always heated and cooled. Is it a problem that ice caps melt and low lying land disappears? In geological terms, “no” is the answer. In human times, “yes” is the answer for those effected, but the old biblical story has to apply here about the wise man not building his house close to the cliffs. The earth changes, life evolves, it always has and always will. Better to plan for and embrace change surely.


    5. CO2 as a concentration of 0.03% of the atmosphere is accused of being the primary driver of man-made global warming. I have to ask – has the climate change movement not perhaps made a huge mistake in blaming CO2 for warming?

    It is colourless and only reflects a very small fraction of heat-wavelengths. On top of this, its tiny concentration in the atmosphere, to any scientist this has to raise serious questions as to it being a key driver? Even if you add in all the carbon-based gasses, they are combined still under 1% of air!


    6. There has been some objection to model accuracy here and indeed there is another thread covering this exact topic. Indeed, I build models. I know their pros and I know their weaknesses. I have never seen a model that is accurate. It is impossible for a model to be accurate. The more complex the subject, the less accurate the model is.
    I see people arguing over super complicated formula and how powerful cray supercomputers are and even saying “look, I back-modelled history and it correlates”. None of this is accurate. Simple reason being is that you will AWLAYS miss a variable input. The best example of this is the recent global financial crash. Thousands of the brightest physicists, mathematicians and generally “clever” people in the world chased money, became bankers and build models to say that asset-based securities were almost risk-free, or AAA-rated. Trillions of dollars piled in to them. EVERYONE agreed that they were AAA risk-free as the super bright people said so as their models said so, everyone followed, no one disputed. Then, one variable the models did not include since there was historically a 0.01% chance of it happening, happened. The simple fact it CAN happen, means one day it will. This is just one variable. There are thousands. This proves models have to be treated with extreme caution. They can NEVER be relied upon fully.

    Indeed, one of the papers I saw on this site that provides the computer model “proof” that a doubling of CO2 from 0.03% to 0.06% would leads to a 2 degree rise in temperature stated an incredible thing. Namely that the results do not include the effect of water in the atmosphere!?! When it is pretty much agreed that water is a FAR greater contributor to the green-house effect than any carbon-gas, it to me is astonishing that everyone seems to ignore this monumental fact.

    Could water not be the cause of global warming? We have chopped down trees over the past 5,000 years on a huge scale. This might have changed water cycle and increased cloud cover and hence global warming perhaps? I don’t know, but am just saying this strikes me as being far more powerful and feasible than a colourless gas that has concentration of 0.03% right now and been historically many, many 1,000+ times higher concentrations on earth and life and earth did just fine during those times!?

    One further point I’d like clarity over, is that CO2 concentrations have risen in the past when temperatures has risen. Yes. But is CO2 a cause, or an EFFECT of warming? We all know what happens to water bodies when heated….they release gas. The delay in it being a cause driver or an effect of heating is impossible to prove by samples, rather people have relied upon the fact CO2 reflects a tiny fraction of heat wave length and they have then used computer models to say it is a cause-driver. Are you sure this is not wrong? Would you bet your house on it like bankers did with their models?

    I’m not being argumentative. I just would appreciate some constructive straight, common-sense answers against any of the above to help me be ‘converted’ as 97% of scientists seem to be. Right now, I’m in the 3% who don’t currently think CO2 is responsible in the slightest.

     

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] As noted by KR and DSL below, threads at Skeptical Science have a narrow focus by design, as long comments spanning a multitude of subjects (such as yours) do not contribute to a healthy dilogue, but often serve to impede understanding. 

    Before you follow up on each salient thread indicated to you by KR, please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy. 

    Any needed reponses and clarifying questions should be done on those more appropriate threads, and not here.

  7. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    Is there a reason why a linear trend is shown for the NH sea ice extent, where a second order polynomial fit trend is shown on the Arctic Sea Ice Escalator graphic?

    Is there scientific evidence that either of the trends can be extrapolated for future predictions?

     

  8. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    Well it doesn't bloody help when scientists themselves (hello Kosaka & Xie) use "global warming" interchangeably with "global mean surface temperature."  Chris Mooney came to our university last night to give a talk, and while I buy his overall message (account for the personality features of your target audience, and don't target the fact of their irrationality), I also think that a lot of denialist firewood would disappear if scientists weren't so loose with the terminology.  

  9. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    The Tamino post is a great antidote; it's dismaying seeing how strongly the "global warming has stopped" stuff has got hold of even key mainstream news outlets...

  10. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    Tamino has a similar post up right now.  He finds from 1992 to 2006 that the surface temperature went up at a rate of 0.28 oC per decade, much faster than the IPCC predicted!!  Those IPCC guys must be deliberately underestimating global warming!!  In fact, Ramsdorf et al suggested that the rapid increase in temperature was due to natural variation on top of global warming.

  11. A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy

    The NREL (US National Renewable Energy Laboratory) has a new study (news release here) out looking at the pollution impact of fossil fuel cycling of conventional generators with increased wind/solar inputs. Those opposed to renewable baseload power for various grounds have, on occasion, raised this as an issue.

    The WWSIS-2 study of the western US grid finds that

    ...the carbon emissions induced by more frequent cycling are negligible (<0.2%) compared with the carbon reductions achieved through the wind and solar power generation evaluated in the study... The study also finds that high levels of wind and solar power would reduce fossil fuel costs by approximately $7 billion per year across the West, while incurring cycling costs of $35 million to $157 million per year.   [...]

    "Adding wind and solar to the grid greatly reduces the amount of fossil fuel — and associated emissions — that would have been burned to provide power,” ... “Our high wind and solar scenarios, in which one-fourth of the energy in the entire western grid would come from these sources, reduced the carbon footprint of the western grid by about one-third. Cycling induces some inefficiencies, but the carbon emission reduction is impacted by much less than 1%.” (emphasis added)

    Also noteworthy in this study are the positive impacts of accurate 24 and 4-hour weather forecasts, allowing quite reasonable ramping times as wind/solar inputs vary. 4 MWh of renewables would displace 1 MWh of coal and 3 MWh of natural gas power. 

    Renewables will not, contrary to skeptic objections, increase emissions or carbon fuel costs with increased generator cycling - the benefits are overwhelmingly positive. 

  12. How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

    Good stuff! I coded a (interactive but not very good controls!) similarish thingyo - in the "cell(2)" tab it shows how you can claim winter is summer / summer is winter etc about 30% of the time if you choose a 29 day OLS. (You can also load climate data from woodfortrees.org).

    This sort of thing seems pretty intuitive to me - perhaps it really isn't and I've forgotten that I learned the intuition over a period of time. It's certainly turning out to be an horrifically effective denial weapon despite being one of the easiest things to demonstrate is wrong.

  13. Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course

    I'm currently going through the Coursera Climate Change course through Univ. Melbourne. I am signed up to the Climate Literacy course too. I am looking forward to comparing the two courses, both their content and their approach to dealing with the discussion forums.

    The chaotic situation that is present forums on the current course is improving my combat skills. I'm not sure if thats a good learning environment for those who are less assertive. 

     

  14. Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course

    This is a great course.  I went through the first iteration and found it very informative.

  15. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei, according to the fake skeptics, US has spent $79B on climate since 1979. You have to add in every satellite with a climate related instrument to get that but still, that's a lot of tax payer money. However, credible estimates of US subsides on fossil fuel range from $14B to $52B annually. If you thought taxes were such a big deal then surely killing these subsidies would be your priority?

    I have simple no-tax solution to climate change - kill the subsidies and ban building of any more FF-powered powerstations unless all CO2 emissions are captured. This still leaves steel production (comparitively minor) and gives coal and thermal asset owners a much longer twilight than say asbestos asset owners got when science made that industry untenable. If you have other alternative plans that would mitigate CO2 without taxes, please post them here.

    As to your personal climate position, then have you looked at what AGW regional predictions for you actually are? (in general, the wet get wetter and the dry get drier). However, I seriously wonder whether your personal circumstance is valid basis for voting for policy (and is absolutely irrelevant to whether a theory is true). You would vote on the basis that something was good for you even if you knew it was bad for the majority?? How do feel about the fact that those likely worst hit by climate change have contributed very little emissions to the problem? Is that right?

    By that logic, I should be a denier as I get no climate funding but instead get petroleum funding. Come on people, kill my funding stream.

  16. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    Does anyone have a reasonable explanaition for the summer 400mb anomalously dry tropics?  ESRL 400 mb map of relative humidity departure from norm

    additional info

    jeff masters wunderblog stratospheric drying

    This reduction in "cold point" temperature meant that less water vapor could make it into the stratosphere over the Tropical Pacific, since more thunderstorm water was getting "freeze dried" out. Did global warming trigger this increase in Pacific SST, resulting in cooling of the "cold point" and less water vapor in the stratosphere? Or was it random variation due to some decades-long natural cycle? This key question was left unanswered by the Solomon et al. study, and observations of stratospheric water vapor don't go back far enough to offer a reasonable guess. One factor arguing against global warming having triggered a negative feedback of this nature is that prior to 2000, increases in Western Pacific SST caused increases in "cold point" temperatures--behavior opposite of what has been seen since 2000.

     

  17. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    Gaia has many negative feedback mechanism to keep temperatures reverting to the mean.  We have seen one of them this summer as more heat from the Arctic Ocean gave rise to low pressure systems which shaded the ocean and decreased ice melt.  What is disturbing is the concept of the light switch phenomenon.  The thought that when we push the system beyond some point some of the negative feed back mechanisms will no longer be enough to hold the line and we will flip into a new regime.  If the slow creep we see now is disturbing, a sudden change would be far more serious.  The "up the down escalator" graph suggests we may be close to another lurch upwards.  Let's hope it is no more severe than the previous ones.

  18. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei,

    There are many different opinions represented here on SkS.  Taxes are not usually discussed so there is no agreement on what is best.  I have never heard any scientist suggest that a carbon tax should be diverted to fund scientists, only deniers suggest that such a tax is an option.  Where did you come up with this proposal? Please cite references to support your wild claims.

    One prominent scientists' proposal to address AGW is tax and dividend, from James Hansen (who is an independent).  This would tax carbon emissions and 100% of the tax would be refunded to the people on a per capita basis.  There would be no money diverted to any other spending.  The government would get nothing from this proposal.  

    Why do you so strongly object to this proposal when net taxes for most people would be decreased?  My impresson is that you are uninformed and are just looking for a fight.  You used very strong language to introduce yourself and were then offended when people replied with less offensive terms.

    As a beachfront landowner I would think you would be concerned about sea level rise.  The ocean is currently about 9 inches higher than it would have been without AGW.  How high is your property above sea level?  Will another foot or two of sea level rise endanger your property?  I have visited Tuvalu which is about to go under due to AGW.  Are you willing to pay to relocate the people who live there?   This is happening now, it is not a theoretical idea that might not happen.

  19. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    MA Rodger, according to the journal's website, TWO members of the editorial board resigned:

    http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/74

    However, compared to March 9 of this year, there are THREE names missing.

    Apart from Brierley, Jason Evans and Caroline Ummenhofer no longer appear on the list of editors.

  20. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    I agree, lei -- and thank you for the reasoned response.  The situation is not simple.  The economic interest is overwhelmingly the most powerful interest that drives human decision making--at least under the current economic mode.  It's not the only interest, and it's not in the driver's seat all the time.  To ignore it, though, is to deny reality.  Worse is to expect to change that reality overnight.

    At this point, the problem becomes one of ethics: right behavior.  Do you think it's better to avoid addressing problems that aren't yours personally (you may be dead by the time significant economic impacts occur), or are you willing to address a potentially significant hit to the global economy if the evidence is reasonably good, even though you may never have to face the hit personally?

    This is where Michael Fumento's piece from a few years ago comes in handy.  Fumento, a former Reagan advisor, argues implicitly that the new Right (read: Tea Party) is no longer concerned with the future.  They no longer see conservatism as the natural compliment to liberalism.  I would say that this is the natural progress of postmodernism: a cultural logic that encourages the individual to pick and choose evidence in order to construct reality to his/her taste with no system of accountability beyond economic security.  Some celebrate this situation; some condemn it.  

    If you refuse to fund projects that propose to help make life more bearable for future generations, do you do so from instinct, from ideology, or from evidence-based reasoning?  

    And then how do you answer this problem: what happens to government and taxation policy in a world where what you might call "alarmist claims" actually play out as reality?  In other words, can you think of a better way to grow government and taxation than to push the global climate out of kilter (think: three+ billions living in cities, highly dependent on the cheap and consistent delivery of food, water, and energy)? 

  21. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei - "Emotion is paramount in these discussions."

    Indeed it is. And your emotions, not to mention your stated personal investments and livelyhood, appear to be overriding your ability to view reality. 

  22. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei:

    Your obsession with taxes blinds you to the reality of manmade climate climate change. Do you have absolutely no concern for the world that we are bequeathing to our children and future generations?

  23. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Beyond taxes, the implications of impending climate change for landowners in warm climates is huge.  Human emotion is directly tied to one's investments and one's livelihood (in scientist's case). 

    Emotion is paramount in these discussions. 

  24. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    Republishing material is not academic misconduct. While it will usually be against the journal requirements for a research paper (but not an invited or review paper), a journal can choose to print whatever it wants. The only misconduct would be if the author had misrepresented the history of the work to the journal. We have no evidence of such a misrepresentation.

  25. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Ah, there are so many aspects to this problem.

    But, you must not forget that "deniers" FEEL powerless in regard to their taxes and that they will welcome anyone who tells them there is HOPE that their taxes will not increase.  Wouldn't all scientists like it if there was a way to reduce their taxes?  Of course they do - they want any taxes spent on the military or smokers to go away.  Or welfare. 

    And, in fact, if you want taxes for welfare to go away, you are in good company with government workers who cannot come out in the press to say it - but they are some of the most adamant about the gross waste and outright fraud.  You should aid these people because many citizens would rather gentle scientists (if you are gentle) are funded than ex-cons or women who deliberately have children to push up their housing aid.

    If you think taxes are unimportant and unrelated to the discussion of climate change then you are a denier. 

    I own beachfront in a northern, wet, climate and tourists cancel when there is too much rain.  Twice this summer (colder and rainier than normal) the rental managers have stated there was a rash of cancellations due to rain). 

    I wouldn't mind at all if the climate changes for the hotter ranges, but it doesn't appear to be to many of us. 

     

     

  26. Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course

    I am signed up for "Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change". Any comment on the differences between the 2 courses? The whole MOOC movement is certainly beginning to make some great resources available.

  27. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38B

    <redacted> yeah! That's what I'm talking about!

    https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil

  28. Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course

    A "climate literacy" program is a great idea. I am currently reading "Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (2013) by Donald R. Prothero" where a chart on page 109 includes a list of the top 34 countries by GDP but ordered by the average level of scientific comprehension by their citizens. The countries from 28 to 34 are: Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Cypress, The United States of America, Turkey. Yep, Americans sit between Cypress and Turkey which partially explains why there is so much climate denial coming from the USA.

  29. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    StBarnabas.

    And because of it one of the members of the editorial board resigned in protest. We can but hope that the remaining members have got the message.

  30. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Moderator - got it -thanks for taking the time to explain. I will familiarize myself with the policy. 

  31. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Moderator -I had a comment here in response to Lei's first two comments from 9/23 that has been removed.  Was that because one of the two comments from Lei was removed and the other largely snipped so my comment was out of context - or because i broached the SkS Comments Policy? I think others have responded to Lei's commnets better than I did but I was just wondering.

     

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] On behalf of the moderation staff, it is unfortunate that sometimes, in the process of moderating out egregious violations of the comments policy, direct responses to such deleted comments are perforce also moderated out.  This policy is designed to engender on-topic dialogue and open discourse based on the science, free from intemperate atmospheres as are found in many other venues.  Unfortunately, sometimes innocent responses such as yours get caught up in the action.

    One suggestion is to familiarize yourself with the comments policy sufficiently to recognize the violations of others...and to not respond to them, knowing that the moderation staff will deal with them.  Typically a wide latitude is given, but repeat offenders get shorter leashes.

  32. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei said... "No insulting words should ever be uttered by gentlemen and scholars."

    The problem is that "denial" is a clinical term that has been used for about 150 years.  Suddenly, when it's being applied to a group of folks who are clearly in denial (thus, "deniers") the term is redefined as offensive.

    The outrage over being labeled what is an accurate term is, in itself, a form of deflection.  Denial of denial.

  33. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    "Denier" is a reasonable term for someone who effectively puts fingers in ear and cries "la la la" when confronted with published science. A fake "skeptic" is someone who challenges every piece of published science (good) but swallows without question any half-cocked blog commentary that happens to coincide with their views.

    Scientists are paid fairly modest salaries that arent linked to funding. More funding means you could employ more scientists and could fund more experiments (read satellites) to find the answers.

    However, what most scientists want is for people to stop burning fossil fuel, simple as that. Doing that will mean frankly that you will probably pay more for your energy (but you might pay less tax if you killed off all subsidies to fossil fuel industry).

    You will improve engagement if you provide supporting statements to your assertions.

  34. Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice

    I would have thought that if a journalist can be shown to have deliberately made erroneous statements on a topic that is very likely to do great harm to their country, it is not the PCC that should be called in to investigate, it is the Crown Prosecution Service, unless treason has ceased to be a criminal offence, of course. 

  35. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    @MA Rodger

    in which case this looks like academic misconduct. Journal papers are supposed to make an original contribution to the field and one normally has to sign a statement saying that the work is original and not just a rehash of previous work. The paper should have been rejected for this reason alone.

  36. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    The previous incarnation of this Akasofu paper was actually published in 2010 (not 2009) with a prior 2009 version unpublished but appearing on line. The big difference between these two eariler attempts was length (2009 - 55 pages, 2010 - 14 pages). This latest 2013 version is shorter still. And it has nothing new to say. Not a jot.

    I feel it is telling that after 4 years all that has been achieved is a bit of editing. With nothing new to prop up his bankrupt theorising, Akasofu simply demonstrates the vacuous nature of his work.

  37. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei, I read your deleted comments.  They were not geared toward engaging in conversation.  Setting that aside, though, I appreciate your re-engagement.

    Also, you provide evidence for some of the stereotypes when you say, "You move them further to the right."  Are these people so easily moved by irrelevant information?  Is that not one of the points that is being made by people who argue that "conservatives" are not equipped or are unwilling to accept relevant evidence?

    Terms like "denier," "liberal," "conservative," and "catastrophic" should be rarely used, because they immediately require explanation.  Witness Michael Fumento needing a long essay to define "conservative."  Richard Alley identifies as conservative, as do many other prominent scientists working in climate-related areas.  Identity and practice, as you know, are often quite different.

    And while I agree with you on the name-calling bit, there is a target audience for the term "denier."  The term, for me, is meant to be provocative.  My use is intended to make the claim that the person with whom I'm interacting is well-aware of the evidence but is intentionally disregarding it and is not willing to discuss that choice.

    Here's some of what scientists have to put up with (pjones is Phil Jones of the UK Met Office).  I wouldn't call these people "deniers," though.  They are, however, the people who are led by the nose by deniers.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Fixed text.

  38. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Whoops.  I took DSL's hint and checked Lei's original comment, which contained the gem:

    "My biggest question is what do you want people (voters) to do about climate change besides hand YOU and YOUR co-workers VAST amounts of tax money?"

    So, it is OK in Lei's book to insult us (and climate scientists) by suggesting we are involved in a conspiracy to defraud tax payers, but woe betide us if we should suggest some people are in denial about climate science.

    I believe Lei has provided a perfect demonstration of my point @18 - and will prove it further by being unable to concede the point.

  39. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Lei @17, if you read the works of "climate change skeptics", you will find the full of the most virulent insults.  It is habitual for some to accuse the IPCC and the UN to be part of a plot to generate world governance.  Others cannot help but compare defenders of climate science with Nazis on a regular basis.  I personally have been compared to the KKK (although perhaps inadvertently).  If people are influenced as you suggest, there should be a tidal wave of support for climate science and the IPCC.

    People are not, I think, influenced by such mild terms as "denier", (ie, somebody who denies some well established body of knowledge) unless they are using the term as a pretext.  And if they are that desperate for a pretext, they would have found another one no matter what we do.

  40. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    When you use terms like "denier" you are insulting someone right off, who may be questioning climate change in the back of their minds.  You move them further to the right as you are not using your vast knowledge of social science or human psychology that I know you all have minored in.  Your wives should be able to advise you in this area. 

    No insulting words should ever be uttered by gentlemen and scholars.

    It's not a war. 

    Taxpayers are utterly helpless.  I feel sorry for ALL of them. 

    (-snip-). 

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

  41. The sun is getting hotter

    cstanyon69 @13, the chapter in question has just one out of 45 sections dealing with solar forcing.  That section reads as follows:

    "2.7.1 Solar Variability
    The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002)."

    Your linked blog post claims that Judith Lean was the only solar physicist among the lead authors of the chapter.  That may well be true.  There were in fact 15 Coordinating Lead authors or lead authors to the chapter.  If membership in that group was coordinated based on relevant expertise by section, we would expect just 1 in 45 (or 1/3 rd of a lead author) to be solar physicists.  Given the nature of the topics discussed, that means solar physicists are over represented among lead authors.

    Of course, the blog is carefull to not point out that lead authors are not the only authors.  In fact, in addition to the 15 Coordinating Lead Authors and lead authors, there are 37 Contributing Authors.  Given an assumption of proportionality, we would therefore expect approximately 2/3rds of a Contributing Author to be a Solar Physicist.  In fact, there is at least one in the form of S. K. Solanki (and may be others that I do not recognize).  Apparently the existence of at least one other solar physicist was not considered worthy of mention by the author of the blog.

    The author of the blog also claims the section was based primarilly on just one paper, of which Lean was a co-author.  In fact 16 papers are cited, of which only two have Lean as co-authors (Lean et al, 1995; Wang et al, 2005).  For both of these, they are cited in conjunction with another paper of which Lean was not an author to make the point being made - and the first of these is cited because it was previously cited in Assessement Report 3.  None of Solanki's papers are cited in that section.

    It should be noted that 7 other papers with Lean as a coauthor, and two with Solanki as a coauthor are also included in refferences, but if cited, are cited in other sections of the chapter.

    Not content with misrepresenting or concealing the basic facts of the case, the paper also attempts to claim the sun is responsible for recent warming by trotting out the original graph from Friis-Christensen (1991), which has been resoundlingly rebutted by later work, as explained here.  It also includes some slanderous personal communications that attempt to rebut the PMOD composite by ad hominen, but I'll not adress those.

  42. Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

    Phronesis - The majority of the Climate Audit posts on LOG12 that I have read (or rather, endured reading, as they are rather nasty) consist of speculative slander about Lewandowskys motives (for example, posts entitled "Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam", "Lewandowsky’s Fake Results", or lines like "... Lewandowsky’s tainted methodology – a methodology that relied on fake data to yield fake results"), claims that the data was trashed by scammed responses (no evidence thereof, mind you), and various conspiracy theories regarding how the surveys were distributed. 

    In his Trying (Unsuccessfully) to Replicate Lewandowsky post, McIntyre makes several errors that are apparently due to his unfamiliarity with exploratory factor analysis (EFA). These include inappropriate eigenvalue selection (using two factors instead of the one significant eigenvector) and use of the default 'R' language rotation that redistributes variance - useful in PCA, but inappropriate in EFA when you want to attribute those components back to the survey questions. This is discussed at some length by Oberauer and Lewandosky, laying out McIntyre's errors.

    McIntyre has a history of poor or missing evaluation of principal component significance, as discussed on RealClimate with respect to the Mann et al papers. That's the original topic where you brought up McIntyre's LOG12 discussion, I'll point out. 

    I would consider this diversion an Argument from Authority on your part to support McIntyre's claims about the "Hockey Stick", and therefore a red herring WRT that discussion. Expertise in one field doesn't support an argument in another, it's a logical fallacy, and it seems quite clear to me that McIntyre has not demonstrated any expertise in EFA either. 

    Regardless of this side-track, McIntyre's claims about Mann et al have been solidly refuted, most clearly by Wahl and Ammann 2007.

  43. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #38

    @chriskoz #1:

    "Monking up the numbers" is listed in the "In the Works" section of the digest. Rob Honeycutt will need to tell us what his timetable is for completing the article. 

  44. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    It would be interesting and even fun to interview Akasofu.   He is quite a distinguished scientist and has no obvious ties to the extractive industries. 

  45. Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

    We've seen Akasofu's unsubstantiated graph pasted onto to several climate-related commentary posts in Canadian media. As a layperson I suppose I resort to speculation at many times myself, but I can't help wondering whether his area of specialization (aurora) makes him of particular interest to other "cosmic" climate contrarians who promote the woozy ideas of Landscheidt, Mörner and Svensmark, due to some kind of neo-mysticism.

    The one persistent commentator I am aware of using this swoopy-dippy climate "prophecy" seems to style himself rhetorically as some kind of high priest among contrarians. It's quite annoying really.

  46. The sun is getting hotter

    Got a question: have you heard of this one:

    LINK

    I'm sure it's rubbish; the premise is that Judith Lean, the lone solar physicist on the IPCC, had complete control over solar radiation readings. From what you've written above, this seems like tripe, but I'm not so familiar with the field to be sure.

    Your comment?

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Hot linked URL that was breaking page formatting

  47. Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia

    @Daniel, of course, I agree with every word. That you draw your conclusions from quality papers is what I always like to point out. Realclimate is also great in this regard. Thanks!

  48. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #38

    @chriskoz Several bloggers have commented on the paper:

    I did (Real Sceptic): http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/16/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-again-not-debunked/#.UjdTIPwb7z4.twitter

    WottsUpWithThat: https://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/

    And Dana talked about it here on SkS:http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html (see the section Taking Consensus Denial to the Extreme)

  49. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #38

    What happened to "Moncking up the Numbers"? I guess it's likely about the latest (and only) Monckton's peer reviewed paper & I'm particularly interested in those numbers.

    It's been in the coming up list for some time, not today though. I hope the topic did not sink into oblivion...

  50. What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories

    Can Lei perhaps give the proposition after the rhetoric has been scraped off?  I've seen the rant (it's only commented out).  I could paraphrase it, but I'd rather see if Lei is serious about engagement.

Prev  836  837  838  839  840  841  842  843  844  845  846  847  848  849  850  851  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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