B. The Arctic will be ice free by 2013.
The first statement says that an ice free Arctic is possible by 2013.
The second statement expresses certainty that the first statement does.
1. Scientists are unsure about the exact details of why global warming has slowed.
2. Scientists have no idea why global warming has slowed.
One says that scientist don't know everything. The second statement claims that scientists know nothing.
I. Current temperatures are below the bottom predicted range of some climate models.
II. No climate models predicted current temperatures.
a. Scientists may have somewhat overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 concentration.
b. CO2 has no effect on temperatures.
That CO2 may have less effect on temperature than we thought =/= it has no effect on temperature
i. Snow will probably become increasingly rare.
ii. It will never snow again.
The first is something that people are actually saying. The second is a straw man argument.
I'll play ...
A. The Arctic may be ice free as soon as 2013.
B. The Arctic will be ice free by 2013.
A. is what a scare-mongering scientist would have said. B. is what Al Gore told the world.
1. Scientists are unsure about the exact details of why global warming has slowed.
2. Scientists have no idea why global warming has slowed.
2. is the truth. 1. is how they spin that truth to the media.
I. Current temperatures are below the bottom predicted range of some climate models.
II. No climate models predicted current temperatures.
II is more damning of models than I., but both are true.
a. Scientists may have somewhat overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 concentration.
b. CO2 has no effect on temperatures.
a. is true but I would omit "may". b. "may" not be true.
i. Snow will probably become increasingly rare.
ii. It will never snow again.
Not sure. Which one means: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"?
A. The Arctic may be ice free as soon as 2013.
B. The Arctic will be ice free by 2013.
The first is probabilistic the second is definitive. Probabilistic statements cannot be falsified while definitive ones can.
____
1. Scientists are unsure about the exact details of why global warming has slowed.
2. Scientists have no idea why global warming has slowed.
Pretty close. Unsure is to be uncertain of the facts (making "the exact details" in your first statement redundant). No idea is to be ignorant of something. I guess the second is a little stronger.
Wait a second, I thought global warming hasn't slowed?
____
I. Current temperatures are below the bottom predicted range of some climate models.
II. No climate models predicted current temperatures.
The first one is happening now and the second may happen soon.
____
a. Scientists may have somewhat overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 concentration.
b. CO2 has no effect on temperatures.
These could be equivalent if climate sensitivity is zero. However, I doubt that is true.
Wait a second, sensitivity has been overestimated?
____
i. Snow will probably become increasingly rare.
ii. It will never snow again.
The first one is a climate prediction made in the past by scientists who probably regret making it. The second is a statement that is falsified daily rendering it useless (similar to the world will end tomorrow).
Yes I can explain the difference between each pair. But you have failed in your asking, which you normally don't do. Climate sensitivity MAY HAVE been SOMEWHAT overestimated. What's with all the hemming and hawing, and for a multiple choice test?
Now why are scientists and their reps in the press selling these 'maybe' stories?
One shows how ambiguous and not settled the science is which gives plenty of reason to be skeptical; the other are excuses alarmist hold in their minds to dismiss the already valid reasons we have to be skeptical.
Hi there!
*yawn & stretch* please allow me to "barge in" it seems a customary thing here. Big Gryph sure sounds like a pious man, and yet he committed blasphemy against the established authorities of climate science regarding "surface" temperatures!
Hey, Mr Gryph, here is a collection of litanies for you:
Foster, G. and S. Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ. Res. Lett., 6, no. 044022, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.
Fyfe, J.C., N.P. Gillett, F.W. Zwiers, 2013: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, 3, pp. 767–769, doi: 10.1038/nclimate1972.
Guemas, V., F.J. Doblas-Reyes, I. Andreu-Burillo, et al., 2013: Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade. Nature Climate Change, 3, no. 7, pp. 649-653, doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1863.
Hunt, B.G., 2011: The role of natural climatic variation in perturbing the observed global mean temperature trend. Climate dynamics, 36, no. 3-4, pp. 509-521, doi: 10.1007/s00382-010-0799-x.
Kaufmann, R.K., H. Kauppi, M.L. Mann, et al., 2011: Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. PNAS, 108, no. 29, pp. 11790-11793, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108.
Kosaka, Y., S.-P. Xie, 2013: Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature, 501, no. 7467, pp. 403-, doi: 10.1038/nature12534.
Lean, J.L., D.H. Rind, 2009: How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?
Geophysical Research Letters, 36, no. 15, doi: 10.1029/2009GL038932.
Meehl, G.A., J.M. Arblaster, J.T. Fasullo, et al., 2011: Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Climate Change, 1, no. 7, pp. 360-364, doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1229.
Meehl, G.A., A. Hu, J.M. Arblaster, et al., 2013: Externally Forced and Internally Generated Decadal Climate Variability Associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. J. Climate, 26, no. 18, pp. 7298-7310, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1.
Meehl, G.A., H. Teng, 2012: Case studies for initialized decadal hindcasts and predictions for the Pacific region. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, art. no. L22705, doi: 10.1029/2012GL053423.
Santer, B.D. , C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P.J. Gleckler, T.M.L. Wigley, S. Solomon, N.P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, T.R. Karl, J.R. Lanzante, G.A. Meehl, P.A. Stott, K.E. Taylor, P.W. Thorne, M.F. Wehner, F.J. Wentz, 2011: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 116, no. D22, doi: 10.1029/2011JD016263.
Susan Solomon, Karen H. Rosenlof, Robert W. Portmann, John S. Daniel, Sean M. Davis, Todd J. Sanford, Gian-Kasper Plattner, 2010: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Science, 327, no. 5970, pp. 1219-1223, doi: 10.1126/science.1182488.
Toth, L.T., R.B. Aronson, S.V. Vollmer, et al., 2012: ENSO Drove 2500-Year Collapse of Eastern Pacific Coral Reefs. Science, 337, no. 6090, pp. 81-84, doi: 10.1126/science.1221168.
Trenberth, K.E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, no. 1, pp. 19–27, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.
Watanabe, M., Y. Kamae, M. Yoshimori, et al., 2013: Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, no. 12, pp. 3175-3179, doi: 10.1002/grl.50541.
Your second string is an error GW has not slowed You are starting to sound like a denier. The surface temp has slowed BUT the combined land and ocean temp is still rising. It is just that more heat is being absorbed by the oceans
yes
x. convicted felons may prefer to be known as "those who have had a difference of opinion with law enforcement"
y. it makes sense, as a general practice, to refer to convicted felons as "legal dissidents"
How about these?
It was all a load of bollox.
It really was a load of old bollox.
Another reading comprehension test for the "skeptics", though realists can, of course, chime in too. Can you explain the differences between the statements in each pair?
A. The Arctic may be ice free as soon as 2013.
B. The Arctic will be ice free by 2013.
1. Scientists are unsure about the exact details of why global warming has slowed.
2. Scientists have no idea why global warming has slowed.
I. Current temperatures are below the bottom predicted range of some climate models.
II. No climate models predicted current temperatures.
a. Scientists may have somewhat overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 concentration.
b. CO2 has no effect on temperatures.
i. Snow will probably become increasingly rare.
ii. It will never snow again.
