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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 151 to 200:

  1. New research, April 23-29, 2018

    Some very good research, however it's astounding that there doesn't seem to be any proper published research on why mitigation of emissions is so slow, and why public and politicians are slow to make the changes required. I'm thinking something that polls the public, and asks wide ranging questions.

    There are obvious well known potential reasons, but one should never assume what reasons exist, or what reasons are dominant. Efforts to persuade the public and politicians to change things are just guesstimates, if they aren't based on good research.

    We have the denialist campaign and corporate capture of politicians etc. People in colder climates probably think a warmer climate is good, and they rationalise away sea level rise as a price worth paying. They would be wrong, and are not looking at the full range of problems. But a research study would clarify if these are real concerns.

    Apply occams razor, and the basic problem is human stupidity.

  2. The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    All things being equal (us not mucking up the natural flow of events) we should be going into a glacial period right now. (not an ice age -an ice age is the approximately 3m year period in which there have been around 30 glacial and interglacial periods).  In fact, the lichen halo around the Baffin island  High lands shows that we were already heading that way.  For a really great treatment of the subject, read Plows, Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman.  We now may have put off this glacial (or glacial period, if you like) or more likely, when we collapse our civilization, it may come on like gang busters and wipe the slate clean right down to and past the latitude of New York.  That would be something to see.  A contenental glacier pushing over sky scraper after sky scraper.  The bottom few floors would already be submerged.

  3. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    rocketeer @12

    Perhaps the other issue is that many simply don't realize how sensitive the atmosphere is. I had an adult tell me, "You mean we humans can affect a planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years?" As if age implied stability (at least it does not in the case of humans), and as if our actions were small. Eat 10% more calories than is recommended (i.e., 2200 instead of 2000/day) and your body can adapt and handle it. And the rate at which you eat the extra calories does not matter too much. But increase the temperature of the Earth by 10% (use whatever baseline you prefer), and the atmosphere and other environments go through a huge readjustment. The atmosphere within which we live is simply a sensitive system, and many people don't get that, because there is a time lag between our actions and the response.

    Your reference to small changes in body temperature having big effects is perhaps the best example of a sensitive system to which we can identify.

  4. The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    Ref #1 nigelj

    Good point in ¶3.

    I remember an article in a popular slick magazine, most likely in 1973, that mentioned both global warming and cooling; it ventured that one might cancel out the other. In Table 1, by 1973 the number of warming papers was pretty much the same as the total of cooling and neutral papers, so a presumption of "no consensus" at that time appears to me as reasonable. However, in the time it takes to get a kid out from the maternity ward into a kindergarten, it is clear that a warming consensus had developed.

  5. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    MA Rodger @10.

    Thanks for the educational tutorial. I'm always sure that if I take stab at it and miss something, that someone like yourself will come along to clarify.

    Perhaps I was not clear in my explanation. I understand that surface temperatures over the ocean are cooler than over land. And I understand that the data set is not perfect, and appreciate your detailed explanation of where it is not perfect. My main point (which I think is still valid) is that the only thing that really makes sense to track is the combined land+ocean temperature, because that gives the most consistent picture of how things are changing from year to year.

    In any case, thanks for your detailed explanation.

  6. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    I think the real issue is not the datum whihc is designated as zero, but the implication that small percentages are unimportant.  This is patently silly.  Would you be concerned if only 0.3% of an Airbus 380 was falling on your head?  Or to make it more relevant to the Kelvin scale, consider that a 1% increase in body temperature is the difference between being perfectly healthy and being in the hospital. 

    The difference between the last glacial maximum when there was mile-deep ice covering much of North America and today is a global temperature change of about 5 K.  That is only a change of about 2% according to Giaver's reasoning, but it sure isn't trivial.

  7. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    Evan @10,

    Your graph in the OP is plotting GISS LOTI and that is "Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies," a combined record using GHCNv2 SAT & ERSSTv5 and not as you say @10.

    Oh, no! I am yet another engineer. But I will still have a stab at the Qs @8:-

    (1) The 2ºC limit is the global land & ocean temperature rise. It does make a difference. GISS LOTI, for instance rose +1.2ºC above the 1880-1900 average in 2016. Yet GHCNv2 SAT rose +1.7ºC, a significant difference.

    (2) The relationship between ocean SAT & SST is quite strong although the season, time of day and geographical location will impact that relationship. Beyond those considerations (which are fixed through a temperature record), my understanding is that the variation of the relationship is then mainly down to wind speed (which is not fixed through the record). Note that the Land SAT is the average of Tmax & Tmin which differs from the actual daily average.
    So we do have apples and oranges, but that is the only data available if we want a full 20th century record. We are therefore stuck with it.

    (3) Anomalies are required to create a global average from point measurements as the anomaly remains constant over a far wider area than an absolute temperature. So we are stuck with anomalies even if we weren't combining SST & SAT.

    (4) The idea that the global average temperature anomaly is a simply and cleanly derived quantity (non-weird abet a combination of SST & SAT) does tend to become a difficult idea to sustain when the decisions required in creating the global anomaly begins to be better understood. As an example, take the SST-over-ocean/SAT-over-land situation and consider that each year 10 million sq km of Arctic sea ice and 15 million sq km of Antarctic sea ice melts away being replaced by ocean. Thats 5% of the global area. And with AGW the actual ocean being thus exposed in the Arctic is much different today than it was back in 1900. (Antarctic temperatures are not addressed by GISS LOTI until the second half of the 20th century. It is the same with temperatures in the high Arctic but we can assume they were premanently frozen through those years.) The BEST global temperature record gives two different approaches to tackling the sea ice problem and one way adds roughly  +0.15ºC to the warming since 1900 than the other does.

  8. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    John @8, have a look at the following link where the GISS methodology is explained. When referring to Land+Ocean, the GISS plot I included is still an air-temperature anomaly, referring to global surface temperature. As such, it is simply tracking an average temperature that is a combination of surface temperature over land and over ocean. It is not, as I understand it, the ocean-water temperature, but rather the average surface temperature over the ocean and land.

  9. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    John @7. I am not any kind of authority on the topic of temperatures, but let me offer my thoughts based on what I've learned.

    We are really concerned with the total energy accumulated by the combination of land+oceans. We want to express this total energy as a single temperature difference that gives us a single index. That is, layman like us (I am a chemical engineer, but not a Climate Scientist) can more easily grasp the meaning of temperature than we can energy. But to make this meaningful, the "average temperature change" needs to correlate to what's happening over the entire surface of the earth, and not just one part. So combining land+ocean simply reflects that we live on land but that our energy system is dominated by a water world. The two are linked, and because the oceans strongly control temperature fluctuations, we must include both oceans and land to come up with any kind of meaningful index, such as "average temperature anomaly."

    Until you raised this good question, I had never thought about it being meaningful to separate land and ocean temperatures, simply because what we want is a single temperature that gives the average temperature change over the entire earth.

    Taking a stab at your questions

    1) My understanding is that the 2-degree limit corresponds to combined land+ocean average.

    2) No, because land+ocean are a linked energy system. El Ninos transfer lots of energy from the oceans into the air, and La Ninas transfer a lot of energy from the air to the oceans. They really need to be considered as a linked system. Obviously if you live in the Arctic the temperatures there control what happens locally, but for the purpose of creating a global index with a single number, we must look at the entire system.

    3) I will pass on this question. Hopefully someone can step in.

    4) See above comments.

    Now we are waiting for a real Cliamate Scientist to respond. :-)

  10. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    I inadvertantly deleted the following post. My apology to John S.

    John S at 21:13 PM on 4 May 2018

    I recall watching Glaevers talk and being unimpressed by him making fun of climate scientists for supposedly thinking it possible to get an accurate average absolute temperature of the whole globe. It was as if he had never noticed that the vertical axis was labled "tempeature anomaly". Or maybe he didn't understand that it simply means change from a baseline (to be fair it is a bit of an unusual use of that word - different from its use in everyday language). I had previously read an explanation on the NASA website as to why the so-called "temperature anomaly" is used.

    However, this posting reminded me of questions I have re the rationale and justification for using combined land and ocean data; first I should reveaL I am a retired engineer struggling to understand the science and know I never will entirely, but I keep on trying, so I'm hoping some compassionate scientist out there will take my questions at face value and provide explanations in layman's language:

    1) what does the 2 degree limit of Paris Agreement refer to, land only or land and ocean?

    2) isn't combining land and ocean a bit like adding apples and oranges?

    3) is the answer to 2) no more than the use of anomalies and the fact that the data in succeeding time intervals always come from the exact same locations, plus the fact it is useful to refer to a single number?

    4) is there anything else anyone can say that might me feel better about combined land and ocean data, as it seems a bit weird to me?

    Cheers

    in my e purpose of me posting this is an enquiry

  11. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    it always happens - a minute after I hit 'submit' I realized I had garbled some language myself so this correction is to avoid possibly leading anyone else astray or creating unnecessary side-tracks .. I had wrongly referred to "anomaly" as being a change from a baseline whereas I should have said "difference" .. subtle but open for misinterpreation  .. also to be fair then I checked Thesausrus provided by Word and sure enough one of the synonyms of "anomaly" it gives is "difference" so maybe it is not such an unusal use of language

  12. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:25 PM on 4 May 2018
    CO2 lags temperature

    mkrichew

    To expand on pscadden's comment. If CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were steady and temperatures were rising, then the ocean would be outgassing. That is basic chemistry from Henry's Law.

    However, since we are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, the need to equilibrate CO2 concentrations in the ocean and the atmosphere means that CO2 levels in the oceans need to rise. The temperature dependent aspect of Henry's Law is outweighed by the partial pressure dependency.

  13. KingInYellow at 17:14 PM on 4 May 2018
    The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    @nigelj

    When doing my course we also used the Barry & Chorley book, and mine was 5th edition ~1988 (it's in storage as I am between houses) and once again made no mention of a potential cooling instead focusing on the basic physics as you would expect.

  14. CO2 lags temperature

    mkrichew - the first graph (Fig 1) is cyclic in sense that it is the superposition of the 3 Milankovich cycles. These orbital cycles affect climate by making large variation to insolation around 65N, affecting the albedo by changes in snow cover which in turn sets up other feedbacks. However, they only came to affect climate when CO2 dropped below 400ppm (long term geological sequestration). They dont do much in a warmer earth. Note also that those cycles are slow. A maximum change in forcing of around 0.25W/m2 per century at 65N compared with 1.66W/m2 per century from CO2 alone across entire whole globe.

    "I believe but could be wrong that the ocean is already warming and giving off more carbon dioxide than we do burning fossil fuels"

    Fortunately, you are wrong. The oceans are still net absorbers of CO2 and will continue to do so for centuries (ocean mixing takes a long time). Details in Ar5 chp 6.

  15. CO2 lags temperature

    This has probably been said but the first graph looks cyclic to me. Also, the graphs have been correlated to two other scientific phenomena, oxygen isotope ratio variation and extinctions. The point is, climate change has happened before and likely will happen again. Check out the Mike Krichew theory of what causes ice ages on my facebook page. If my theory is correct and the IPCC has pretty much proved the first part of it, then unless you want to spend money on cooling the ocean and removing CO2 from the air then we are going to see what global warming is. I believe but could be wrong that the ocean is already warming and giving off more carbon dioxide than we do burning fossil fuels. Folks, the ship has sailed or the train has left the station. We are going to find out the results of what we started.

  16. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    Thanks Wol for the clarification. I changed "altitude" to "elevation". For those interested, here is a link explaining the different elevations used in aviation.

  17. David Kirtley at 11:17 AM on 4 May 2018
    The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    That's very interesting, nigelj.

    I have a Putnam's Geology from my college days in the mid-80's. Published 1982, so it too should represent "1970s" science. It says a little bit about possible causes of past ice ages, and discusses other factors like CO2 and dust/aerosols impacting climate, but there's next to nothing about a "cooling consensus" or a future ice age.

  18. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    >>The altitude of an airplane landing on a runway is only useful if measured relative to the ground, and not to sea level.<<

    It behoves someone writing about the interpretation of words to get his own interpretations correct!

    "Altitude" in the context of that quote IS actually measured with respect to sea level - the distance between the aircraft and the runway is "height".

    (Tongue in nit-picking cheek.)

  19. The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    When I was at university in the early 1980's I did a few papers in physical geography, among other subjects. I still have one of the introductory text books "Atmosphere, Weather and Climate, Barry and Chorley, 1971 edition, reprinted 1975, so written right at the time of the supposed global cooling consensus.

    There's absolutely nothing in this text about any cooling consensus, or anything similar. If there was such a thing, it would probably have got a mention. The authors talk about the post 1940s cooling period, and they say it remains to be seen if its temporary or continues, and they present no consensus or predictions either way.

    The climate denialists rush together distorted, cherrypicked studies hoping nobody will check. They aren't interested in facts and the complete picture, only in finding ammunition. They use the same tactics as lawyers, including long superficially intimidating lists, but all hollow inside.

  20. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    mbryson - love it! Maybe I will buy that beachside holiday house after all :-).

    That is an excellent analogy.

  21. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    So you're telling me that sea level at the end of the ice age only increased by a factor of about .00002 (relative to the centre of the earth)?  Why would anyone worry about that?

  22. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    “From ~1880 to 2013 temperature increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%). If this is true, to me it means that the temperature has been amazingly stable.”

    No it hasn't, because that 0.3% change has happened in a very short part of human history so its not stable from humans point of view, and what we are adapted to.

    Gaiver must know this, so is being deliberately obtuse probably for political reasons. For proof he does work for the Heartland Institute, and talks in their language.

    The analogy is the article is very good.

  23. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Every one of us does motivation reasoning. Also known as rationalization. Highly intelligent people are just especially good at devising very complex support for what they want to believe.

    Visiting a highly intelligent person in prison to try and help with his drug problem really brought this home to me. You had to work very hard to spot the loose links in his chains of logic - which naturally concluded that drugs werent an issue for him - just his choice same way other people drank coffee - and that it was everyone else at fault.

    Scientists are not immune so no matter how much you believe your conclusions are data-driven, you still need peer-review.

  24. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    A friend on facebook forwarded Giaever's talk.  I told him it shouldn't take someone 5 minutes of their time to find such a massive mistake. I refer people to this graph of the last 400,000 years of global temperature, CO2, and sea level, point out that the depths of the last ice age was only 3.3 C (6F) cooler than present, and then ask them if having Chicago under a mile of ice was a significantly different climate than present and, if so, why wouldn't 3 C warmer than present also be a difficult adaptation to make?

  25. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Knaugle, S Vedantum has indeeed written a book on the hidden brain, but he's a journalist and electronics engineer, not a psychologist, so I would be cautious about accepting absolutely everything he says. Its an interesting book worth a read, but thats as far as it goes.

    The point is really not that we are all perfectly rational, because we aren't. The point is we clearly differ in how rational we are.

    Understand that the article I originally quoted is saying low intelligence assocates with conspiracy thinking, but that high intelligence people can sometimes be accepting of conspiracy theories also, because some high intelligence people are poor rational thinkers.

    "Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am." You prove my point exactly. Scott Pruitt is intelligent enough but says and does stupid irrational things and believes agw is all a hoax for example.

    Its clear many climate denialists are conspiracy thinkers. Of course many are also influenced by politics, it's not an either / or thing.

    The research I quoted showing as association between conspiracy theorists and low intelligence and / or poor rational thinking skills has been replicated many times, heres another relevant article on the research.
    .

  26. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    One doubts that the average TV meterologist will actually be equiped or have the time to put weather events in the context of climate.  At best they may be able to make a statement such as this storm is within the top quartile with respect to the amount of rain dumped in a given period or something similar.  Besides, only when they collect a bunch of events and compare them with the historical record will their comments gain a modicum of scientific respectability.  Hopefully they will have a climatologist on tap to make relevant statments for the TV presenters to use.

  27. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4lXjcnEOnB0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  28. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Under the Trump administration, the EPA has moved closer than at any point in its history to serving the needs of the entities it regulates rather than the agency's mission to serve the public, a new report in the American Journal of Public Health says.

    => Pruitt's EPA Is on the Verge of 'Regulatory Capture', Study Says

  29. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters, a former "Hurricane Hunter" crew member, co-founded The Weather Underground, Inc. in 1995 while working on his Ph.D.  In the meteorology community, he was an early supporter the findings of climate science that indicated that AGW/CC (Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate
    Change) was a looming disaster for human civilization.from   Jeff was among the minority of meteorologists for many years

    One of the subset of blogs at Weather Underground for several years was that of University of Michigan climate scientist and mitigation planner Dr. Ricky Rood.  I participated at the Rood blog for several years, discussing science and doing battle with hard-core AGW/CC denialists, even as I continued to study climate science.  I even took an online course (MOOC) in basic climate science from Canada's University of British Columbia.  

    Unfortunately, the Rood climate blog was discontinued a couple of years ago when IBM purchased Weather Underground for its weather analysis products.  Fortunately, even though it does not produce a "revenue stream"  Jeff Masters and his climate communication associate Bob Henson, continue to blog there - and they frequently discuss climate and AGW/CC. 

    During my years of participation at Dr. Rood's blog, I became acutely aware that, based on surveys, a majority of broadcast meteorologists were firmly in the "AGW/CC denialist" camp.  Along with the engineering community, these were two major groups of science-based professionals that we should be able to convince with science and logic.  But logic be damned, these professionals stubbornly resisted science and fact-based reality for many years.  (Unfortunately, broadcast meteorologists - if they want to keep their jobs - are bound by the direcives of their employers to toe the corporate line and ignore AGW/CC - or treat it as a false alarm.)  

    It is great to see this significant change in the participation of broadcast meteorologists in the AGW/CC discussion.  They probably reach and influence more laypersons than any other group, and are critical to informing the public of the reality of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change. 

    Engineers are another issue.  Although they do not communicate daily with the public like broadcast meteorologists, many are still vocal in their denialism.  Plus, it is an unfortunate reality that many engineers think that they and their technoogies can fix almost any problem - including AGW/CC.  Engineering and technology solutions can generate massive revenue for corporations, so their proponents tend to ignore or overlook societal impacts and other externalities.  Again, basic human nature makes us want to ignore or deny anything that would have a negative impact on our lives and economic well-being.  Therefore many people will eagerly jump on the promises of technological solutions, adding yet more resistance to the unequivical necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emission.  

    But that is a "whole 'nuther problem" - and I am very happy to see the positive changes in the broadcast meteorology community. 

  30. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    18 states are now suing the EPA over the arbitrary changes made under the Trump appointed Scott Pruitt.

    California, 17 other states sue Trump administration to defend Obama-era climate rules for vehicles

  31. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    If you've read this far down into the Comments section, chances are you will be interested in the following post about Paul Douglas, one of the most respected weather forecasters who spoke out on Climate Change.

  32. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    I watch the Weather Channel quite a bit and have yet to see anything other than a passing comment concerning climate and that is quite rare.  As for IQ being a reason for denial I don't encounter that.  What I see in discussions from deniers is 100% politics.  I can't enter a discussion, not even mentioning a person or anything political, and immediately get called a liberal.

  33. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    #1

    I would be very hesitant to say that those who believe climate change is a hoax have a lower IQ.  As for motivation to be rational?  There is a radio personality on USA Public Radio, Shankar Vedantum, whose book "The Hidden Brain"  points to much evidence that most of us are far less rational than we think.  Most of us have deeply held beliefs we have clung do for decades.  Something as feeble as "facts" is not about to change that! 

    Only when you come to accept that that is the case can one move beyond one's personal biases.  It has very little to do with relative intelligence.  Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am.  This is something to bear in mind  when talking with a "true believer".

  34. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Dr Ivar Giaever is a Nobel laureate who believes that global warming is a religion of sorts. So when an uninformed person is getting information from a person like Dr. Giaever, it can be confusing to determine what is the truth.

    Meteorologists are important scientific ambassadors in this respect, but they also risk losing their jobs if they speak up too much on what is still a very controversial subject. We need to respect and support the effort and risk they are making by speaking up.

  35. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Scaddenp @28

    I think it would be shades of grey on these moral foundation attributes in general. My personal observation is liberals do respect authority, loyalty and purity, but perhaps not as much as conservatives, and liberals are prepared to challenge authority and the accepted wisdom more than conservatives, and while conservatives do have more respect for authority in a general sense, this is not always the case - for example Obama was not too popular with conservatives, and neither are scientists, and they are a type of authority. Clearly then moral foundations can supersede each other, or can be somewhat ad hoc. However the basic moral foundation theory sounds very compelling to me.

    However conservatives do seem to loathe protesters especially when it leads ro tresspass or property damage, and the scruffy dress maybe offends the purity value. Liberals accept pushing the boundaries of the law, but not to the extent of deliberate property destruction, only to the extent of obtaining information or making a point, which often seems reasonable to me. It's good to see a theory behind this sort of thing.

    A lot of this is surely also about exactly how things are defined, and defining freedom is a case in point. Conservatives do seem to conflate freedom and selfishness, although ultimately I suppose it could be argued they are the same things in the sense complete freedom is the right to do absolutely anything. Yet clearly conservatives do not actually believe in that, as they are strong advocates for property law for example which limit freedom. It almost seems that conservatives are defining freedom as whatever their own form of preferred set of laws law says at some point in time, as opposed to some wider philosophical interpretation.

    And people apply double standards to freedom, for example they want to be free do do what they like in the name of "freedom" but they certainly do not apply the same standard to other people, who they say should face restrictions, and this can apply to the exact same activity, or different activities. An example of the later is conservatives to do not believe, in the main that people should be free to take drugs, yet they do sometimes believe business should be free to sell products that demonstrably cause toxic environmental effects. Double standards and irrationality abound.

    Of course some of this double standard applies to liberals at times, because although they don't promote freedom as strongly as a core value in moral foundation theory, they certainly have many views that involve questions of having freedom, for example they promote use and availability of medicinal cannabis, to name a recent example, while wanting various other activities restricted. However perhaps its not a double standard, as  it seems to me Liberals do apply certain tests related to freedom, and question whether an activity is having a tangible and harmful effect on other people. Conservatives seem to have other criteria harder to comprehend.

    Clearly your gun ownership dilemma is a good example of how trade offs are made on these moral foundation principles, and for conservatives it seems complicated, where for liberals the idea of fairness is clearly at the top of the hierarchy of values so is a clear lens for everything. So for liberals its fair people own guns for sensible purposes , but not fair on society as a whole that just anyone can buy any sort of gun. Or perhaps liberals would say "not rational". However I'm speculating.

    Regarding freedom, there's an article on wikipedia titled "reactance (psychology)" and there's empirical evidence for it. Imho it seems like it might be a dominant conservative trait and explains distaste for certain things.

    "Reactance is a motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away their choices or limiting the range of alternatives."

    "Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion. People using reverse psychology are playing on reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request."

  36. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????

    The Camp 2007 link is dead and should be fixed. Here's a working archived copy.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Hyperlinked links breaking page formatting and updated link.  Thanks!

  37. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Moral foundation theory would say that liberals only pay attention to Care and Fair dimensions whereas Conservative also play with Authority, Loyality and Purity. Conservatives do respect care and fair, but balance those against the other dimensions as well. Freedom is also postulated as a moral foundation which would figure more heavily in conservative evaluation, though I find its actual practise in a moral argument hard to distinguish from a rationalisation for selfishness. Depends a bit I guess on whether someone is prepared to value others freedom of action as highly as their own; and how they would value freedom against possible harm to others (violation of care). Gun control debate in USA possibly says something about that.

  38. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Scaddenp @25, it's hard to argue with what you are saying on morality. An inconvenient truth would have been better filmed by someone more neutral like national geographic, but too late now. History is a messy, untidy process.

    However it all goes both ways. Conservatives also need to respect liberal morality a bit more as well.

  39. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    The rats are leaving the sinking ship, it could be a very different political picture for the Trump WH next year.

    Republicans who won't be coming back to Congress after 2018 midterm elections

    It's entirely possible there will be a number of Trump officials who will find themselves in prison over their actions of the last couple of years including Scott Pruitt. And possibly Trump himself.

    At which point the process of rebuilding the EPA and US government itself can begin.

  40. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    I find it astounding in the video that some people are still stupid enough to genuinely believe "climate change is a hoax", however this research gives some understanding of why. It finds conspiracy believers either have lower IQ, or lack a strong motivation to be rational. 

    And its great meteorologists are spreading awareness, and they are in a perfect position to bust open denialist myths that conflate weather and climate.

  41. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Regarding conspiracy thinking and related claims climate change is a hoax. Came across this interesting research. 

    “We show that reasonable skepticism about various conspiracy theories and paranormal phenomena does not only require a relatively high cognitive ability, but also strong motivation to be rational,” Ståhl, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explained in a statement."

    So belief in conspiracies and possibly hoaxes is essentially lazy thinking! Who would have thought.

    Profile of climate denialist: Politically motivated, vested interests, conspiracy theorest and irrational lazy thinker.

  42. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    Industry Sway Over EPA Is Stronger Now Than Under Reagan, Study Says by Neela Banerjee, InsideClimate News, May 1, 2018

  43. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Pristine air, as provided by wind turbines and solar panels, creates far more wealth than the continuing use of fossil fuel.  The problem from the point of view of the congress-critters (love that definition) is that the wealth is spread around through the population and doesn't go into the hands of the vested interersts that finance them.  There is one and only one solution to this and a mirad of other problems.  http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

  44. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    I want to point out one obvious thing.  No 3rd world govts or organizations, have joined this discussion at all, saying "please don't do anything about global warming because it would kill our people". 

    Only entities other than those representing the worlds poor, have definitely become aware of this discussion and have commented.  I could only speculate why. 

  45. It's too hard

    What do you think of Drawdown.org.  They have listed the "top 100 solutions to global warming".  This raises many interesting questions which have been mentioned on the thread.  I did a search of the website name on your site and it seems there has not been a discussion of it, so I have brought it up. 

    Interesting among the top 100 solutions to global warming are some observations here: 

    - the top 1 is to improve management of refrigerants, 2nd is to build more on shore large turbine windmills

    - nuclear power is on the list, it is higher than halfway up the list

    - many of the top 10 items refer to agriculture and food, and imply less meat eating.  Many other items refer to clever uses of grazing animals. 

    - many curious, fascinating items are on the list which I had not heard of

    It seems to me that in the future, the global warming debate will be more about politicking over which solution deserves the funding.  Those who would in the future argue that clean coal and nukes should get all the funding, should be denied credibility in those future debates, if their position at this time is denial*.  (*Regardless if they deny they are denying it while they deny it.)

  46. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Bozza @4

    "Dana, don't blame democracy: blame the consuming pig who demands a Hollywood lifestyle."

    Consumers are partly to blame, but the blame is at least partly with agencies that set weak environmental laws (eg Scott Pruitt). Without good environmental laws, do you seriously think human behaviour would change sufficiently? History shows it doesn't.

    Environmental law is ultimately an extension of property law to the planet as a whole, ie everyones property,  and is therefore totally legitimate.

    "The basic folly with democracy is that it assumes a leader can be chosen!!"

    Yes the trouble is heads of government agencies are often appointed by politicians, not the people. However there has been a tradition on both sides of politics of appointing reasonable people to head agencies. Trump has totally trashed this.

    "Do you honestly think Democrats are clean-skins?"

    Weak argument. Their behaviour in no way excuses White House and Republican failures, and the democrats certainly look cleaner anyway over the last decade. I'm an outsider in another country and political moderate looking in.

  47. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Dana, don't blame democracy: blame the consuming pig who demands a Hollywood lifestyle.

    The basic folly with democracy is that it assumes a leader can be chosen!!

    System corrupts man. 

    Do you honestly think Democrats are clean-skins?

  48. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    You know you're doing a bad job on protecting the environment and dealing with climate change when Bush era officials are critical of you.

    NASA Reaches for Muzzle as Renowned Climate Scientist Speaks Out

    "Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen's ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming."

    Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

    "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

    In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports."

    I guess the difference now is instead of just muzzling scientists and rewriting reports, the EPA under Trump is being destroyed from within. The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the ability to even regulate carbon dioxide emissions by gutting the agency responsible.

    This is also happening in other areas, Trump is often not even permanently staffing hundreds of key positions in government. In a sense he and his administration can be considered an anti-government.

    Trump Administration Has More Than 250 Unfilled Jobs

    "Hundreds of jobs remain unfilled in the Trump administration, and many are being held by temporary appointees. But a federal law limits how long those temps can serve, and many are bumping up against the end of their terms."

  49. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    I think on climate, the damage has already been done - debate polarised on political lines from which retreat is difficult. Science is only part of the language. Who promotes it is important (Al Gore for example) because most people do not have expertise to evaluate science argument so who you trust is more important. Activism for your cause which breaches law and/or societial norms puts you offside with conservative morality immediately. Worse still are those who see climate action as a chance to push transparently anti-capitalism or similar agendas with a scant regard to the science.

  50. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17

    william - more complicated than that. See here.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us