Welcome to the inaugural edition of the SkS Weekly Digest. It not only provides a brief synopsis of each Skeptical Science article posted during the "week that was", but also provides a sneak preview of what's in the Skeptical Science pipeline. Other special features will be added as the design and content of the bulletin evolve.
Please let us know what you think about this initiative. We're particularly interested in learning how many of you would prefer to receive this weekly bulletin rather than the individual email announcements about each article as they are posted throughout the week.
In Part 1A and Part 1B we looked at how surface temperature trends are calculated, the importance of using Temperature Anomalies as your starting point before doing any averaging and why this can make our temperature record more robust.In this Part 2A and a later Part 2B we will look at a number of the claims made about ‘problems’ in the record and how misperceptions about how the record is calculated can lead us to think that it is more fragile than it actually is.
The largest source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 is from the burning of fossil fuels and vegetation, arising from human activity. These emissions pose a threat to the survivability of all on the planet. The following invites attention to the sources of CO2 emissions, some of their effects and measures which might be taken to enforce their reduction.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has released unpublished estimates of 2010 global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and the news is not good. Between 2003 and 2008, emissions had been rising at a rate faster than the IPCC worst case scenario. However, the global recession slowed the emissions growth considerably, and in fact they actually declined slightly from 29.4 billion tons (gigatons, or Gt) CO2 in 2008, to 29 Gt in 2009.
By and large, the mainstream media has a pretty dismal record in reporting about climate change, and a recent op-ed in the National Post, written by Lawrence Solomon, continues in this vein. In the piece, Solomon makes light of the dire threat global warming poses to the continued existence of the Amazon rainforest. After the IPCC Amazon non-controversy, it's probably time to look at the issue in a bit more depth, and debunk Solomon at the same time.
The Australian government established a Climate Commission which recently released a three chapter report entitled The Critical Decade. In Part 1, we examined Chapter 1 of the report, which summarizes the current state of climate science observational data. In this second part of the series, we will examine Chapter 2 of the report, which discusses the risks associated with a changing climate. The quotes and bullets below come directly from the report, while the remainder is our commentary.
By and large, the mainstream media has a pretty dismal record in reporting about climate change, and a recent op-ed in the National Post, written by Lawrence Solomon, continues in this vein. In the piece, Solomon makes light of the dire threat global warming poses to the continued existence of the Amazon rainforest. After the IPCC Amazon non-controversy, it's probably time to look at the issue in a bit more depth, and debunk Solomon at the same time.
While adding papers to the peer-reviewed paper database here in Skeptical Science, many problematic issues have emerged. In the database, papers are entered under certain skeptic arguments. For any paper, one can enter several arguments that are relevant to the paper in question. Each paper gets a classification pro-agw/neutral/skeptic depending on how the paper sees the argument in question. It is not very straight-forward task to assign a classification for each paper.
For years, I've been casually accumulating a database of peer-reviewed climate papers. A few months ago, some Skeptical Science contributors began brainstorming creative ways to visualise this database - a kind of visual sequel to Naomi Oreskes' famous Science paper on consensus. Paul D decided to take it a step further and began programming a Javascript visualisation that very cleverly packs an incredible amount of information into a single, user-friendly graphic. The visualisation displays the number of climate papers published each year, sorted into skeptic/neutral/pro-AGW categories (more on these categorisations shortly). What really blew me away is the slider at the bottom - drag it from left to right to observe the evolution of climate science research from Joseph Fourier in 1824 to the flood of research in 2011.
The ABC Drum have just published my article Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? Right now, there are no comments but I imagine the discussion will get fierce shortly so be sure to keep an eye on it (expect to see all the traits of denial I describe rear their ugly head in the comments and be quick to point them out).
About a month ago, we unveiled Shaping Tomorrows World, a website dedicated to exploring solutions to the multiple crises and challenges that are currently facing our societies.
In Part 1A we looked at how a reasonable temperature record needs to be compiled. Here, we look at how the major temperature products are built
In recent years a number of claims have been made about ‘problems’ with the surface temperature record: that it is faulty, biased, or even ‘being manipulated’. Many of the criticisms often seem to revolve around misunderstandings of how the calculations are done and thus exaggerated ideas of how vulnerable to error the analysis of the record is. In this series I intend to look at how the temperature records are built and why they are actually quite robust. In this first post (Part 1A) I am going to discuss the basic principles of how a reasonable surface temperature record should be assembled, Then in Part 1B I will look at how the major temperature products are built. Finally in Parts 2A and 2B I will then look at a number of the claims of ‘faults’ against this to see if they hold water or are exaggerated based on misconceptions.
The Australian government established a Climate Commission which recently released a three chapter report entitled The Critical Decade. The first chapter of the report, which we will examine in this post, summarizes the current state of climate science observational data.
“Let’s face it. The 1960’s were a time of radical change. And what we need today, like it or not, is another substantial transformation of our societies—from our current fossil-fuel based economies to an alternative means of economic productivity that is based on other sources of energy.”
Poleward motion of storm tracks
?? Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
The Critical Decade - Part 3: Carbon Emissions Reductions
Geologists & Climate Change Denial
Trouble Brewing in the North
Ocean Acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
Websites for watching the Arctic sea ice melt
Posted by John Hartz on Monday, 6 June, 2011
 |
The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. |