Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  Next

Comments 50901 to 50950:

  1. Models are unreliable
    Jack, come on. You ask for precision and then vomit a bunch of hearsay. On models, a hypothetical: you're walking down the street carrying a cake you've spent hours making. You see someone step out of a car 900 yards down the street. The person aims what looks to be a 30-06 in your direction. You see a flash from the muzzle. What do you do? You're arguing to do nothing, because the precise trajectory of the slug is unknown -- the aim of the person may be bad, or you may not be the target, or the bullet may have been inferior, or other conditions might significantly affect the trajectory. You wouldn't actually do nothing, though. The only question is whether you'd drop the cake to roll to safety, or whether you'd try to roll with the cake. Your instinctual modeling would calculate a probable range for each variable, and the resulting range of probable outcomes would be fairly limited, and most of those outcomes would be unpleasant. So it is with climate modeling. The variables are variable, but the range for each is limited. Climate modelers don't choose one run and say, "Here's our prediction." They work through the range of probable scenarios. Solar output, for example, is likely not going to drop or rise beyond beyond certain limits. We know the power of the various GHGs, and their forcing is likely going to be not far from the known power (see, for example, Puckrin et al. 2004). Climate feedbacks aren't going to go beyond certain bounds. Even the range of net cloud feedback--still understudied--is fairly well-established. To put it back in terms of the analogy, it's not like the shooter is wearing a blindfold, or is non-human, or the gun is a toy, or the shooter keeps changing from a couch to a sock to a human to breakfast cereal. It's not like the shooter is working under a different physical model than the target. And it's not like people haven't been shot before. There's plenty of geologic timescale precedence that supports the theorized behavior of atmospheric CO2. Finally, your assumption that we must drop the cake (spend alleged trillions, with the assumption being that these alleged trillions will not re-enter the economy in various ways) is a bad one. We don't have to drop the cake. We just have to be really smart about our moves. We have to have vision, and that is sorely lacking under the current economic and political regime(s).
  2. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Hi SkS- as someone working agriculture I have noticed more and more differences over the decades- this despite 'limited' surface temp increase. Our main effect is jetstream related [curiously 2007 2012 were agriculturally similar]. So what is likely to happen to all that ocean heat? More Arctic melting? Less temp difference between equator and northern waters? More energy dumping into Atlantic storms so wetter UK summers? or is just going to reach some pressure point and blow? Are there any predictions? papers exploring hot seas? I'm off to do agricultural work in the heart of climate vulnerable Bangladesh- cyclone numbers appear to be much the same year on year and where I'm going it floods every year- sometimes twice from spring melts and monsoons [but this increase may be due to poor river management]. So what are the trends for warmer seas? Thanks if you can direct me. Jules
  3. Models are unreliable
    Another useful page on model reliability which provides model prediction, the papers that made it, the data that verifies it. Incomplete models with varies degrees of known and unknown uncertainties are just part of life - you should see my ones which help petroleum companies make multi-million dollar drilling decisions. A model useful if it has skill - able to outperform a naive prediction. The trick is understanding what those uncertainties are and what are robust predictions can be made. The models have no skill at decadal or sub-decadal climate (unless there is a very strong forcing). They have considerable skill in long term trends. You a mathematical model to calculate detailed climate change. You dont need a complicated model to see into the underlying physics and its implication, nor to observe the changes in climate.
  4. Models are unreliable
    Sigh. Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted: • That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much. • That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool. • That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures. • That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures. • Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles). • That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. • The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. • They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right. • They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data. • The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO. • The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole. • The expansion of the Hadley cells. • The poleward movement of storm tracks. • The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude. • The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics. • The near constancy of relative humidity on global average. • That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase. Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
  5. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    I've been watching this site for a while. I get that the climate is changing and to a lesser or greater degree is due to humans and our actions. I've seen a plethora of "we must act now", but no realistic solutions. Technically, according to this article, Monckton could be correct on the temperature change. I see a lot of kvetching and "calls to action" but no legit solutions. Just saying'.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Perhaps you must have overlooked this recent post, still visible at left in the listing of recent posts:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/agu-2012-solving-climate-problem.html

    Additionally, some of the authors over at Skeptical Science have published posts on personal solutions that the everyday person can do:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evidence_That_Demands_a_Response.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=848

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Solutions-by-Rob-Painting.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Solutions-by-Daniel-Bailey.html

    Suggestion: less attitude and less kvetching; better dialogue is engendered with better attitudes and comment construction.

  6. Philippe Chantreau at 10:36 AM on 14 December 2012
    Antarctica is gaining ice
    Jack O'Fall, before commenting on a thread, it is wise to examine a page or 2 preceeding your intended comment. On the previous page, you could have found references to Sasgen(2012), Barletta(2012) and Flament&Remy (2012). You could also have found a comment from a member of the team that reconciliated the data in a paper published in Science, a team that includes both Barletta and Zwally. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract So, as it turns out, not only some recent info is available in this very thread, but SkS is regarded highly enough by researchers at the forefront of the field that they kindly help to stay on top of the current research.
  7. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Zwally paper is a conference presentation highlighting an issue. A full reconciliation of the data sources has now very recently been published here which still finds net ice loss. You can find more discussion from one of the authors here. The important bit in the paper is understanding the uncertainties and errors in the various estimation methods and how to reconcile them. Funnily enough, it is nothing about author bias. (You might like to ask Jay Zwally his opinions on climate change (he is not a skeptic) and whether he thinks King's paper is invalid). I do think the page should be updated with the King numbers. Of some relief to modellers, the new numbers more closely reflect what the models predicted would happen in Antarctica.
  8. Models are unreliable
    Jack... You're making completely erroneous assumptions. Even Ben Santer says that models don't do a great job. That is why they rely on model ensembles and multiple model runs. Santer also says that some models are better than others, but ensembles perform better than even the better models. AND weighting the better models makes the ensembles perform even better. It sounds more to me like you are looking for reasons to dismiss the science rather than honestly attempting to understand the science.
  9. Models are unreliable
    So, if I am to accept the science presented here, I must accept that: 1) We have a comprehensive understanding of all the inputs, feedbacks, timing, and interactions of the global climate, 2) We have defined this in a computer model identically with that understanding, 3) We have no bugs or unintended effects programmed into our computer models (Microsoft is very jealous), 4) We have an absolutely accurate understanding of the current climate, and 5) we have done all of this without opening up the models for public review by those who might disagree with them. If not, we have, at best, an approximation with lots of guesses and estimations that might be full of holes and bugs, yet we used it to make predictions that we trust enough to propose spending Trillions of dollars in response. Of course, at worst, we have crappy code that can cause more harm than good by convincing us of things that we don't know enough about how they came about to doubt. Please forgive me if I am still skeptical of the computer models. I do enough modeling in computers to be dubious of anything you get out of an imperfect model.
  10. Climate sensitivity is low
    Try reading the intermediate or advanced version of the article (or the appropriate chapter in the IPCC report). You will see that there are empirical studies of climate sensitivity. Read deeper into the papers and you will see that noone assumes climate is in equilibrium - the utility of term does not require it. Your comments on cloud feedbacks would have been justified for TAR but they are far better quantified now. Note also that models are doing a pretty good job of estimating temperature trends, even something as primitive as that used by the Broecker in 1975 ("Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" Science, v 189, n 4201, p 460-3, 8 Aug. 1975") which got temp for 2010 better good.
  11. Climate sensitivity is low
    Using a GCM to predict/verify sensitivity is flawed and hubris. We have a lot of known unknowns in the GCMs. They are not established science, but SWAGs. Assuming the climate is ever in equilibrium as the basis for a calculation is absurd. It is never, ever, in equilibrium. If it were, we would not see the changes that have occurred in the past. Until science has a better handle on clouds (and many other second-order feedbacks), any attempts to quantify sensitivity are relying on guessing about past events, but not on understanding why.
  12. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Help! Can someone please straighten out this (possibly) local skeptic? These are comments in "Vote for a Carbon Tax" (from CP) copied into a local paper's blog. http://www.athenstalks.com/vote-carbon-tax?page=1#comment609478 @catman: From the linked article (this article): "Similarly, the measured global surface warming trend over the past 16 years is approximately 0.09 ± 0.13°C per decade according to NASA, as anyone can check for themselves by using the Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator. The surface warming is not statistically significant — again, the uncertainty is larger than the trend, and possible values range from -0.04 to +0.22°C per decade. However, the most likely value is still a positive one, meaning the Earth's surface has most likely warmed 0.09°C per decade, or 0.14°C total for the period of late 1996 thorugh late 2012. Zero warming is one possibility within the range of uncertainty, but it would take a different statistical test to show that there has been no surface warming over the past 16 years, and that test would fail" Am I misinterpreting this? Do these two paragraphs basically say, "we don't have statistical proof of warming, but that doesn't mean it isn't getting warmer"??? "most likely warmed 0.09C" Not even a tenth of a degree, and only "most likely" at that. Hell, I wasn't even denying the idea of temperature increases, but this is making me wonder more about that. When I looked into the data supporting global warming a while back, I came away convinced of two things: average global temperature has risen since 1958; and average global CO2 has risen since 1958. Figuring out which is cause or consequence of the other seemed speculative. Further speculation seemed necessary to affirmatively say that human activity has created warmer climates. This link offers perhaps the most compelling evidence for global warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm However, there is still no direct link between human activity and temperature. It is all peripheral: A has increased since time x. B has increased since time x. B is proven to trap heat. Therefore, humans have affected the increase in A. That doesn't add up. Also, one has to enter the debate under the pretense of one specific time period: 1958 - to present. CO2 records prior to 1958, or otherwise prior to "industrialization" are measured using polar ice core air bubbles. This scientist argues that such methods of measurement are inaccurate: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm Additionally, if you look at year-by-year comparisons of average temperatures and average atmospheric CO2, you will see disproportionate peaks and valleys between the two. That is to say that years with exceptionally high CO2 levels do not always coincide with high-temp years. Year-by-year, it's hard to make the connection. But if you take the averages over the past 50 years you get the matching hockey stick graph. And that's assuming that the polar ice core measurements are true, despite the aforementioned argument that the displacement of water in ice makes the measured levels skewed. Again, I think it's a no-brainer to go with solar, hydro and nuclear (though the last one isn't my favorite). However, creating new taxes will neither solve the problem in time to save the Earth, nor will it actually push anyone to renewable sources. Until fossil fuel sources become so scarce that the cost skyrockets the shift probably won't happen. If these companies get taxed for carbon emmissions, they will just keep on keepin' on and pass the buck to the consumer. Kinda like smokers do with cigarettes.
  13. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    tommm, Figure 1 basically shows global heat content (not completely because we're missing some components, like ocean heat content below 2,000 meters, but we've got most of it). If there's a volcanic eruption, for example, which blocks sunlight, the planet as a whole will accumulate less heat (more is effectively deflected back into space) for a short period of time, until those particulates from the eruption wash out of the atmosphere. So during those timeframes we would expect a dip in global heat content. As for ENSO ocean heat exchanges, I don't know that the data resolution is good enough to see that. Especially since it's a 5-year running average, so it's somewhat smoothed out.
  14. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    I think this new post from Tamino also shows pretty conclusively how ludicrous is the "no warming for 16 years" meme; even when just considering surface temperature.
  15. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Can you adjust this page to take into account the most recent science on this topic? Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses – Presented by Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard I came to this site to learn more (I'm a mildly informed skeptic, hoping to be better informed, but I'm skeptical of most things), but after 10 minutes of research on this "myth", I am having trouble with your explanations. If the most recent research is showing ice mass gains, wouldn't ignoring that be denial? If the research is flawed, I want to know about the flaws. If it is too new to analyze, then mention that there is ongoing research that raises questions. If the researcher is known to be biased, show that. Or, if the research represents the best science on the subject, change your page to reflect it. (Maybe the skeptics aren't 100% wrong?) But to have a 2 year old page with information that seems out-of-date does not help me learn.
  16. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Thanks. Also, to help me understand the plots better, why would the dip in oceanic heat content in 1990 occur simultaneously for the shallow and deep ocean? Second, would I expect to see heat transfers from the air to the oceans (or the other way around) due to ENSO, or is that too small to be seen on this plot?
  17. 1934 - hottest year on record
    Going to have to update this rebuttal now:
    Global warming is directly linked to only a few weather events and climate trends. One of them, however, is warming itself, which could make 2012 a watershed climate change year in the U.S. More than superstorms, wildfires, and devastating drought, this year’s record-smashing spring and summer heat waves, with their melted airport runways and warped steel rail lines, are more evidence that climate change is real. Last week NOAA announced that 2012 was “likely” to be the warmest year on record in the 48 states, based on temperatures through November. At some point, however, likelihood turns into certainty. Does a warm December push the nation to the point where it is impossible for 2012 to be anything but the warmest year ever recorded in the U.S.? To answer that question Climate Central did the math, and the results are in.
    There is a 99.99999999 percent chance that 2012 will be the hottest year ever recorded in the continental 48 states, based on our analysis of 118 years of temperature records through Dec. 10, 2012.
    [Source]
  18. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    Oddly I never seem to get any work units from CPN. Was an early participant, have some completed unit credits from way back when, but nothing new is put in my queue.
  19. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    tommm Also the dips around 1980-83 and 1990-93 correspond to the eruptions of Mt El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1992. The data has a pentadal (5 year) smoothing so that spreads out the effect a bit.
  20. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    climateprediction.net is back up. They've had problems with power cuts due to a fire at their local electricity sub-station. http://www.climateprediction.net/news/climatepredictionnet-unscheduled-downtime-fire-local-electricity-substation
  21. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    tommm: From about 1940 to 1970 there was global cooling due to the widespread presence of sunlight-reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere. As such I expect the net energy content of the Earth was decreasing during that time frame. By 1970 increased environmental regulation, combined with the overpowering of the aerosol forcing by greenhouse forcing - and voilà! Warming.
  22. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Hi Folks, Can someone please explain why the sum of the three trends in Figure 1 is not monotonically increasing. For instance, there is a big dip on ocean heat content (0-700m) around 1966-67. Is this noise, or does it imply the energy is being transferred to some reservoir not shown in the plot? Thanks.
  23. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    As Climate Central makes clear...nonetheless the spin will still be entertaining.
  24. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Alpinist - that's for the US only.
  25. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    And then there's this from over at Climate Central....http://www.climatecentral.org/news/book-it-2012-the-hottest-year-on-record-15350 It'll be entertaining to watch the spin.
  26. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Zero warming is one possibility within the range of uncertainty, but it would take a different statistical test to show that there has been no surface warming over the past 16 years, and that test would fail.
    I don't expect you to do requests, but I have to say a post testing the 'no warming for 16 years' hypothesis would really useful. Deniers play tricks with words, and 'no statistically significant warming' has morphed into 'no warming'. A go to reference to demonstrate that fails would be really useful. Thanks for the R Pielke snr quote. Conflating surface temperatures with global warming is the corollary to 'no warming' and is all the rage amongst deniers at the moment.
  27. citizenschallenge at 01:50 AM on 14 December 2012
    This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Incidentally, How's that Monckton Cure for AIDS doing? Lord Monckton: "I've discovered a cure for HIV!" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Though it sure would be fascinating to see the Lord's email exchanges with the blokes who have financed that fancy looking website. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (sniped ad hominen)
    Moderator Response: TC: Speculations about Christopher Monckton's mental state are, of course, ad hominen, and hence always of topic.
  28. There's no empirical evidence
    Aye, thanks Paul -- it's an obviously highly useful tool and easy enough that people who've never engaged the science can get a toehold for their motivation.
  29. There's no empirical evidence
    Good to hear! Thanks for the work in keeping your website going.
  30. There's no empirical evidence
    Folks, apologies for the WFT downtime - it was caused by an IP allocation cockup at my hosting provider, and as Doug guessed, I didn't notice for a day! Should be fixed now in DNS but it may take a while to propagate. Best wishes Paul
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, Paul. If we can help in any way down the road, let us know.
  31. Sceptical Wombat at 21:48 PM on 13 December 2012
    This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    chriskoz @ 5 Monkton is an hereditary viscount and therefore perfectly entitled to call himself a lord. However hereditary lords are not automatically members of the House of Lords - they have elections and Monkton has never won a seat. Monkton likes to conflate the two issues - what a surprise - and wave his passport around to prove he is a viscount.
  32. Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:42 PM on 13 December 2012
    This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    mandas @1 - I don't think this article is intended to shame or convert Monckton himself, it is intended to arm those of us who are in discussion with people who believe him. I have already used this site twice in response to claims made by otherwise intelligent people quoting him in online forums. This article provides everything I needed to say in one well-written and accessible place.
  33. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Monckton has become an embarrassment to deniers by his embrace of right-wing wackiness like "birtherism". I am sure his espousal of causes like this is for financial reasons as he can command higher speaking fees. Like malamuddy did, one way to deal with Monckton is to point out the fantastical claims he has made over the years, like swearing out an affidavit claiming he has evidence concerning the birth certificate of the President of the United States. Indeed, the whole association of US climate denial with Creationism and birtherism is a gift that can keep on giving. It highlights the whole refusual to face evidence and facts that undermine a favoured ideology.
  34. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    mandas@1 We can ignore Monckton but the unfortunate fact is he seeks and get attention because of his outlandish behaviour, which suits his backers down to the ground. He is about to tour Australia and New Zealand again so it is most important that his fraudulent science is “again” exposed.
  35. There's no empirical evidence
    Many of us are wondering what's up w/Woodfortrees, Steve. It's much cited and well-liked by folks of all stripes. Hopefully the proprietor is having a nice vacation somewhere and simply hasn't noticed it's down. (OK, that's sounds pretty unlikely but I guess we may as well be optimistic.)
  36. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    curiousd @124, if you look at the following diagram, you will see that one NO2 absorption band at around 7.5 micrometers wavelength (1300 cm-1 wave number) is shared with one of the absorption bands for CH4. Removing CH4 from Archer's model greatly reduces the size of the absorption band at 1300 cm-1; but, presumably, the remainder is the absorption by NO2. I have checked and NO2 is accounted for in the model, but its concentration cannot be adjusted in Archer's version. Please note that the solar and OLR spectrums shown in the diagram above are for globally averaged values. The actual power received from the sun by a surface at right angles to the incident sunlight is about four times that shown; and the actual black body spectrum of the sun, prior to attenuation by distance is about 4 million times greater than that from OLR. Further, the OLR is for a very humid clear sky situation, and is not typical.
  37. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    malamuddy@3, Thanks for turning my attention to this "Democratic Labor Party" in Wagga. I didn't know about it either. With just one MP in Senate, they cannot make any difference to the political scene. After having invited this monkey clown calling himself a "lord" to perform another silly stunt (like those he performed in Doha and last year in Durban), their rating should drop even lower and we should see them losing the lonely seat soon.
  38. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    mandas @1 - Monckton is just the vehicle through which we debunk this pervasive 'no warming in 16 years' myth. He's just a tool (by which sense of the word, I'll let you decide).
  39. There's no empirical evidence
    My apologies for what is likely an off-topic comment, but I wasn't sure of a better place to put the question. Has the Woodfortrees website moved? Google claims it should be at woodfortrees.org, but there's nothing there but an apache tomcat setup page. I hope nothings happened to the site - it's very handy.
  40. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    I meant to say, if you set the methane to zero in the David Archer program the little peak still shows up. Anyone know what this is?
  41. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    What is the tiny peak at about 1300 wave numbers in fig. 3? Although it is in the vicinity of methane, if you set the methane to zero in the David Archer program. Also in Fig. 1 above that peak shows up with no atmosphere. ?????
  42. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    As it turns out Monkton has been booked for a gig in Wagga Wagga (Australia), sponsored by the Democratic Labor Party, a right wing political outfit that most people thought was defunct. A lecturer at our local university wrote a letter to the Wagga Advertiser pointing out that this was a rather silly thing to do. Monkton of Brenchly replied with a typically arrogant tirade, beginning "A Mr White wrote ..." Below is a letter I have written in response, which may or may not get published. It has no literary merit but, perhaps, suggests a way in which we should deal with this person. A Mr Monkton has recently written to your paper (11 December) in response to a letter about Global Warming from Dr Graeme White. We are indeed fortunate to have the benefit of Mr Monkton’s opinions. As he so ably demonstrated in his letter he has such great expertise in this area that he was able, without the need for evidence, to simply dismiss Dr White’s arguments. In fact we have it on Mr Monkton’s own say so that his expertise in this area ranks with that of Albert Einstein because both of them have written a paper that was not peer reviewed. But not just expertise in science. He has such a deep knowledge of economics that he can wave away the opinions of the great majority of economists who support carbon pricing, such an all-encompassing understanding of logic that he can spell Aristotle and such mastery of mathematics that no other mathematician can understand his calculations. Could this possibly be the same Monckton who has variously said that he is a member of the House of Lords, that he is the proud owner of a self awarded Nobel Peace Prize, the discoverer of a single cure for AIDS, colds and influenza and the man who has been able to prove mathematically that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. No wonder he has added Dr White to the long list of people who deserve to be sued for ever questioning his obvious truthiness. We in Wagga are truly blessed that the DLP has been able to attract such an intellectual giant, such a great polymath, such a paragon of the British aristocracy to our humble town.
  43. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Christopher Monckton impersonated a delegate from Myanmar
    If only he would accurately impersonate and act like someone who has a clue. I bet WUWT have applauded his latest bit of deceit, but I don't plan to visit there to find out. Are the faithful still waiting for Monckton's Miracle Cure for AIDS, MS and (no doubt) the common cold to materialise?
  44. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    I know Monckton is one of the darlings of the denialist community, but I would like to suggest that we stop focussing on him and stop writing long posts debunking his nonsense. Every day that passes shows just how delusional he is, and it may be time to treat him just like a troll. Take away his oxygen by ignoring him.
  45. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    Hmmmm ... climateprediction.net seems to be off the air at present. Perhaps it is being overloaded by prospective SkS team members? "8-)
  46. AGU 2012 - Solving the Climate Problem
    climate scientists tend to be too conservative
    That seems to be borne out by the seemingly increasing frequency with which I have been seeing the possibility of 4 - 6 degrees C warming being raised recently. 2 degrees sounds positively balmy by comparison, in spite of the dramatic changes we are seeing to places like the Arctic after less than 1 degree of warming. We have known for a while that actual emissions have been exceeding the levels predicted to push us past 2 degrees, but caution has dictated that we avoid issuing such 'alarming' projections. Me? I'm alarmed!
  47. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    :-) I've been running this on various CPUs since it was only SETI. I'm on the team of a company that no longer exists; so, I'll probably start giving credit to the SKS team. ClimatePrediction is active on my work machine, but BOINC is saying the project is not currently available when I try a new account on my personal machine. I wonder if the SKS fans have overloaded the CP site. World Community Grid also has some interesting sub-projects, including one on materials research for some form of alternate energy (solar?).
  48. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    A few additional climate science related citizen science efforts of note that involve more interaction and less CPU effort / grunt time, but are equally valuable ... www.cyclonecenter.org - reclassifying the global tropical storm records from the whole satellite era. www.oldweather.org - digitizing old marine logbook data to improve our knowledge of historical marine surface climate changes. www.data-rescue-at-home.org - digitizing old land and upper air data records. Pre-1950 there is as much in-situ data in hard copy or image only format as there is digitized. These 'unknown knowns' could literally transform our ability to characterize long-term changes in climate. The good news is that anyone can help us to reduce the fog of uncertainty in historical climate records. Your analysis and clicks in any of the above can really help us to improve our collective knowledge of historical climate changes.
  49. The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
    After doing so, I find that Brian's argument is one of the more cogent I've seen from a Heartland shill. And the more passionate elements of the assertion (about 99% of the comment) are, coming from an expert like Brian, quite the compliment. Everyone, a big shout out toward the apparatchik hives of greater DC! Alas, I suspect this will be deleted, since it is in response to a deleted comment. However, perhaps this request will be left: Brian, can you explain why you once felt it necessary to claim that "I'm a thorough carbon dioxide climate change denialist and I wouldn't believe in carbon dioxide induced climate change at gunpoint - because it is physically impossible." Now that's a good, skeptical, open mind at work.
  50. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    All my spare CPU cycles are on Climate Prediction for the 350 team. Started years ago with SETI.

Prev  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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