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  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  Next

Comments 50951 to 51000:

  1. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    In regards to those climate change proponents, I'd say are fairly pathetic in that they don’t let everyday humans decide for themselves if it’s true. Those proponents refuse to understand the concept of attaching themselves to bureaucracy which will tax or make people bend to their will, is appalling. There will always be arguments as to who is wrong and who is right in the climate change debate. The real truth will ferret out the public’s course of action, not from edicts or laws passed by politicians. When one side attaches themselves to that they are already going down the wrong side of the rabbit hole. How many times have people been lied to by politicians, that they hold the whole grail in the solution of things? It’s December 2012 in America and why aren’t we seeing the benefits of Nafta, and Gatt, passed in 1994, since they were supposed to be the next best thing since sliced bread? The road to hell is paved by the path of good intentions. It’s this distrust that should drive the proponents away from this resolve. Look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, he published it and let it be. He didn’t get politicians involved in making people like or accept it. If the scientist really cared about people, then care about people and leave politics out of the equation.
  2. The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
    Hmm, given that Ramanathan, Hansen believe in same GH effect (modern codes build on Ramanathan), I have a bad feeling about this. Is this going to be: AGW violates 2nd law of thermodynamics (please read extensively into thread and also do the textbook stuff at Science of Doom) the greenhouse effect has been falsified Postma has disproved the greenhouse effect Or something novel? Please no "slaying the sky dragon" stuff. This is a science site.
  3. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    "You'd have to argue that natural forcings are highly negative then" Sorry, why do you think that? See the IPCC report for breakdown of all the forcing, anthropogenic and natural. Anthropogenic are both postitive (GHG) and negative (aerosol, land use change) but not a lot change in any natural forcing (eg slight increase in solar, very very slight decrease in milankovich forcing). Evidence for the manmade cause comes from multiple sources (models validation from forcing, direct measurement of the increased radiation on surface and attribution of that, lack of any other explanation).
  4. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    It should also be pointed out that in single model runs, you can get long periods with the ocean absorbing heat (which is La Nina). Keenlyside et al 2008 attempted decadal prediction by closely initialising models to actual condition and coming up with a long pause. Other modellers do not believe models have skill for type of prediction (see here ) but it shows that pauses in surface temperature warming (but not total ocean heat content) are consistant with modelling.
  5. 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #9
    @Michael Sweet #1: Only Roger Pielke Jr. can answer your question. It will be interesting to see whether or not he posts a critique of the Nature paper you have cited on his website. I suspect that he will do so, For purposes of clarification, the link that you embedded in your post is to the article, From Risk to Opportunity 2012: The Greening of Insurance posted on the website Insurance in A Climate of Change. This website is part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.
  6. Doha Climate Summit Ends With No New CO2 Cuts or Funding
    GHGAT (green house gas added tax) rather than for example state sales taxes? This debate could be brought to the consumer... although as a practical matter, the GHG content in a particular product, exported by a particular nation, would be the source of great debate and cause some headaches within the WTO...
  7. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Great visuals from the SkS team once more. Nothing makes the case like a good clean visual representation of data.
  8. CO2 is just a trace gas
    DPC, In this case scientists predicted over 100 years in advance that increased CO2 would lead to warming. There is no room for citing "correlation does not necessarily mean causation." It is the deniers who try to explain warming by fitting magical natural cycles, scientists predicted in advance. Just what type of proof do you want? Spencer Weart has a detailed history of the scientific discovery of global warming that is hyperlinked. You will find your answers there.
  9. 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #9
    Science magazine published This article on insurance industry responses to Global warming (this link is a summary, there is a link to the full article). From the article: "Increasingly, multifaceted weather- and climate-related insurance losses involve property damage, business disruptions, health impacts, and legal claims against polluters. Worldwide, insured claims that were paid for weather catastrophes average $50 billion/ year (about 40% of total direct insured and uninsured costs); they have more than doubled each decade since the 1980s, adjusted for inflation. Insurers must also tackle risks emerging from society’s responses to climate change, including how structures are built and energy is produced" How come Pielke Jr says insurance costs are not going up when this article says doubling every decade? This article states that insurance is 7% of the global economy. They discuss market mechanisms where insurance companies are responding to AGW.
  10. CO2 is just a trace gas
    I find this a really disappointing article. For me, this issue is the main one that I would like an answer to. I accept that CO2 is rising (due to human activity), global temperatures are rising and that there is a strong correlation between the two. But correlation does not necessarily mean causation. And it's pretty basic that increased levels of CO2 causes an increase in the Earth's temperature, but the thing I wonder about is whether it is on a scale large enough to account for all (or at least the majority) of the global warming experienced in the last several decades. That's why I read this article, wanting more information on that specific point. But unfortunately all the article contains is more of the same as you get everywhere else when it comes to the climate change debate - ANALOGIES!!! Analogies are not proof in any way, shape or form. I could just as easily write a few analogies showing that a trace element of something has no impact. It doesn't add anything at all to this specific question. I would really appreciate if someone could add some actual proof on this issue. Thanks. P.S. Have just found this site and, despite my comments above, I have found it very useful. Have looked at several arguments/responses that I had not heard before and found them a useful resource. Thanks.
    Moderator Response: [TD] Skeptical Science "Argument" posts intentionally are narrow. That is one of the strengths of Skeptical Science, as a complement to other sites and books that provide broader treatments. For example, if you are interested in the narrow argument that CO2 is only a trace gas, you can easily find the narrow rebuttal to that argument without having to wade through a bunch of other material that does not interest you at this moment. The "CO2 is just a trace gas " post was intended to address only that one narrow argument against CO2's causal role. A post more directly and comprehensively addressing causation is "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect."

    You don't have to browse through the entire Arguments list to find relevant ones, though. As a newcomer you will find helpful the broad guide to the posts in The Big Picture post you can get to by clicking the big button on the home page.

    Even then you might find you want broader or deeper information. Skeptical Science does not try to provide all that (with some exceptions). Another of Skeptical Science's intents and strengths is to provide concise and readily accessible links to other resources for that additional information. Some of that is the peer-reviewed literature linked in every post, but often the comments provide just as much information. Michael Sweet already gave you an excellent reference. You might also watch the video lecture by climatologist Ray Pierrehumbert from the U. of Chicago, titled "Successful Predictions," from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference a couple weeks ago.
  11. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Thanks DSL and dana1981 it'll teach me to pay much greater attention to the captions in figures
  12. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Ray @36 - Figures 2 and 3 do extend beyond 2000. They don't extend further because they're 11-year running averages. Cosmic ray data in Figure 3 also comes from a 2003 paper. brr @40 - no, anthro accounting for >100% warming would only require a slightly negative net natural forcing, which is quite plausible over the past half century. SoundOff @41 - good to see the IPCC getting attribution right, i.e. noting that the net anthro contribution is >50% of warming, and the GHG contribution is >100% since 1950.
  13. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I was just reading through the draft of the upcoming AR5 linked to earlier. Here’s a quote from the draft that tells us the latest scientific consensus thinking on causes of warming.
    Quantification of the contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing using multi-signal detection and attribution analyses show it is extremely likely that human activities (with very high confidence) have caused most (at least 50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1951. Detection and attribution analyses show that the greenhouse gas warming contribution of 0.6°C–1.4°C was very likely greater than the observed warming of 0.6°C over the period 1951–2010. … Taken together with other evidence this indicates that it is extremely unlikely that the contribution from solar forcing to the warming since 1950 was larger than that from greenhouse gases. Better understanding of pre-instrumental data shows that observed warming over this period is far outside the range of internal climate variability estimated from such records, and it is also far outside the range of variability simulated in climate models. Based on the surface temperature record, we therefore assess that it is virtually certain that warming since 1950 cannot be explained by internal variability alone.
    Note the use of the words “very high confidence”, “very likely”, “extremely unlikely” and “virtually certain”.
  14. The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
    When you answer, answer in the right thread. There are a variety, and navigation is easy. Let's just go with the standard greenhouse effect: CO2 absorbs/emits at pressure-broadened bands in the thermal infrared range, the range within which the sun-warmed earth emits. Increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 means greater likelihood that radiation will be absorbed before being radiated to space. Once absorbed, conduction or re-rediation can occur, but the direction of re-radiation is random, and the process repeats until the energy is transformed or is radiated to space. Increasing atmospheric CO2 therefore effectively decreases the cooling efficiency of the climate system. Oceans store energy via GHE by skin temp increase, preventing the sun-warmed top meter (or so) from cooling as much convectively. Oceans also warm via GHE indirectly through a variety of mixing and land-interaction processes. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does result in downwelling longwave radiation has been instrumentally verified (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004, among others). And of course the satellite inference and decades of lab work and practical application. I don't know what direction you're going to take this, so I can't suggest an appropriate thread for your response. I'm all ears with an open mind. If you can show me how increasing atmospheric CO2 does not result in greater energy storage within the climate system, I'll be a very happy person.
  15. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    dana @35 Possible, but not exactly likely. You'd have to argue that natural forcings are highly negative then, including certain feedbacks that AGW requires to be positive. Like I said, reality says it'll be somewhere in between.
  16. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    brr, you sound like a merchant of doubt. Somewhere between 100% natural and 100% anthro? That would require the falsification of the greenhouse gas effect. Solar de-coupled from surface temp fifty years ago. It had been tracking surface temp fairly well prior. See Pasini et al. (2012) and other attribution studies. Solar has been flat or falling for fifty years, and we just went through the deepest 11-year cycle trough in the instrumental period, yet global ice mass loss actually accelerated during that time. ENSO and AMO are not sources of energy. At best, you could argue that El Nino is moving energy stored long ago, but you're going to have to provide a mechanism that works. Unless you like long odds and hanging out at the far ends of error bars, AMO lags surface temp. What other mechanisms are you proposing for the source of the trends in surface temp, OHC, and global ice mass loss?
  17. Brian G Valentine at 13:38 PM on 15 December 2012
    The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
    Why certainly, Mr Digital Subscribers Line, happy to oblige. You must first give me your interpretation of the "atmospheric greenhouse effect." There are numerous of them (Hansen, AMS, Ramanathan ...) Pick your favorite, and I will show why the reasoning is false. Will you change your opinion about the effect if you are shown why your interpretation cannot be valid? (-snip-). I will only do this exercise once.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
  18. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Ray, look closely. Look at the increments. The answer for the blue line in fig. 3 is in the caption.
  19. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Apologies I should have written Figures 2 and 3
  20. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Can you advise why the graphs in figures 1 and 2 don't include years later than 2000?
  21. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    julesdingle - "...increased frequency of cool la ninas and no hot el ninos...." The ENSO is best described as an aperiodic variation, somewhat chaotic in nature: it doesn't cycle back and forth at regular intervals, and there are significant stretches more heavily El Nino as well as La Nina. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is perhaps our longest direct observation of the ENSO; it is defined as the difference between sea surface air pressure anomalies at Tahiti and Darwin. Note that in the SOI higher values are La Nina's, and lower values are El Nino's - flipped relative to the more common representations: [Source] It should be clear from this that the recent prevalence of La Nina's is not at all unusual - the 1990's, for example, consisted mostly of El Nino's, while much of the 1950's through 1970's La Nina was more common.
  22. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Indeed, well said by Sherwood. brr @33 - you're missing the distinct possibility that more than 100% of the recent warming is anthropogenic (i.e. that natural influences are in the net cooling direction). But I'd put my money on something close to 100% anthropogenic warming over the past ~50 years.
  23. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Professor Sherwood again. This time interviewed by New Scientist and making the obvious point.
    The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.
  24. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Rob @22 Whilst it's NOT uncertain whether solar caused the last 50 years of warming, it's also NOT certain that humans caused the last 50 years of warming. Say what you will about graphs such as that in figure 1 of this article, those studies don't quantify ALL natural and anthropogenic sources, only subsets. One may have ENSO but miss AMO. Another may have the AMO but miss the PDO. I think we will find the reality is most definitely somewhere between 100% natural or 100% human. Fingering humans for all the recent warming is as ludicrous as fingering solar. Both sides fall for THAT trap.
  25. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Dana1981 @31, Thanks, that's what happens when I search for text (Cosmic Ray) in a scanned pdf. Doh!
  26. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Thanks gws for taking the time to answer. Every answer triggers a bigger question or at least a more in depth one. The ENSO question for me is the 'apparent'[I use that just because what appears to a layman to be this or that is neither here nor there] increased frequency of cool la ninas and no hot el ninos. I am sure someone will correct me but if the ocean has heat how come it is not on the heat[or having more intense] el ninos cycle. The first question is really what will happen to ocean heat- is it a heat sink that will give up its energy- will it just continue to absorb more energy- will it mainly just defrost the Arctic? [btw I am familiar with the CO2-ghg- surface temp data].
  27. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    panzerboy @30 - the link and reference is correct, see their Figure 8.
  28. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Jules, a quick note: "will surface temperatures suddenly catch-up with accelerated warming in the coming decade?" Temperature increase follows the forcing agent nature and trajectory. For global temps, we are currently on an accelerating trajectory because GHGs (mostly CO2) are. So, I guess the answer is likely 'yes', with the caveat that local temps are not global temps. "will the seas just keep absorbing the heat?" there is, to first degree, no reason to think that the distribution of increasing heat content (see Fig. 1 above) will change "Are there physical limits?" yes and no; mostly on CO2 abundance due to buffering by the ocean and its contact with carbonate rocks, but that won't stop possibly catastrophic warming. Not sure what you meant by "ENSO ... last 16 years been so quiet". We had more La Ninas instead of El Ninos, is that what you meant?
  29. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Is the cite (Link) for figure 3 of "Krivova & Solanki 2003" correct, following the link to http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/2003ESASP_535__275K.pdf came to a paper on solar irradiance but no mention of cosmic rays.
  30. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Again I must thank the denialists for pointing me to such valuable documents..I had not seen the draft reports. I quickly debunked cosmic ray-ism with glance at a chart on page 80 of: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf (it seems like many, many years ago that I learned of desmogblog, Oreskes, and Hansen - all by the loud croaking of denialists... backhanded thanks)
  31. It's cosmic rays
    For those interested, I looked back and now see that comment 12 above addresses the denier argument that the effects of TSI could be lagging, and includes a hyperlink to a more detailed explanation.
  32. It's cosmic rays
    Rawls writes on WUWT: "In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration)." Does someone have a precise explanation of what Rawls apparently misunderstands about the science when making this analogy? My impressions are as follows (I have a mechanical engineering degree with a loose focus on the thermal side of things, so I have better than a layman's understanding of heat transfer, but I am no more than a casual student of climate science): 1) When you heat a pot of water, it DOES stop getting hotter when the water reaches 100 deg C, as the temperature of liquid water cannot physically go above that. More importantly, the reason why the water can keep absorbing heat without any increase in temperature is that it is giving up thermal energy at the same rate that it is being absorbed, in the form of the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor that escapes the pot! When that vapor touches something cooler and condenses, it will pass that latent heat of vaporization back to whatever it touches. If you do happen to increase the flame level, one thing that you will notice is that the steam escapes more quickly, to account for the fact that the water temperature can't go up any more, and a thermal energy balance must nonetheless be maintained. 2) Even if Rawls had picked an simpler example without physical phase change, like heating an empty pot, that too would eventually reach an equilibrium temperature for a given flame level. This would happen because the higher the temperature of the pot, the more heat it gives off by convection. Thus, when the rate of convection of heat from the surfaces of the pot into the surrounding air became equal to the forced rate of heat transfer into the pot from the flame, the temperature of the pot would stop rising. So his basic premise, that it would be absurd to think you have to keep increasing the flame level to raise the temperature of something you are heating, is false: eventually the object stops getting hotter, and you DO have to raise the flame level! 3) Giving Rawls the benefit of the doubt that he understands the law of conservation of thermal energy within a control volume, he seems to be implying that climate scientists have failed to account for the Earth's ability to respond relatively quickly (i.e., in significantly less time than 50 years) to whatever amount of forcing resulted from the increase in TSI that occurred before it remained generally flat 50 years ago, and reaching an equilibrium vis-a-vis that forcing long before now, so that effects of that forcing delayed by 50 years cannot explain the current warming. Rawls' attack doesn't pass my smell test, and I trust that climate scientists are in fact very familiar with and have accounted for the lag between a step or ramp up in TSI and its observed effects on global temperatures. Can somebody address that succinctly, in a way that would help somebody who is not necessarily so scientifically inclined to understand why they should trust that scientists have taken any "lag" effect into account?
  33. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Funded Denialists know that their unpaid Denialist believers will not look at the actual report: and they know that will be the case. The object is to delay mitigation efforts, and for the USA the tactic is working. Lying Denialists: is anyone surprised?
  34. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Further to doug_bostom's points, @25, the IPCc reports, by *design*, have to be carefully constructed such that OPEC countries, like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait, will sign off on the various ARXs. Not only is science inherently conservative, you toss that fact on top of that, and it's AMAZING the IPCC gets these things out as *often* as they do, and as conclusive of the main points.
  35. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    catman306,
    Am I misinterpreting this?
    Yes. See this post here.
    However, there is still no direct link between human activity and temperature.
    Wrong. See this post here. But the main fallacy you are committing is to assume that a link requires a simultaneous and exact parallel between CO2 increases and temperature increases. Two use an analogy, that's like arguing that the seasons don't cause the earth to cool, because it's hotter in the day than at night, and some weeks are warmer and some weeks are cooler. There's no obvious connection -- unless you look at things over a long enough period of time, and allow for variations due to other factors like weather fronts to move in and out.
    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.
    This is BS. Study the subject in more detail to understand the truth. So far, you act as if you believe in AGW ("Help! Can someone please straighten out this (possibly) local skeptic?") and yet what you do instead is to repeat a series of lame, flawed denial memes. The two approaches don't fit together. So which is it? Beyond that, you could learn more about all of this yourself, without the need for me or anyone else to direct you. This entire site is built on a database of denial lies (politely called "arguments") and clear, explanatory rebuttals. Use the links and the search boxes, and learn about this stuff yourself, before posting embarrassing nonsense. [P.S. If I sound ticked off, I am, because the "oh, I believe in AGW, but I have this skeptic friend, and what about..." approach to placing misleading comments is getting very, very tiring.]
  36. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    "You can't "win" with them. It's a bit maddening. It's like wrestling snakes, covered in butter, in a jello pit." I like that one, Sphaerica: unlike the one about a wildcat and a hot stick of butter, I *can* use yours in polite company...;)
  37. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I think Hank is referring more to semantics than the specific case at hand; IPCC expresses itself w/what a lot of folks will see as diffident and inconclusive language. For the IPCC it's an asymmetry problem; the right way to say these things in science-speak inherently sounds a bit mushy to the lay public. In the hands of people w/bad faith the scientifically "right" way to describe research is potentially disastrous. IPCC absolutely must adopt the scientifically valid way to speak and so has an inherent weakness when it comes to idiotic "debates."
  38. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    John Russell, Yes. Now, if they correct the wording on the quoted section to make Rawl's confusion less likely, they'll scream that it's a conspiracy to hide the truth that was plainly stated in the draft. You can't "win" with them. No matter what is said, how or where, they will twist it. It's a bit maddening. It's like wrestling snakes, covered in butter, in a jello pit.
  39. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    It’s important that every time anyone in denial refers to this as ‘the leaked IPCC report’, or, ‘the leaked AR5’, they’re told very firmly that these are just drafts and that the real AR5 will not be available until September 2013. I completely agree that it’s best not to be cajoled into discussing the supposed content. Second: look out next September for those in denial looking for differences between these drafts and the published AR5, and trying to use them to show… well, anything really that diverts attention away from the fact that there’s even more evidence to indicate that the world is warming and it’s caused by humans.
  40. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Hank... Uncertainties and hedging is what science is all about. That is what happens at the cutting edge of knowledge. What is NOT uncertain is whether solar accounts for the warming of the past 50 years. It doesn't. No ifs ands or buts. Rawls just flatly misinterpreted what he read. ...Or more accurately, he selectively interpreted what he read, dismissing large passages and conclusions, in order to craft a conclusion he preferred. Confirmation bias at its finest.
  41. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    @Dana1981 #3 I'm afraid you're a bit late on this one. It's going to be almost impossible to un-spin this story into obscurity because there is just too much uncertainty and hedging in this draft report, never mind the Solar angle =\ Hank
  42. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    The plot of the 11-year rolling average Solar Activity in Figure 2 shows a lot more decline when more recent years are added. The Frohlich and J. Lean data to Jan 2012 gives a latest 11-year average of 1365.65 (which would be on a level with the loop of 'p' in "temperature" in fig 2), a value not seen since the 1930s.
  43. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    @18 vroomie, Still, it should be fun in the meantime to point out to any UN conspiracy theorists that they are now taking the IPCC at their word. May result in a few good head-exploding moments
  44. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    sout, *if* and as *long* as it serves their purpose of disinformation: on this, they've, as we scientists say, really screwed the pooch. Once it is shown to them how *badly* and utterly *incorrectly* they've misinterpreted AR5, you can stake your fortune on the fact that they will go right back to excoriating the IPCC as the evil genius behind us "warmists." Cue Daniel Bailey with a graphic of Mike Myers, pinkie to lips....
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
  45. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    bjchip # 1: That's a nice take. WUWT becomes a parody of itself? From Bob Loblaw over at Tamino's site: Fa[c]t free physics? Is that like diet physics? Zero calorie physics? [Cold fusion fits there, I think.] Physics Lite? Looks and tastes like physics, with none of the facts! Ahh, that pesky physics...
  46. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:21 AM on 15 December 2012
    IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I take it that WUWT-ers, Delingpole and other fake skeptics are now touting IPCC reports as reliable sources (even though they don't understand them)?
  47. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    The Human Factor- the trend, if there is one, tends towards publicity. A few months ago I did a little online research about bottom feeding denialists including Omnologos - who joined the big boys with his 28gate BBC research and had 1000 hits on his profile [denierlist.wordpress.com]. Rawls is a failed rightwing economist desperate for attention so it would surprise me if he set out to do the leak from the start. Setting up a denial website is easy and requires little actual work or writing skills so I think some have seen the success and kudos of WUWT and try and duplicate it. This attention seeking and desire to pick up any kind of loyal following is illustrated by James Delingpole: despite recycling the same stories [agw conpiracy-green fascist conspiracy- and wind turbines are evil- UN conspiracy] each and every week he sells his blog, books and gets fairly regular t.v. appearances and even bookings. For a struggling writer or economist [for instance] such a lifestyle is attractive.
  48. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Let's see. Monckton has misrepresented himself as a member of the house of lords, a nobel laureate, Margaret Thatcher's science advisor, an expert on climatology, and now a diplomat from Myanmar. He also promises to release his miracle cure for Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, herpes simplex VI, AIDS, and who knows what all else any day now if people will just keep sending him more money to help 'bring it to market'. So... in what way is he not a professional con man? A snake oil salesman. Flimflam artist. Scammer. Swindler. Grifter. I'm assuming there must be something which does separate him from those categories because he's never been arrested for it, but darned if I can puzzle out what it is.
  49. Bert from Eltham at 22:30 PM on 14 December 2012
    IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I could be mistaken but these deniers can trawl a vast document and then misinterpret or just lie about one tiny bit and with a great flourish claim they have proven another 'fact' that brings down a self consistent edifice based on scientific principles. I would not poo on them as it may give them some relevance. Unfortunately the MSM eats their poo and then regurgitates it without a nasty taste in their collective mouths! Bert
  50. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Went to WUWT to look at the article under the headline: "IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing" Then downloaded and read section 7 and read 7.4.5. Given what the IPCC authors have written in the report there is just no justification for that headline unless, somehow, "many empirical relationships have been reported" actually means, "many empirical relationships have been shown and proven". Which from the last paragraph 7.4.5.3 it pretty obvious that the authors didn't mean that. My take on it would be that its an article on a popular skeptic site designed mainly for their target audience of already committed denialists to keep up the outrage quotient.

Prev  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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