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  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  Next

Comments 52051 to 52100:

  1. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Brian Williams on NBC's extra half hour of Nightly News coverage tonight (Tuesday, 30 October 2012) has just forcefully pointed out that Sandy and last year's epic October storm in the Northeastern U.S. constitute the "new normal." He went on to point out that scientists have explained the storms will get worse due to global warming. Dr. Kevin Trenbreth was the first go-to person Williams went to in order to back up the reporting. Trenbreth forcefully identified the increasing ocean heat content as a key player in the changing weather. Then Dr. Katharine Hayhoe got a chance to speak. Very powerful.
  2. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    There's a good article by Dan Kahan on the science communication problem, in which he identifies what he thinks is the best explanation (identity-protective cognition); what he thinks are bad ones (including misinformation); and what he sees as a fitting solution (separating scientific facts from cultural values). "Identity-protective cognition" means "the tendency of individuals to form perceptions of fact that promote their connection to, and standing in, important groups". In other words, motivated reasoning and information filters are employed to protect and enhance somebody's standing within their social group. Kahan sees misinformation as a symptom, not a cause of the disease. Perhaps this explains why dealing with climate denialism is so frustrating. We are carefully lancing one misinformation boil at a time, even as others rapidly pop up due to the underlying and untreated socially-driven staph infection that is actually causing these eruptions. Kahan suggests that the fitting solution is to separate scientific facts from cultural meanings. This would make the facts more palatable since the bitter taste of potential social-identity challenges would be less obvious. Many people here, me included, have criticized scientists for not speaking out more strongly on the policy implications of their work. But, if Kahan is right, the more politically reticent scientists may actually be the more effective communicators and the more activist scientists, like James Hansen, may be doing more harm than good when it comes to changing people's minds.
  3. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Vroomie, I'm reminded again of this excellent interaction: "Why are you failing? Is it ignorance, or apathy?" "I don't know and I don't care." Meanwhile, the WSJ talks with a VP of ConED:
    WSJ: A lot of meteorologists, including one who tracks weather for The Wall Street Journal, were blaring sirens about this storm. In what sense was Con Ed was not prepared for the ferocity of the surge? We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that. We were tracking probably 10 different storm models — I never heard an inch more than 12. WSJ: What would ConEd have done differently if you knew the that the water levels were going to be 14 feet. I’m pretty sure I would not have taken out the [E. 13th St substation] in advance — 220,000 customers. We always…look for lessons learned. I don’t know, if we could we have got the fire department with pumps, the National Guard with pumps? You’re talking about a lot of water. I don’t know if there was any way to keep up with the water. It’s basically the sea is up into the substation. The same thing happened during Katrina, the same thing happened in a bunch of different places. I mean, the force of nature is just tremendous. WSJ: Any lessons learned so far to prepare for next time? I think it’s too soon to tell…We certainly have to look at the water, 14-foot tides, certainly we need to look at a plan going forward as to what we can possibly do differently. Maybe we can move equipment up to higher levels [like control wiring], but that’s going to take some time. WSJ
    A lot of information packed into that sequence: "We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that." Arm yourself with the best information and don't let legislators tell you that you shouldn't know certain things. We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that. We were tracking probably 10 different storm models — I never heard an inch more than 12. Researchers are conservative. Uncertainty is not your friend. Legislators mandating that models be less reliable is not a good thing. It’s basically the sea is up into the substation. Get used to it. Avoid the problem by choosing wisely. Don't allow legislators to make you ignorant. I mean, the force of nature is just tremendous. True. Why make it more powerful yet?
  4. NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
    Composer99, as is the style of the drive-bys...after data, facts, and rational thought was laid out, from LaughinChance we .. hear....
  5. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    "Why would legislators mandate ignorance for their citizens?' That' a trick question, ain't it, doug?...;)
  6. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    We really do need to listen and think when we're given a harsh education, "gifted" with an example big enough to penetrate our daily distractions. This is a shockingly expensive lesson so let's benefit from it. Doing otherwise is disrespectful. A few inches of water makes a big difference. Such a simple thing but so easily forgotten or overlooked, or just ignored. Just a little less water going to the wrong place can be a wonderful thing. We still have some control over this.
  7. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Excellent comments Doug.
  8. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Another example of the kind of risk legislators will expose people to when they blind policy to facts. A hospital in NYC is evacuated in the middle of the storm due to unprecedented flooding:
    Dr Andrew Brotman, senior vice president and vice dean for clinical affairs and strategy at the hospital told CNN that, between 7 and 7.45pm on Monday the hospital's basement, lower floors, and elevator shafts filled with 10 to 12 feet of water and the hospital lost its power. "Things went downhill very, very rapidly and very unexpectedly," Brotman said. "The flooding was just unprecedented." Guardian
    Failure of foresight has serious consequences. Things that are unprecedented can still be anticipated, if you're allowed to employ your intellect. Legislate intellect out of the picture and you're effectively left ignorant. Why would legislators mandate ignorance for their citizens? Today's newspapers are littered with stories like this hospital's experience, all telling the same basic message.
  9. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Meanwhile, here's a perfect example of why legislation such as that in Virginia and North Carolina is effectively demented and dangerous:
    PSE&G said it had 1.3 million electricity customers in the dark, including many customers in Newark without power, because a surge in Newark Bay had flooded substations and other equipment. The company, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, had laid sandbags, based on previous experience with flooding from rain and runoff, but was not prepared for the surge, said Ralph A. LaRossa, president and chief operating officer of Public Service. The sandbagging “really didn’t match up with where this storm surge hit us in Newark Bay,” he said in a telephone conference call with reporters on Tuesday morning. “This wall of water that hit us was not something we could have prepared for, although I certainly wish we could have.” New York Times
    It should go without saying that legislators who forbid use of facts in planning set up folks like LaRossa for failure. When executives "fail to anticipate" in the future VA or NC, who'll be fired? Legislators will be dust, leaving the bag in other hands.
  10. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Absolutely correct, doug_b: it's, at minimum, a goal post shift to even talk of seismological or vulcanolical influences on Sandy. As for me? I remain *extremely* skeptical of the claim that storms lead temblors and/or vulcanism.
  11. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Identify your useful politicians by how connected they are with the future.
    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York on Tuesday raised the possibility of building a levee in New York in the aftermath of major flooding in Lower Manhattan and other parts of the city. “It is something we’re going to have to start thinking about,” Mr. Cuomo said. ”The construction of this city did not anticipate these kinds of situations. We are only a few feet above sea level. The flooding in downtown Manhattan was really extraordinary and unlike anything I had seen.” New York Times
  12. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Perhaps that's sound reasoning Paul, but the immediate issues and proximate effects along the east coast of the US have nothing to do with seismology.
  13. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    "...as it has been noted in the geological record that earthquakes, volcanoes and seismic activity does increase with the changing climate." As a geologist, I find this *fascinating*: are you saying (just so I'm hearing you correctly) that GW ~drives~ seismic and volcanic activity? *Really*? Please cite the sources of that data, given you assert "...it has been noted in the geological record...."
  14. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    OMG..was Ebell expressing---dare I speak it?---*doubt* as to the utter correctness of CEI? dana, I do think that was a *very* interesting admission.
  15. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    I think that locally there is an effect due to the raising of the water table as the tidal surge pules in in areas that are fault prone.
  16. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Pete Wirfs @22 - indeed, Ebell's response to that question made my jaw drop. At least he answered it though, it's rare for a 'skeptic' to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. I'll have a post on this subject/quote in the future.
  17. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    I just had a thought which I am going to throw out here... Can super storms like this generate low frequency seismic waves or pressure pulses which trigger earthquakes locally or remotely (for example on the west coast)? This could be one mechanism which is involved when we get sudden climate change like GW as it has been noted in the geological record that earthquakes, volcanoes and seismic activity does increase with the changing climate. Paul
  18. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    For my part the lesson here is pretty simple: a "few" inches of water make a tremendous difference; dismissing what may appear to be minor SLR as being insignificant and something easily brushed off is deeply unimaginative. Attribution: if AGW causes sea level to increase by 12" and because of those few inches your defenses fail during a storm in a way costing billions of dollars, AGW just cost you billions of dollars. If protecting your infrastructure against a "few" inches of sea level rise costs you billions of dollars, that's AGW costing you billions of dollars. The past is prologue. Sandy's surge may have been influenced by AGW to a greater or lesser extent but Sandy's utility lies in telling us what we may expect. Sandy was a rehearsal. So let's keep the SLR to a minimum. Simple enough?
  19. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Son of Krypton@20, I'm not sure (others will have the referencecs at-hand) but it does seem to me it's time for a new button, on SkS: Curry Incorrects. >;-P Irrepsective of her CV viz. peer-reviewed works showing how the REST of sciencia is wrong, that in no way tilts the balance far at all, towards the vast body of climate change research being incorrect. Judith long ago ceded the higher ground of scientific scruples to what I can only imagine to be the conclusion of her wanting the attention, regardless of what appears to be the serious self-torpedoing her own credible work in the field. She allows the most defamatory comments on her website to stand, and simply glosses over or outrightly refuses to answer legitimate ciricisms of her work, whereas anyone--*anyone*--who had their scientific scruples on, would not allow such rank denialism. In the end, denialism is its own worst enemy, given how far afield they go in asserting anything even remotely credible.
  20. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    " I sometimes wonder how these people can sleep with a clear conscience." They have it covered! They will apologize! JOHN HOCKENBERRY: What if you’re wrong? MYRON EBELL: Then I’ll have to say I’m sorry and I wish we could speed up our efforts to reverse the policies that we have supported here at CEI.
  21. Eric (skeptic) at 01:58 AM on 31 October 2012
    Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Hank, it wasn't long ago (the 90's) that global warming was implicated in a positive NAO trend. NAO appears to have cycles rather than trends. The current negative NAO is probably coincidental although there might be an effect from the anomalous heat released from the refreezing Arctic. The abstract that you posted does talk about a potential fall/winter seasonal effect but I don't see from that abstract what the specific cause and effect is (probably too complex to explain in an abstract). There was certainly a contribution to the strength of Sandy from anomalously warm Atlantic temperatures. Sandy showed up coinciding with a deep upper trough and short wave. Otherwise we would have had a merely normal nor'easter instead of a record breaking one.
  22. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Bernard J, now, when I see the exhaust pipes of IC vehicles, irrespective of how clean they've gotten, all I can see is an open sewer pipe: it offends me in many ways. We (finally, eventually) learned to stop puking our effluent into the Cuyahoga River (and many other rivers) and it's now WAY past time we quit dumping into the commons of the atmosphere. It's immoral.
  23. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Too funny, as if on cue Tom Harris does a drive by to demonstrate the very point that Dana and others are making. A clumsy own goal by Harris, but that is not at all surprising. In their minds it does not matter how clumsy or wrong or internally inconsistent they are, they are of the firm belief that all they have to do is fabricate doubt by repeating and recycling the same old (and of refuted) myths. Note too the hypocrisy of Harris who on the one hand denies the consensus (neigh, the consilience on the theory of AGW) while appealing to fudged lists (that was when he was heading up another misinformation group before it died) and web polls too. Harris is not in any position to lecture on climate science never mind to determine the legitimacy of the consensus on AGW, especially when he is in the business of misrepresenting facts. I would suggest that we do not pay too much attention to serial misinformers and radical elements like the ICSC though (see here, here and here for just a few of the many examples).
  24. Son of Krypton at 01:43 AM on 31 October 2012
    Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    vroomie, I'm not familiar with her entire bibliography - it is rather extensive - there is certainly the possibility Judith Curry has contributed to the 2-3% of papers disagreeing with the consensus. If memory serves (please correct me if I'm wrong) not even Watts' sole peer-reviewed paper, Fall et al (2011), (published after Anderegg et al and thus not included in the study) actually questioned the concensus, just evaluated whether site location has an impact
  25. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    "... Weather systems are progressing more slowly, raising the chances for long-duration extreme events, like droughts, floods, and heat waves. "“[The] tendency for weather to hang around longer is going to favor extreme weather conditions that are related to persistent weather patterns,” said Francis, the study’s lead author. "One does not have to look hard to find an example of an extreme event that resulted from a huge, slow-moving swing in the jet stream. It was a stuck or “blocking weather pattern” – with a massive dome of high pressure ...." http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weather-patterns-study-shows And for Sandy -- the blocking high was over Greenland.
  26. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    > Eric (skeptic) .... Sandy was sucked inland Uh huh, sucked. Right. What affected the storm track? Four factors. Two of these four factors affected by climate change: http://www.wbur.org/2012/10/25/hurricane-sandy-storm-new-england These two: jet stream path, and persistence of blocking high pressure, both affected by arctic warming: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weather-patterns-study-shows http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051000.shtml Prediction made -- and, sure enough, evidence happened.
  27. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    TomHarris @6 - aside from the article you link referencing the nonsense myth that global warming stopped 16 years ago, you also seem to somehow miss that Gallup's results find greater public awareness of the consensus than the supposedly biased Yale/George Mason poll. So unless you're arguing that Yale/George Mason is underestimating public awareness, your argument is (as usual) disproven by the data you ignore. You also ignore all the other evidence of consensus presented in this post, i.e. Oreskes, Peiser, the many National Academies' and other scientific organizations' endorsements, etc. I understand that climate denialists need to deny the consensus for PR reasons, as discussed in this post, but frankly it just makes you look bad to deny such an obvious empirical reality.
  28. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Alexandre -- I'm with you all the way. While it's important to anchor all statements in scientific fact, and to be wary of exaggeration, the public expects to be persuaded by advertising and PR. If there's a consensus of scientific bodies -- and there surely is -- then one would expect them to make their views on important issues heard in the popular media. To some degree the well-known NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF are already using these methods, however I'd like to see such organisations teaming-up with -- and closely supervised by, in order to rein in any tendency towards alarmism -- scientific bodies, so as to publicise exactly what climate change could so easily mean. The aftermath of hurricane Sandy is the perfect timing for some billboards that say to New Yorkers something like: "Scientists tell us that 12 inches of sea-level rise in New York has been caused directly by global warming. Hurricane Sandy has been a foretaste of what is likely to become more frequent in future." Now is the time to act. If it could add in the small print that the message is endorsed by NASA, NOAA or whoever, it wouldn't take long to have the desired effect. A link in the small print to a scientific paper or two would provide the necessary rigour, even though the person in the street wouldn't take it any further. This approach would put the denial lobby on the defensive, instead of the situation at the moment where they constantly take the initiative and leave the scientific community almost always fighting a rearguard action.
  29. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Agreed, DSL. The list is then--what's the word?--unimpressive. Now, perhaps, to further answer the question, a list of the remaining scientists' paper on teh subject: I'm sure it's in all the debunking buttons, though. It might make a good blog post....woops, I think I just stepped in it...;)
  30. Eric (skeptic) at 00:30 AM on 31 October 2012
    Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Sandy moved onshore near Atlantic City NJ with a sub 28 inch pressure (I don't know exactly but the two hourly readings were 28.01) The previous non-tropical cyclone record for the US was 28.21 in 2010 in a storm in the upper midwest. Sandy was sucked inland more rapidly than expected which saved NYC and NJ to some extent. But record surges were recorded on Long Island, Sandy Hook NJ (old 10 feet 1 inch, new 12.58 feet) and well up the Hudson River in Poughkeepsie NY (old 8 feet a year ago in Irene, new 9.5 feet). It's not over but the worst is over. The result in my area of Northern Virginia and elsewhere was sporadic wind damage, not severe but over a very wide area somewhat typical flooding.
  31. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Vrooomie. Thanks for a very intriguing response. Given the results that you report it follows that the costs of purifying, storing and delivering the O2, and the costs of collecting, storing and safely and permanently disposing of the CO2 would all have to be effectively zero to warrant even the few percent benefit that you observed with using oxygen enrichment. And in the real world the laws of thermodynamics will not permit those (very large) costs to be avoided. It would seem that sincam shot all of his tappets.
  32. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    vrooomie- We have to exclude non-scientists, so Watts' list drops down to Lindzen, McKitrick (I'm generous), Christy (who used Watts' non-paper in Congressional testimony), Maue (WeatherBell ACE-pusher), Luning (albeit working in the private sector for a petro company), and Michaels. Others may have been published, but the publications were probably pay-for-play or Energy & Environment.
  33. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Brian at #18.
    I don’t know if you are aware or not but the real estate developer pictured in the SMH article you linked to is now the Lord Mayor of Newcastle – developer becomes politician.
    No, I wasn't aware of that! Brings to mind foxes and hen houses. It's obviously a very different Hunter Valley now than when I knew it. It hints at the background for the state government's recinding of the sea level rise policy... Seems that cronyism is alive and well in NSW. Joy Cummings will be turning in her grave.
  34. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    YubeDude at 22:35 PM on 30 October, 2012 No offense taken, but thanks for being polite anyway. I understand this is no longer a scientific issue: it's a PR one, and only one side is really skillful at that. The public is not aware of the present scientific consensus. To many people, it's still largely a "debate". My aim with my suggestion above is just to make the consensus known to the general public. For that purpose, those "public" statements from National Academies of Science, for, example, are simply not effective enough. They will hardly reach a handful of people. I'm not a PR person, so I will not particularly defend the billboard idea too fiercely. Whatever means used, it must be one that reaches the general public, not just the very interested people. And whatever content the message has, it must be direct and simple. One cannot treat a public communication effort as a classroom lecture, expecting from people the attention span a student would (ideally) have. It's always good to promote scientific litteracy but to count on a broad understanding of the underlying physics by the gerneral public to enable change is unrealistic. The general public does not understand in depth how a human heart works, or a lung, or blood vessels. They just trust their doctors when they say cigarettes or too much sugar is bad for you. When it comes to climate science, they were caught in a lying campaign that told them the doctors are still arguing about it. And that's what I think needs proper addressing.
  35. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    danielbacon@13, Anthony watts has kindly compiled a list, which should go a ways towards adressing your requests. Andrew Montford (Author of The Hockey Stick Illusion) Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan professor of Meteorology, MIT) Marc Morano (Climate Depot) John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel, now at KUSI-TV) Chris Horner (Senior Fellow, Center for Energy and Environment, CEI) Steve McIntyre (editor of ClimateAudit.org) Dr. Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph) John Christy (Alabama State climatologist, co author of UAH dataset) Joe D’Aleo (WeatherBell) Joe Bastardi (Weatherbell) Senator Jim Inhofe Bob Tisdale (author of Who Turned on The Heat?) Dr. Ryan Maue (Weatherbell) Dr. Sebastian Lüning (co-author of Die Kalt Sonne) Harold Ambler (Author of Don’t Sell Your Coat) Donna LaFramboise (Author of The Delinquent Teenager) Pat Michaels (former State climatologist of Virgina, fellow of the Cato institute) Pete Garcia (Producer of the movie The Boy Who Cried Warming) Christopher Monckton (SPPI) *All* have been debunked/addressed here on SkS in the helpful links on the home page.
  36. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Bernard J, let me take a shot at answering your questions... Re: "pure" O2 in an engine, I'll stand by my statement: There is *NO* internal combustion engine that will run on pure O2, nor benefit appreciably by the use of O2. Yes, adding pure O2 will indeed make combustion hotter..and decrease fuel mileage, due to the fact of the engine needing more fuel to maintain stochiometry. I happened to have done this professionally, i.e, built, run, and test automotive engines; in 1980, a local physicist sought my dad an I out to run these EXACT tests, that is, running an auxiliary O2 enrichment system on standard automobiles and trucks. One of the test "mules" was a 1981 Chevy Suburban, which I ran ~2000 miles to establich baseline fuel usage data. I then replaced all the lubricants with high-tech (for then) synthetic lubricanbts, then ran *another* 2000 miles to determine their efficacy. Standard, as delivered: 10 mpg, city; 13 mpg highway. Standard, with modified lubricants: almost identical numbers, with ~ less than 1% improvement. I then modified the engine to attain higher volumentric and thermodynamic efficiency (different cam timing, improved induction system, precision balancing, better fuel and timing mapping. Modded engine, standard lubricants: 11 mpg, city, 14 mpg, highway. Modded engine, synthlubes: a repeated ~1% improvement. We then developed the O2 injection system and ran it for ~5000 miles...the *astounding* results? 11.6 mpg, city, 14.1 mpg, highway. In a word, it was essentially useless to inject pure O2 into the engine. On top of that the exhaust emissions were not substantially decreased (given the coarse and low standards of the time) and I can almost assuredly say that any improvements today would be subsumed by the high cost of O2 refinement/storage and distribution. I repeat: O2 injection does NOT make an appreciable difference and is costly to do. Modern engines in cars are just about as efficient as a *reciprocating* engine can be made.I also We cannot do a lot better, using IC engines: what we can do is to continue using modern, lower-weight composite structures (ala F1/CART/IndyCar technology), increasing CAFE standards, and *conserving,* i. e. move ~away~ from so much individual car use. Sorry car guys, but the day of the internal combustion-powered car is, thankfully, numbered. I must say that this was a painful admission for me, who lived, ate, and breathed the car game all my life, and will, so long as I can afford the fuel, continue to play with my one toy car. I will, however, ASAP, be buying a hi-mileage European turbodiesel hybrid, as soon as CARB pulls its regulatory thumb out of its administrative ....behind.
  37. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    There is must to-do about the 97-98% but who are the 2%’ers really. If they are publishing in field, what are they saying (links to their abstracts). I realize the surveys will not list the participants, but I really cannot come up with 2% If we exclude the non-scientists nuts who is left? I know of: John Christy Roy Spencer I would exclude “Patrick Michaels” he only has one published work in Nature or am I wrong not to include him. Anyway it would be nice to have a post of these 2%’ers and their works.
  38. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Yes, Tom. The longer it takes you to answer questions about the science, the more I'm inclined to think you're simply a tool in others' hands. You were once a teacher, weren't you? You now appear as a professional rhetorician, which is as kind as I can put it without violating the comments policy (which I've probably already done).
  39. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Alexandre@10 First let me state that my comments are not personal or intended to insult your position. I disagree with your suggest and mostly because your billboard idea has an emotional tone that plays into the hands of groups like Heartland and people like Mr Harris. They want to make this an emotional issue because they can not argue the facts or the empirical metrics that have been developed. The want to suggest that life styles will be compromised, wallets lightened and that your children will end up walking in the bitter cold searching for a job. We need to concentrate on the facts, the details, the studies, the peer reviewed publications first and foremost. Once the issue is established as a reality that threatens our way of life and life itself, then and only then, will we have any traction with the lay-public; and once they see the reality, the future will be abundantly clear. We won't have to put up billboards as everyone will already know what is in store for us. Skeptics are the ones who came up with the acronym CAGW because they wanted to paint the picture that the issue is one of scare mongering. We don't need to help them out. I feel your passion and I am equally frustrated over the resistance toward the obvious but the public needs to be handled carefully or we will lose them to their own fears; fears which are being actively manipulated by an army of "deskepticons" hell bent on obfuscation and re-working the issue away from science and moving it to an issue of politically motivated social engineering.
  40. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    I'm for a campaign publicly endorsed by the most respected scientific institutions in the field, in each country. It should convey simple and direct messages - as simple as tobacco hazard warnings we have in some countries. Billboards or full-page ads saying thins like “We thought Arctic sea ice would be as low only in fifty years. It’s going now.” “Remember last summer’s heatwave? That will be our mild summer in 2060. Protect our children’s future. Stop global warming.” “40% of our freshwater comes from that glacier. Protect our water. Stop warming.” All this, I repeat, endorsed by institutions like NOAA, NASA, and the like. The general public is NOT currently aware of the position of these institutions, and that helps only the denier campaign. Elaborate public statements buried in the middle of a very technical website (such as NOAA’s) have a very limited effect when it comes to informing the general public.
  41. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Dr Harris: Welcome back. I note that you still haven't provided a response to the scientific questions concerning your previous lecture course, as identified in this article, instead choosing to try and deflect the discussion to other topics. I'm still interested in your answers to those questions. My particular area of interest is the relationship between forcing and temperature, and so your statement that "there isn’t a good correlation between temperatures and CO2 over the record." is particularly peculiar: Firstly it ignores the fact that CO2 is not and has never been claimed to be the only forcing, and secondly the relationship between forcing and temperature once taking into account lags is very strong indeed. I will be happy to take you through my analysis if you are interested. I suggest however that the other thread would be a more appropriate venue. No doubt other contributors will want to understand your curious statements on other issues.
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 21:50 PM on 30 October 2012
    Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    And Tom Harris gives us a perfect example of another topic, namely the coping strategy number one of those who can't face reality: deny it. And be sincere about it.
  43. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    US summer heat wave. Record low arctic sea ice minimum. NY hit by two hurricanes in one year. But its just bad luck...
  44. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Bernard J @17 I don’t know if you are aware or not but the real estate developer pictured in the SMH article you linked to is now the Lord Mayor of Newcastle – developer becomes politician. Now that’s no way to solve the problem!
  45. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    TomHarris@6 "consensus argument is nonsense" Vague and unsupported, but congrats for putting it out there. Maybe next time you can substantiate such a bold and meaningless claim. "poll you cite was so biased as to not be a meaningful indicator of American public opinion on global warming" What makes the poll biased, and not to put to fine a point on things, who gives a "rats ass" what the public OPINION is on a matter of science? When it comes to opinion I thought it was the job of manipulative "deskepticons", like those who run sham think tanks, to create the public opinion. "I'll have a review...It is a pretty ridiculous survey." Maybe it would be best to wait for some objective analysis before posting your conclusion on the surveys merit.
  46. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Thanks for mentioning the International Climate Science Coalition in your article. Yes, the consensus argument is nonsense. Also, the Yale/George Mason poll you cite was so biased as to not be a meaningful indicator of American public opinion on global warming, etc. See my article on this here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/u.s.-main-stream-media-duped-on-global-warming-polls I'll have a review of the Anderegg et al. (2010) 97% paper shortly. It is a pretty ridiculous survey. Sincerely, Tom Harris ICSC - Ottawa
  47. Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
    Here is another one: https://twitter.com/bakyelli/status/263065660890951681/photo/1 And I will remind here that Hansen was talking not only about ocean surge but also hight winds. He apparently meant a tropical hurricane in NY. "“The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds". His prediction came true after 24, not 40 years!
  48. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:03 PM on 30 October 2012
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    Here is another photo - chest deep on the West Side Highway - during the Sandy superstorm.
  49. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:47 PM on 30 October 2012
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    This isn't permanent (yet), but likely to happen more often this century. Click here to see a photo of New York's West Side Highway under water. Another report from Wall St Journal Metropolis blog here: "Water is “flowing at great speed” from the West Side Highway into the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, he said, but it’s too early to say how much had entered the subway system."
  50. Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
    Sensenbrenner's remarks about "scientists and their supporters" make me wonder if he'd need to be persuaded to use a ladder to climb down from a roof rather than simply jump. On the one hand "physicists and their supporters" say Sensenbrenner would risk being hurt by jumping 20' to the ground but on the other hand who can really say? It's controversial; after all, gravitation is only a theory and doubtless some crazy people can be found who think our confinement to Earth is just mass hysteria. Why not leap off the roof and let events prove the truth? Not likely Sensenbrenner would jump from a roof but he's prepared to impose bigger risks on himself and many others. Odd.

Prev  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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