Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


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


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...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7

Posted on 20 February 2022 by BaerbelW

Listing of articles linked to on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, February 13, 2022 through Sat, February 19, 2022.

The following articles sparked above average interest during the week: Engineers are building bridges with recycled wind turbine blades, Guest post: Why does the Arctic warm faster than the rest of the planet?, What is the ‘social cost of carbon’? 2 energy experts explain after court ruling blocks Biden’s changes, Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people, and January 2022: Earth’s 6th-warmest January on record.

Articles Linked to on Facebook

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 45:

  1. Not a climate article but maybe of interest to the misinformation inoculation bubble here at SkS: (I can't judge quality, but since it's in nature ..).


    0 0
  2. Jonas @1 , thank you for the Nature  article, indicating the rather transient effect achieved by debunking/fact-checking misinformation.  It was perhaps a tad over-pessimistic.  It illustrates a sad amount of frailty in the human mind.

    Not quite exactly in the same line ~ but advertisers have long been aware of this problem.   Which is why they keep repeating their message over and over again . . . hamburger, hamburger, hamburger.   It's not just that they are afraid of the rival advertising from their competitor.

    0 0
  3. Eclectic @2.  So who is fact checking the fact checkers?

    0 0
  4. Santalives @3 ,

    if you were meaning "quis custodiet" . . . then the standard answer is:

    "It's turtles all the way down!"   ( I hope you remember that oldie.)

    Santalives, you appear to have abandoned your old playing ground in the thread: "SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?"   Perhaps it would be a good mental exercise for you, if you got your ideas in order there , before you go sighing for fresh worlds to conquer, on other threads.   One victory at a time, Alexander.

    0 0
  5. Ah eclectic,  you got me with the turtles reference, I had to look it up. 

    I don't like the idea of anybody fact checking what I can read, I can make up my own mind.  I might get it wrong but that's what a free society is all about.  Once you add in fact checkers you get censorship promoting propaganda. 

    it's not about victories but 1the search for truth. 

    0 0
  6. Santalives @5 , it is very clear that you need to get help from the experts who study climate science for years & decades.  You are failing to understand the topic.

    Read as much as you like, and then consult the experts.  In your heart, you know the experts are in 99+%  agreement exactly because they have all of the mountain of evidence backing them.

    The other <1%  have zero to back them ~ all they have is unicorn poo in a mare's nest  [look up mare's nest?]   Yeah, they talk big and confidently, but it's all schist [geologist's term].   If someone doesn't know much about climate science and logic  then you can easily have the wool pulled over your eyes [a Home Truth, eh].

    It's not about "freedom & censorship & propaganda"  ~ not unless you close your eyes and are desperate, really desperate, to avoid the scientifically obvious.

    Beware the Dunning-Kruger  attitude.   Hope you don't need to look that one up ~ and yes, it does mean making a turtle fool of yourself.

    Good luck with your climate search ~ and your inner search.  That Dunning-Kruger attitude can be a real bitumen [geologist's term].

    0 0
  7. Santalives @5,

    You boldly declare "I don't like the idea of anybody fact checking what I can read, I can make up my own mind ... it's not about victories but 1the search for truth."

    Yet this rather contradicts all the blather you were presenting in another thread in which you kicked-off insisting "To win the argument there has to be direct rebuttal of the articles (especially the peer reviewed) that are shredding climate science as nothing more than voodoo." You then contribute a further seventeen comments which provide a further contradiction to your position @5 as they demonstrate clearly that your reading of the literature does not in any way assist a "search for truth."

    0 0
  8. Ma Rodger @7.  and eclectic @6 not sure for the pile in but I must be hitting a nerve.  But staying on topic,  I am not comfortable, with with fact checkers checking censoring anyone including you guys.  Yes there does need to be specifc rebuttal,  because if you can't argue the other sides argument you have already lost. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly posts in violation of and ignoring the Comments Policy. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are NOT open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. 

    There will be NO further warnings issued.

  9. Santalives @8,

    Before you pile too much more into this thread, can you explain the difference between this "fact checking" which you consider is unnecessary (as you "can read" and thus "can make up [your] own mind," although if you "can read" I'm not sure how "fact checking" could be construed as being "censorship") and this "specific rebuttal" which you consider is necessary.

    0 0
  10. Santalives ,  what is  "the other side" ?  (unquote).  You still haven't shown you cards about that.   And there doesn't seem to be any actual hint that you have any ~ not even a bulge up your sleeve.  

    I myself have looked for such a "side" for years, but have never found it.  Nor has MA Rodger, who is far more knowledgeable & experienced in climate matters than I am.

    Sorry, but it is really impossible to see unicorn poo in a mare's nest.  Goshdarnit, ain't even a whiff, thar.  Despite all the talk and promises.

    Those "Contrarians"  [polite term used by geologists for Flat-Earthers]  have got nothing to back them up.   Zilch.   And it is passing strange that someone as clever as you, cannot recognize that.   Why do you think that is?

    Santalives, you'll have to do better.  You've bounced onto SkS , full of ginger & self-confidence . . . and you haven't produced anything ~ no logic, no evidence, nothing, nada.   And all you've given us is empty words.   And you are blaming SkS  for your own failures.

    If you have a genuine card, then play it.  What are you waiting for ?

    0 0
  11. @rodgers@9

    We donot need fact checkers period, like those setup by google, Facebook and the like to supress facts based on what they decree and any contra view is  disinformation and requires  censorship.  Rebuttal is where we go back and forth to argue our view of the facts.  I am not trying to supress yours, actually I welcome it. But if you think the only way to win an argument is use a 3rd party fact checker to suppress that argument then you actually have lost.

    But back to that article it makes the point if you take someone and provide them with alternative facts they will initially believe them but over time they revert back to  their believe in the original facts.  So why is that?  I would suggest overtime they work out for themselves what  is the correct facts and what is not and no amount of alternative fact propaganda will change that position permantly.   So to solve that annoying problem of people thinking for themselves we insert the fact checker to supress any alternative facts.  Read 1984 anyone. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Sloganeering snipped.

  12. Santalives @11 ,  what is all this waffle of yours about suppression ?   Facebook, Truth Socialist, Twitter, and the Prairie Home Companion Journal  (headquartered at Lake Wobegon) and suchlike, are all quite irrelevant to the question you seem to be trying to ask.   And when it comes to the field of science, there's no suppression in journals ~ even for complete rubbish.   You've seen that evidence with your own eyes, with the case of the deluded Prof. K.  (who is otherwise a nice anthropos).

    Is SkS trying to suppress WUWT ?    No.   When the scientists at SkS  look at WUWT , the only thing the scientists are trying to suppress . . . is laughter.

    0 0
  13. Santalives @11,

    I fear you are verging on the incoherent with this comment @11.

    There are places on the internet where "censorship" is in operation (or proposed) to remove fake facts. Such removal requires "fact checking" to know what is fake and what is real. You go on to describe such "fact checking" as suppressing argument and that any use of such suppression forfeits the argument to those whose argument is thus suppressed. But such "censorship" is a very narrow interpretation of "fact checking" and your comment suggests you not only consider such "censorship" should not be used, but it cannot be used.

    Rebuttal is not a "back and forth to argue our view of the facts" but a one-way process. You seem to consider that "facts" are not something that can be established but are things that could (& perhaps should) contradict each other. Thus you happily talk of "alternative facts" and of "original facts" and proclaim "I would suggest overtime they work out for themselves what is the correct facts and what is not and no amount of alternative fact propaganda will change that position permantly."

    This website is called Skeptical Science because it addresses the science and in such a forum there is stuff that is obviously correct and other stuff that is plain wrong. And while there is also stuff that has not been classified yet as either correct or wrong, there is no equivalent of "a free society" where wrong stuff is acceptable.
    And thus within science, "fact checking" in the form of a rebuttal (and what you might feel is "censorship") not only can be used but should be used.

    Finally, perhaps you should re-read "that article" Carey et al (2022) as you badly misrepresent what it says.

    0 0
  14. @Santalives #11

    As you are commenting on one of my blog posts, I'll chime in. Skeptical Science is in the business of fact checking, hence our big list of rebuttals of often heard misinformation related to climate change. We also publish resources to give facts a fighting chance against misinformation and repost interesting articles about critical thinking from the website Thinking is Power. Give them a read, if only to avoid the pitfalls of doing your own research which you've been rather prone to thus far based on many of your comments!

    0 0
  15. When I see "alternative facts," the reasoning of the one using the concept immediately falls under suspicion. How did that even become a concept? There are facts. Some are important, others not. They can be relevant, or not, are part of a context, but how can they be alternative? The bullshit wars have taken a toll...

    0 0
  16. Philippe @15,

    I encounter a similar problem regarding the use of the term Ethical.

    Seems that these days some people consider Ethical to mean "complying with 'their' interpretations of a set of rules, with or without a version of the word 'ethical' in the title of the rules".

    People also claim that if something cannot be proven "conclusively to their satisaction" to have been done or harmful then it wasn't done or harmful. And when they are presented (confronted from their perspective) with evidence of harm done that they want to excuse, they will argue that their perception of the benefits obtained outweights 'their perception of the harm done'. That is the classic flawed utilitarian argument that the Greater Good is being achieved "as they see it". And everybody's perception is an equally valid alternative perception will be claimed if necessary. ANd the need to compromise understanding to suit everyone's perception becomes the 'pragmatic centrist' thing to do.

    That leads to needing "alternative facts", or whatever else needs to be claimed to maintain the harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful actions they have developed a liking for.

    0 0
  17. @Eclectic 10. I joined this site to try ask some questions and learn something.  But can't say many responses are helpful or nice that for matter.  Not sure what the story is with the moderator but fairly sure if I said 1/2 the things that have been directed at me I would get punted. 

    what card do you want me to play.   don't have any knock out evidence about anything  but I have learnt that neither side does, which is why we seem to have the never ending debate.  But it's not actually a debate any more but each side (and there are more than 2) simply accuses the other of disinformation.  I have to admit the content over at wuwt seems to better researched and presented then here.  So if this is a propaganda war they seem to winning. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Moderation complaints snipped.

    You can start by reading the Comments Policy. In particular, you can look at what it says about moderation complaints:

    All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted

    Your general behavior here is been confrontational and unproductive. Many of your earlier claims, such as "the science isn't settled", are so common that this site has a list of such claims and why they do not hold water. The top 10 are listed on the upper left of every page you read here, and the entire list is linked under the "View All Arguments" text.

    You have claimed you don't need "fact checkers" because you can decide for yourself. Nearly every post that you have made here provides lots of evidence that you do not have the skills to tell the difference between crap and actual climate science.

    You have shown no evidence that you have actually read and understood any material provided on this site, and you have repeatedly failed to engage on actual science discussions that others have attempted to provide.

    The fact that you look at this as starting with "two sides" shows that you come into this with baggage that perverts your ability to judge the science.

    First, you need to un-learn much of what you think you know about "climate science", and then start learning again.

    The simple fact is that none of your posts here have presented any new information or argument. The regulars here have seen it all before, and seeing it all again just gets tiresome.


  18. Santalives @17 :  <" I joined this site to ask some questions and learn something.">   [unquote]

    Okay . . . that's why most people come to SkS.   Reading through the [Home Page]  sections : Newcomers Start Here  and  The Big Picture  gets you off to a good start.   And if you have some particular  points of interest, then there's a huge list of Most Used Climate Myths  with all sorts of good stuff (even too, in their comments columns ~ though often lengthy).   [ by the way, the WattsUpWithThat  blogsite is disorganized & useless for anyone wishing to learn . . . at any level ! ]

     And you can enter into many comments columns [as you have]  for more questions/discussions.   But, Santalives, a Home Truth is that you yourself have been (repeatedly)  doing the Hurt Innocence and Playing Tonto act.   It fools nobody.

    What card do you want me to play?   ~Anything that is to do with climate science, which you seem to think is somehow faulty.  I have asked you many times to play a card.

    <"  [I] don't have any knock out evidence about anything but I have learnt that neither side does, which is why we seem to have the never ending debate. ">   [unquote]

    ~ In other words, Santalives, you don't know anything about the climate subject, and you are absolutely sure that nobody else does either.   Bravo, amigo mio.  Bravo.   Sounds like you would fit in well at WUWT.   Plenty of folks to see there ~ angry folks, who don't know and don't want to learn.    [ WUWT  is basically a site for venting anger, and sour grapes, and for stoking outrage.  That sort of stuff keeps the click rate high !  ]

    btw, Santalives, I am often observing at WUWT.   Let me know what handle you have there, and I can pay closer attention.  And keep an eye out for an old friend of mine there.  Surname six letters, starting with Z.  Usually he is just angry . . . but occasionally he states that he was abused & expelled from SkS.   Unsurprisingly, that's a complete "porkie".

    Best of luck, Santalives.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Santalives will be subject to more aggressive moderation from here on in, and I would encourage the others to wait a bit and hold off on responding to him.

    I will leave this post intact for now, but I would tell Santalives to follow the links suggested by Eclectic, as Santalives really, really needs to show evidence that he can read, understand, and learn from the material available here if he wants to continue to comment here.

  19. @electic. 18.  I don't have a handle over ar wuwt.  This is the only CC site I have ever signed up too.  I was hoping it would provide a robust discussion of CC especially around the more controversial issues.  I have read nearly everyone of the Climate Myth and many of the comments.  They are less than convincing, not sure if it's the age of articles or the comments you read which start 15 years ago. ( useful feature would  be able to sort comments by date).

    For an article in point Which is discussed on today's wuwt, this is the sort I thing I thought sks would provide the alternative view on.  But I suspect the comments will be to trash the authors, the publication or dismiss it on the grounds its settled science. It's the latter is probably the most frustrating.  I watched the Rogan interviews with Nonien and the Dressler.  Worth a watch and will let you decide who is more credible. 


    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Of course, the comments are sorted by date - from oldest to newest. That is the sequence in which the conversations take place. If this is a difficult concept for you to follow, then it is no surprise that you have such difficulty in following the science.

    As for you claim that you have read nearly every one of the Climate Myths - that claim requires evidence, and you have provided none. Suitable evidence would be to add a comment on one of the articles you question - i.e., on a place where it is on topic.

  20. The "article in point" claims this: "In fact, the
    climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to
    800ppm is calculated to be 0.45 Kelvin."

    However, there has already been over 1 degree  of temperature increase compared to pre-industrial, with the concentration going from 290 ppm to 400 ppm and we are nowhere near equilibrium for 400, which would take some time.

    I did not see in the paper a competing explanation for the measured increase. I also did not see why exactly they believe that all the rest of the litterature that concludes the equilibrium sensitivity for a doubling of pre-industrial concentration is around 3 degrees is wrong.

    The argument against feedbacks is not very detailed and amounts to little more than hand-waving. It flies in the face of an extensive body of research into the glacial/interglacial transitions associated with Milankovitch cycles. 

    At first glance, I am not very impressed. Hopefully, more qualified commenters will look into it. I am also not sure about the publication where this piece appeared.

    0 0
  21. "the content at WUWT seems to be better researched."

    That is the funniest thing I have read in a while. People like me who have been following this non-debate for a long time know better.

    WUWT is the site where the superbly absurd idea that excess CO2 fell back on Antarctica as carbonic snow was presented, and bitterly defended by the peanut gallery, even after multiple posts showing the phase diagram of CO2 and emphasizing the importance of partial pressure. Finally, someone could beat some sense into Anthony Watts' head, and made him realize that he had better take this off the site if he wanted any appearance of credibility. It is still accessible through the wayback machine, I believe.

    The very premise of WUWT existence was the following: there is no warming, it is all an artefact of poorly designed temperature reporting stations, and the whole thing might even be intentional (insert ominous music).

    This theory was successfully challenged on multiple occasions: first by a John V, who did a quick analysis of the high quality stations showing no significant difference with the major other datasets. Then, there was the BEST project, led by Richard Muller, who somehow lent credence to the concerns of some so-called "skeptics." At the time this effort was launched, Watts solemnly swore that he woud accept the conclusions. That enthusiasm evaporated (another feedback perhaps?) when the conclusions were released, confirming what the other datasets were already showing. Then, some NOAA researchers published a paper reaching, again, the same conclusions. Then, after much, much time, Watts himself participated in a research paper that essentially redid what the NOAA researchers had done, and reached the same conclusions again, but he pulled a "Spencer" by still making some vacuous argument that, in some way, he could still be right. 

    Over time, of course, the continued warming forced it to go silent about the very hypothesis that caused its existence in the first place, but there was never any shortage of new spots where other goal posts could be moved. It has now evolved and received help from people who managed to give it a better appearance. Nonetheless, it is still the same motivated reasoning machine that it always was. 

    0 0
  22. Santalives @19 ,  it is always a fine day for me when I come across two good jokes in a day.    (A) The first is that you say you've read "nearly every one of the [over 200]  Climate Myth and many of the comments."   And how you felt that the comments were not arranged by date.   Thank you for your personal revelations in these matters.   Difficult to top.

    (B) The second joke: was the David Coe et al., paper which you linked to @ WattsUpWithThat  blogsite.   Hilarious.   Even your paper by the good professor Koutsoyiannis looks half-way sane in comparison.

    Santalives, sit down and put your thinking cap on.   As Philippe Chantreau [above]  says, the Coe paper is wildly . . . wildly . . . inconsistent with everything that's within arm-reach of conventional climate science.   IIRC, only the good Lord Monckton has ever come out with a similar figure to Coe's ultra-low 0.5K figure for total climate sensitivity to CO2.   And Monckton seems to produce  new & wildly high/low ECS figures annually (but with a strong bias toward Zero).

    Now, I've looked through the WUWT  assessment of the Coe paper.   Not encouraging, at all.   As usual, a number of commenters there deny that CO2 absorbs radiation and/or deny that there is any GreenHouse Effect whatsoever.   At my own time of writing [>80 comments]  no expert scientist has appeared to make comment at WUWT .   Especially no climate scientist.   Yes, that is the usual lofty standard of scientific analysis at WUWT .

    #  However, Santalives, if you scroll down to a couple of comments by Rud Istvan [an intelligent & well-informed guy, if you make allowance for his bad case of motivated reasoning on climate] . . . you will find he shows that some semi-respectable "contrarian" scientists such as Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen give a climate sensitivity of 1.1 - 1.2 for CO2 alone [without the large additional feedback from H2O ].

    'Nuff said.   The Coe paper you mentioned is simply garbage.    Santalives, please remember the acronym GIGO  ~ where sometimes you see the Garbage going In . . . and sometimes (e.g. with Coe et al., ) you see the Garbage coming Out.

    #  Oh, Santalives, I did come across a joke yesterday :

    "My math teacher really hated negative numbers.  Hated them.  He would stop at nothing to avoid them."

    0 0
  23. Eclectic, @22

    If you read what I wrote it was it would be useful if comments could be sorted by date. That way you could read the latest comments rather than start with stuff from a decade ago.  But glad you thought that's funny. 

    Not sure about Rud, his very first statement is:

    Figure 13 is wrong, casting all that follows in doubt

    When asked why, his answer is

    I dunno why or how figure 13 is wrong.

    Then goes off quoting some other paper from 12 years ago.

    Anyway as Philipe Chantreau said here's hoping something with some knowledge on the subject will enlighten us all.


    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Please buy a clue. You can read the most recent comments on a thread by starting at the end. Your expectation that someone else work to sort the material into a convenient order for your taste is a strong indication of you wlilingness to do any work yourself.

    ...and 12 years ago is recent, in a scientific discipline that goes back to the 1800s. The current science is built on a solid foundation, and if you fail to consider that foundation when examining the current science, you end up believing all sorts of clap-trap.

    As stated previously, you have huge amounts of learning to do. You have provided zero indication that you have read, and understood, any of the material you claim to have knowledge of.


  24. Santalives @23 . . . very droll of you, again.   The SkS  comments column not being in a logical dated order, is something worthy of the Stephen Colbert  show.   (Does Stephen have a successor lined up yet?)

    And yes, Santalives, you should get a handle and jump right into the tepid . . . er, water . . . at the comments columns of WUWT .   You can then tell Rud Istvan (whose level of energy I respect)  that he should completely ignore all published papers older than 12 months.   Tough  about Einstein and all that crew . . . but really, they were so yesterday's  fashions.   Thumbs up !

    Santalives, for a long time here, you have been asked to play a sensible card.   So far, all you've played are two Jokers  [Koutsoyiannis paper and Coe paper].    I would like to think that's that for now, and you are going to get serious.   But I am worried by the multi-deck sized bulge up your left sleeve.   ( Is it possible to buy a deck which is all Jokers?   ~Probably only at the WUWT  shop.)


    0 0
  25. Eclectic @24. I'm glad Rud Istvan is energetic but maybe he shouldn't being making statements like those quoted above and where he cannot explain himself other than point to other scientists who, he thinks because they are labelled deniers makes his rebuttal valid.  

      I thought the whole point of sks was to to provide rebuttal to evidence presented not play he said, she said.   Simply you said the paper is rubbish,  based on what?   Are any of the equations wrong? 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] This comment will will be left intact, as others have responded, but note that is violates several aspects of the comments policy, and would have been deleted entirely. Santalives is simply repeating his nonsense over and over again, without responding directly to any previous criticisms.


  26. Santalives @25 ,  I note that you still haven't played any valid card.

    As for the energetic Rud Istvan, you are mistaken.  He appears in many threads, often more than once, at WUWT.   He doen't need to explain everything, every time over, to you.   He often has something sensible to say (in contradistinction to perhaps 85%  of the run-of-the-mill WUWT  commenters).

    True, he's not a scientist nor a climate scientist.   He's more the case of an intelligent guy who's allowed himself to be torpedoed by his own emotions that are producing a bunch of motivated reasonings.   Sad.   But he's always worth reading, because he can come out with some useful information or some contrarian points worthy of consideration (if only briefly ! )

    #  Yes, Santalives, WUWT  is not quite a complete wasteland of cranks, conspiracist nutters, and luny political extremists.   It is possible to learn a bit at WUWT  ~ but you have to start with a solid knowledge of science, so you can immediately spot the all the garbage and faulty logic and self-delusion which so many WUWT  regulars keep recycling day after day and year after year.   So, Santalives, it wouldn't be genuinely useful to you in the slightest.   Sorry.   The WUWT  site is a disorganized mess, and a hopeless case for educating the novice.

    For myself reading WUWT , I have a quick skim through the Leading Articles (which are mostly a lot of sour grapes, designed to generate clicks).   Anything looking like it might be a bit scientific [though mostly these ones are recycled trash] . . . then I skim through the comments columns ~ trying not to read all the nauseating rubbish comments, and I look for the tiny number of regulars' names who might just be worth a consideration.   So scanning through is usually only taking a brief time !

    Santalives, if you want to educate yourself above the know-nothing level, then you'll need to do the bulk of the heavy lifting yourself.   Start at your zero level (where you seem incapable of judging good from bad)  and take one step at a time.   You cannot expect me or Rud Istvan to spend umpteen hours spoonfeeding you.   Especially when you are giving out a strong vibe that you are reluctant to learn . . . and reluctant to accept that anyone (scientist or denialist)  knows more than you.

    Good luck in improving yourself !

    0 0
  27. @Santalives #19

    We had received an email about the paper you mentioned and sent back the below as an initial reply. It contains some quick hints of what to check when encountering a paper to quickly judge it's credibility (or lack thereof):

    Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt.

    • Science Publishing Group, which publishes the "journal", is on Beall's list which is a collection of potentially predatory journals
    • The "journal" doesn't have/show an impact factor
    • less than 200 papers have thus far been published in it
    • judging by the time line - Received: Aug. 2, 2021; Accepted: Aug. 11, 2021; Published: Aug. 23, 2021 - not much (if any) proper peer review happened
    • non of the authors seems to have a background in climate science, two of them are retired from companies
    • questionable authors like William Happer and Herman Harde are listed in the references

    In addition, the authors appear to have made a common (or perhaps even deliberate?) error in evaluating the total greenhouse effect (which we know is much larger than the observed changes) instead of the change to the greenhouse effect (which is what matters in discussions of climate change).

    Hope this helps to put this publication into perspective!

    0 0
  28. Baerbelw @ 27.  Thanks for that response as you confirmed my hypothesis that rather there be any attempt at serious rebuttal @19 comments will be to trash the authors, the publication or dismiss it on the grounds its settled science


    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Note that in one of your earliest comments here, you mentioned a paper with "backscatter" in its title, and commented "The experiment is a fairly straight forward test of the physical properties of c02  to produce back scatter radiation.".

    To anyone with even a minor undergraduate-level understanding of the physics of CO2 and climate change, the use of the phrase "back-scatter" in this context shows an abysmal knowledge of how the greenhouse effect works in the atmosphere.

    In a comment on a climate science blog. it shows a level of ignorance that can be remedied by learning.

    On an undergraduate test, it would result a grade of zero on that question.

    In a "scientific" publication, it gives an immediate indication that the authors, reviewers (if there really were any) and editor are completely unqualified to to be writing about or publishing anything on CO2 and climate.

    Yes, in some cases it is easy to know that a "paper" is rubbish.

  29. Thanks, BaerbelW @28 , for those "identifiers".

    Amusing how Santalives wants a full-genome DNA analysis of "his" paper, even when the average guy (like me) can look at the paper and say :-  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . and lays a great big duck egg . . . then it is a duck.   No DNA test needed.    ;-)

    0 0
  30. @Santalives #28

    What in this caveat don't you (want to) understand?

    "Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt."

    Bottom line: The likelihood that the paper is correct is fairly small and it's fair game to point that out, lest some gullible people might fall for it. Some papers might warrant a proper response, others not so much if indicators like those listed point to it not being up to standards.

    0 0
  31. Santalives @28,
    You now present a third pile of nonsense here at SkS. At least you show a level of consistency. Coe et al (2021) 'The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures' is as ridiculous as the other two you presented. 

    Coe et al (2012) claims that it addresses the issue of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which, as is well known, has not been well-nailed-down by science for four decades now. So it would be quite a feat if there was even a smidgeon of promise in this paper to some contribution to the asssessment of ECS.
    I could set out why this is an entirely non-scientific paper that well deserves its place in the trash can but in your ignorance you would likely see this as "one side" being disrespectful to "the other side".

    So instead let me address what these numpties Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing that is so badly wrong.

    The crux of the ignorance presented within Coe et al (2012) begins to congeal in their Section 1.4. Here they derive entirely on their own** a value called “n” the “energy retention factor” given "a" the "atmospheric absorptivity" (or the proportion of surface radiation gets to space through a clear atmosphere. By using HITRAN to derive "a" (the calculated percentage of surface radiation that reaches space through that clear atmosphere), they derive "n" by balancing "a" against the radiation that has to reach space to balance the incoming solar warming.
    (**Note the one citation presented by the numpties for this grand work,  Wilson & Gea-Banacloche [2012], is a total misrepresentation.)

    The process they use runs as follows.

    If a black body of 288K (representing the surface temperature) was in equilibrium with today's absorbed solar energy which equates to a 255K black body, they calculate that the energy out into space would be just 61.5% of the 288K black body radiation.
    Thus, they derive for today's atmosphere (with a=a0) n.a0 = 38.5% of the surface radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere. However, they also calculate using the grown-up HITRAN database, that the transmission through today's clear atmosphere of such 288K black body radiation would be a0 = 73.0% allowing them to derive in their Section 2.7 a value for "n"; n = 52.7%.
    And this incredibly simplistic method allows all the sceintific effort over the last four decades attempting to derive accurate ECS values to be sidestepped. Even the complex impact of clouds on this finding is sweetly side-stepped because, as they tell us in their Section 5.1, clouds are already accounted for in the derivation of "n".

    And all this is their own work. No supporting evidence. What clever numpties are these Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb.

    Of course, there are feedback mechanisms to be negotiated and the numpties calculate (using simplistic assumptins) feedback values for water vapour (+18%) and the wavelength change in the radiation from a warmer world (-5%) with a net result feedback of (1.18 x 0.95 =) +12%.
    They then calculate the impact of differing levels of CO2 GHGs on the absorption of surface radiation through a clear atmosphere to calculate direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (400ppm to 800ppm) of +0.45ºC (when the science is irrefutably sure the value is +1.0ºC) and thus with a feedback of +12%, they can derive ECS = +0.5ºC (when the science says +1.5ºC to +4.5ºC).

    Of course, the GH-effect doesn't work in anything like the manner assumed by Coe et al (2012) so all these numpties Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing is advertising their own stupidity.

    0 0
  32. Santalives,

    It is possible that you have become one of the many unwitting victims of harmful misleading marketers. The following may help.

    I am an engineer. I learned to have the fundamental ethic of "pursuing increased awareness and improved understanding and applying what I learn to limit harm done and help develop lasting improvements for Others". But I have also learned that my work as a Civil Engineer, particularly my Structural Engineering work, divisively sets me apart from other Appliers of Science, especially the appliers of marketing science. My work powerfully motivates me to have that fundamental ethic govern over pursuit of popularity or profit. If I do not govern what I do that way "People will be far more likely to Die".

    I also have an MBA. So I understand the powerful motivation Others can develop. They will be powerfully tempted to allow pursuit of personal benefit (like popularity or profit) to govern over 'concerns to limit harm done or develop lasting improvements for Others'.

    As a Structural Engineer if I learn that an existing development is harmful or unsafe I am ethically obliged to push to have the use of the existing development be stopped until it can be made to be safe. Others who benefit from the risky harmful developments will resist the required corrections, because they do not want to suffer the loss of personal benefit that is associated with being governed to have safer, less harmful, developments.

    Many developed societies, especially the western capitalist ones (but certainly not exclusively western capitalist ones), can be understood to harmfully allow misleading marketing in pursuit of popularity or profit to govern over concerns for limiting harm done or compromise the understanding of what is required to limit harm done and develop lasting improvements.

    Misleading marketing is a powerful "Applied Science". And it is likely that you have, like so many others, developed your thinking, learned, while immersed in the influence of misleading marketing. I even notice other engineers who have been motivated away from governing their thoughts and actions base on limiting harm done and developing lasting improvements. The temptation to acquire more personal status relative to others is very powerful. And misleading marketers prey on that human vulnerability by producing and disseminating harmful misunderstandings that will be very tempting.

    Becoming aware of the temptation to be harmfully misled is an important first step. The next step is to learn to change your mind for Good Reason (to be less harmful and more helpful) so that you are less likely to be tempted to be harmfully misled by messages that appeal to your 'gut instinct' or 'developed personal preferred beliefs'. If I, or any other structural engineer, were to design structures based on 'gut instinct' or 'developed personal preferred beliefs' the results would likely be disastrous.

    I hope helps you appreciate the ways that others here have been trying to help you.

    0 0
  33. In my comment @32, there is an unstated, but undeniable, link to understanding the harm of rapid climate changes due to human activity.

    Structures are designed to safely resist expected climate conditions. If those climate conditions (such as wind speed, snow load, rain accumulation on roofs) change rapidly before the end of use of what has been built they can harmfully change the performance requirements, increasing the chance of a harmful outcome of items that were developed without consideration of the changed performance requirements.

    And developments that would be affected by sea level rise are also a concern 'from a Civil Engineer's perspective' of things like roads and sewers and surface run-off management, and concern a structural engineer if the higher water levels compromise the performance of the foundation.

    However, a more significant concern for harm done is likely the changes of climate conditions affecting developed regional agricultural practices. There are no guarantees that developed agriculture can adapt to climate changes. And growing conditions shifted to new regions can be very harmful to regional developed societies.

    And that leads to understanding the additional concerns for the harm of unsustainable industrial agricultural practices like heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, or reduced genetic diversity in agriculture. And deforestation and heavy use of fossil fuels in industrial agriculture development has the added harm of climate change impacts.

    And there is so much more 'developed activity' that is harmful and unsustainable, all excused by misleading marketing that promotes the popularity of harmful unsustainable pursuits of benefit in the short-term.

    0 0
  34. I thought that n factor looked funny. 

    I also thought that the publication looked suspicious. This is not a paper that I would ever had paid attention to, regardless of what it said.

    Explanation: After following this so-called debate for 20 years, digging in the "skeptics" (a qualificative they truly don't deserve) arguments and examining what is actually in the science litterature to the best extent of my abilities, I reached the conclusion that the weight of the scientific evidence points, without contest, to CO2 caused anthropogenic warming.

    However, that does not exonerate me from being critical toward any piece of information. If something as dubious, as low quality, poorly thought out as Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb came along in a publication with all the hallmarks of a pseudo-journal, but with a conclusion reinforcing the one I already reached, I would dismiss it as junk because, well, it is. 

    That is what being skeptical consists of. 

    I'm having serious doubts that Santalives is putting forth a sincere effort to evaluate information. 

    0 0
  35. MAR @31, thanks for going to that effort. It's interesing and your comments generally look right to me. The paper looks suspicious straight away because we have already had considerably more warming than their calculations suggest we should have had. However could you (or anyone else) perhaps explain in simpler laypersons terms why the n factor is flawed. If you have a spare moment.

    0 0
  36. MA Rodger @31.  Thanks for your response I thinks it the first time somone has actually refuted the science. But really name calling the authors  numpties.  I am an average guy reading these posts (like lots of others) trying to understand the issues, but will generally dismiss comments that start name calling.    Anyway I went over to wuwt which is having a lively debate and would warn anyone there is a very wide(weird) degree of views.  But one of the last posts refutes the article also but say the result is still bascially correct,  the basis for tha;

    The scope of this article is to outline how consensus assumptions violate logical restrictions and produce impossible outcomes. Whether an ECS of about 0.45K could somehow fit an extended “consensus range”, if something like it even exists, is not the question. Rather this estimate is based on the very same foundations the orthodoxy uses. The only difference is in the elimination of logical mistakes. And these mistakes are undeniable.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] No, it isn't. You just aren't listening. And you are not actually responding in any manner that suggests you understand or read the response in any detail.

    Sections that complain about others,and refer to other blogs without actually responding to comments posted here, deleted.


  37. Santalives @36  . . . it is a marvel how you are magnetically attracted to the Numpties, time and again.

    Really, Santalives, you wish to back up the Numpty paper by Coe et al.,  by appealing to the authority of the even bigger Numpty at the blogsite?   (As linked at the now-deleted part of your #36. )    The same gh-defective site which states:  "It is impossible to produce an ECS beyond 0.5K ."

    Granted, the gh-defective author sounds like his IQ is higher than Coe's above-average IQ.   But what use is intelligence if it is not used rationally?    So many of these prominent denialists (even Nobel Laureates)  are like insane medieval longbowmen.   They have a good bow, a good arrow, and a strong arm.   But their emotional bias & motivated reasoning cause them to turn their bow & arrow 20 degrees to one side of the target.   That's why they score Zero in the scientific field of climate.   Santalives, it is a pity you don't wish  to recognize that.

    [ After coffee ~ more on the greenhousedefect site . . . as I hope the Moderator will regard that as informative for readers who have never encountered that blogsite. ]

    0 0
  38. @Eclectic 37.  I would be interested in you coments on that site as I only stumbled across it recently.  Have read a few articles which seem very plausible and written in a first person style.  But there is no info on the author or I suspect multiple authors as some writing  style changes mid article. 

    This is still fun, but it's a bit like going on a date and your mum comes along as Chaperone. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] We are no longer interested in hearing what you have to say.

  39. Thanks, Santalives @38 ,  though the name of the author/s at the greenhousedefect blogsite is irrelevant to his argument  ~ just as my borderline-insulting description  of him is likewise irrelevant.   ~Because none of us would take the schoolyard attitude that:  if A insults or hurts the feelings of B , then A's arguments are automatically wrong.   None of us would wish to act like a radical woke snowflake Leftie . . . as I'm sure you will agree !

    So what are the connections between the widely-condemned Coe et al.,  paper?   ( But let me first point out that Coe is a regular in the comments columns at WUWT  so in effect, WUWT  is featuring an "inside job".)   Quite simply, both state the planetary ECS is negligible.   Despite a mountain of evidence that they're wrong.   Not that this ever bothers Denialists ~ they simply close their eyes and say:  What forest of evidence, what mountain?  

    And what is so wrong about the numptiness of greenhousedefect ?   Reply is : How long have you got?   But I won't tire the readers here, by going into all the details.  For to quote the sainted Rud Istvan (at WUWT )  who, when pressed for detailed analysis of the problems of the Coe paper, said: "Life is too short to sort that out." [unquote]

    Let me just say:  the greenhousedefect author's biggest mistake is that, like Spinoza, he simply creates definitions to suit himself.   I see that his brain is shying away from examining the empirical data ~ the physical evidence of the bleeding-obvious GHE.   It's a marvel of convoluted rhetorical thinking, where he seeks to fool himself.

    . . . and Robin Hood he ain't, when it comes to archery.  By choice !

    0 0
  40. @Eclectic 39.  I agree A insulting B does not means A arguments are automatically wrong but it does call into question A's maturity which diminishes A in the eye of the reader.  

       But the topic ot hand you say to rebutte articles like this  the-holy-grail-of-ecs is too time consuming, lifes too short.  But I would have thought isn't that one of the key purpose of the site.  If noneone is taking on the people writing these articles then they have the field to themselves.  It was one of the main reasons I came to this site.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Another substance-free pointless comment deleted.

  41. Santalives @40 . . . er, no ~ I would say that the truth is more important than "reputation for maturity".   Think: Galileo . . . who really wasn't trying very hard to win a Miss Congeniality contest.   Einstein was a bit of a flake when it comes to treating his first wife.   Even Isaac Newton could be a bit of a curmudgeon.   Santalives, earnest seekers of the truth ~ such as yourself ~ should never seek to deflect the scientific argument by means of Tone Policing.   Wokeness is not welcome at SkS.

    AFAICT ,  the SkS site here is educational ~ in providing a huge source of excellent & well-organized scientific information (and links) for your convenience.   And a pathway for self-education.   Especially via the Most Used Climate Myths ~ a really excellent section.   But you have to do the lion's share of work yourself.   For it is a shoe-string organization, run by a small number of volunteers.   There's not a "boiler room" full of staff eager & willing to spend countless hours spoonfeeding you.   Sorry.

    Did you really think all the angry nutters at WUWT  or other denialist sites, could be educated on science?   No, they don't want to be. 

    SkS  is for normal people who are interested in learning about climate ~ an important and interesting subject.

    0 0
  42. Concerning 'The Greenhouse Defect' website.

    At the back-end of last year I encontered a commenter at RealClimate calling himself E. Schaffer who linked his presence there to that defective website. E. Schaffer proved to be a proper numpty.

    0 0
  43. MA Rodger @42 ,

    Yep, he often is on WUWT, denying Greenhouse Effect.  Incorrigible.

    0 0
  44. SantaLives @ 19

    "I have read nearly everyone of the Climate Myth and many of the comments. They are less than convincing ..."

    Really? You have read nearly all the Climate Myths? They are ALL less than convincing? ALL of them? That comment makes you even less than convincing as you cannot come up with just one point and discuss it sensibly. You are not commenting honestly or in good faith. 

    Hopefully the Grim Moderator will pay a visit soon.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Due to his repeated inability to read, understand, and follow the Comments Policy, and his repeated pointless,non-responsive behavior in the discussions, Santalives will no longer be participating here.


  45. Fair enough , BL , on the deletion.    There was (IMO) some amusement value in the lame excuses and schoolyard argumentation from the good Santalives.

    The real danger of his tonto  antics, is that the SkS  readers might relax into smug superiority feelings, on seeing his low-quality nonsense.

    In the earlier years of SkS , there were a handful of high-quality trolls ~ capable of half-skilful dissimulation (of intentions) ,  and capable of some subtlety of argument [ultimately refuted, of course].   These superior ones provided less amusement but more entertainment & intellectual exercise.

    Ah, where are the Trolls of Yesteryear ?   And is their seeming demise a good sign or a bad sign of the way things are going ?

    [ Please delete this post if you feel it is too far Off Topic. ]

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Let's let that dead horse rest in peace.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

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