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  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  Next

Comments 52601 to 52650:

  1. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    YubeDube @1, Interesting analysis. You finish by saying, "Regardless of the reasons for this article, the substance is appallingly misleading noise." I agree--nothing but noise from a radical, anti-science minority, it is all they have. It is bad enough that certain "journalists" habitually misrepresent the science and fabricate falsehoods. But what is much worse, in my opinion, is when you have a (formerly) respected scientist (i.e., Curry) enabling Rose while full-knowing the long dubious history of said "journalist". This is wholly unacceptable, and tragic that such repeated unprofessional behaviour goes without consequence. Not surprisingly, the usual fake skeptics out there have been only too happy to uncritically disseminate this propaganda.
  2. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    The daily mail article was linked on NZ's Whaleoil blog. It prompted me to download the HADCRUT4 monthly data and make my own graph. You can see my comment and graph here. The mail online had chosen to start their graph with the September 1997 figure, .475 degrees. The January 1997 figure is about .2 degrees so would have given the impression of an overall .3 degree rise through to May 2012. Of course nowhere does the mail online cop to only including the last 4 months of 1997's data.
  3. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    I started this last night knowing that someone was going to post....thanks Dana. Recently SKS has posted a number of quality articles on the issue of climate change communication-CCC. One aspect of CCC that keeps showing itself over and over is the misdirection of obfuscation as offered by those who, for whatever reason, feel the need to take their skepticism out of the realm of reason and logic and into the dark shadows of rhetorical excess and blatant misrepresentation. An article by David Rose from the Daily Mail Online is an excellent example of this and a focused dissection will give us the opportunity to examine a few of the techniques that are commonly used. The reader will be best served by opening the article in another window and placing it side by side; think of this as SKS-CSI: CCC Squad. Starting with the headline we are introduced to an unnamed report, one that the Met Office has said they did not release or produce, and a sinister suggestion that it was quietly release as thought there is something to hide. This point of a quite release is going to show up a few times in the article. Though the writer never talks about the origin of this report it is repeatedly implied that the Met Office is responsible. Next, we get two bullet points; one that stipulates a time frame statistically irrelevant, and the second that draws a conclusion only the writer knows the significance of but when used as a bullet point it must be important. Moving on to the bulk of the article: The opening sentence is nothing more than a repetition of the primary statistical outlier dressed up as relevant information and to those who don’t know any better it will carry the weigh of fact; that the writer and editor chose to place this as the opening sentence adds to the perception of importance that the information doesn’t merit. The second sentence introduces the concept of “debate” within the climate science community without introducing these other voices; later we will hear one voice who disagrees but the controversy from that voice has nothing to do with the “report”. This is a created controversy that does not actually exist within the science community but serves the writers obfuscation. No scientist who works with the data or understands the nature of statistics is going to accept this time frame as anything more than noise. It is this degree of sophistry and speciosity that can alter the public perception away from the generally accepted message as generated by science toward a false perception of our actual climatic status based on nothing more than manipulative articles like this. Sentence three and the writer is offering a conclusion as to the meaning of this “report” albeit a conclusion that is again irrelevant and based on statistical noise that no scientist would accept as note worthy. Next we get a graph produced by the Mail that has the requisite amount of fire engine red to demand the viewer’s attention with just the right mix of deception in structure to look as thought it supports the articles central premise. Not only does the writer apply his own biased analysis to the “report” but he avoids any of the graphics from the “report” and has his people make their own. Note that the graph title makes a suggestion the graph never shows; “showing tenths of a degree above and below”, there are no points on the graph below, but the seed has been planted in the readers sub-consciousness. At this juncture it is evident that journalistic integrity and objective reporting are not what we are going to find. A line by line autopsy will not tell us much more than we have already discovered so let’s look at just some broad strokes. There is the repeated mentioning of the “report” being quietly released with the implication that in comparison to the “media fanfare” of the previous release of temperature data there must be a reason that implies that the devil is afoot. Reading further we get to meet a few of the popular memes that have been making the rounds such as: catastrophic, bourgeois Left-wing academics (a new one for me but one that I find most entertaining), another repeat of the articles primary focus but this time in the form of a pub trivia game (an appeal to populist working class?), still another repeat of the report being issued “quietly” in comparison to…; and then the monster who eats little babies, “Your energy bill is going to increase”. It should be noted that whenever reason and logic fail suggest someone has their hand in your pocket and is stealing from you to make your point unassailable. This article isn’t about science as it only skims the data, albeit incorrectly, this article is just another salvo in the war for the minds of the masses who are either to busy to notice of lack the sophistication to discern the high degree of sophistry being applied. This is about using a dishonesty of words to manipulate emotions in the reader who lacks the intellect to see the obvious propaganda. Maybe the motivation is pure business, trying to appeal to the readerships demographic. Regardless of the reasons for this article, the substance is appallingly misleading noise.
  4. Philippe Chantreau at 10:03 AM on 16 October 2012
    Climate sensitivity is low
    Falkenherz, if you are referring tp the galcial/interglacial cycles, the evidence points to changes not in TSI but in its distribution over the surface. That itself is an argument for high sensitivity to radiative forcings in general.
  5. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Some of the links to the SkS articles from 'This Week in Review' are broken.
    Moderator Response: [DB] I found 2 broken links there & fixed them. Were there others? Thanks!
  6. It's not us
    Carbon500 - "Where have I made the claim that the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas hasn't been experimentally proven?" Let me refresh your memory. In your last post, which I replied to before it was snipped for being a Gish Gallop, you said:
    Does this really mean that the foundation stone of the CO2 story hasn’t been verified experimentally, and that calculated forcings are all the evidence there is?
    You did indeed make that claim - and it is indeed completely unsupportable given direct evidence such as Harries 2001.
  7. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Indeed, Carbon Brief stole a little bit of my thunder there! My post makes a lot of the same points, and even uses one of the same graphics.
  8. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    For those interested -- and who are too impatient to wait for Dana -- CarbonBrief have already posted a Daily Mail debunk.
  9. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Yes, we've got a Daily Mail debunking post almost ready to go. I may even publish it later today.
  10. Most coral reefs are at risk unless climate change is drastically limited
    This is a very interesting blog. I have studied Biology and Environmental Sciences where we have analysed the impacts of climate change on ocean warming and acidification, and have found the same results. Coral reefs lack the ability to diversify and as such, are subject to the harsh consequences when their environment changes. What some people do not realise is that declining coral reefs have a huge impact on the environment in which they grow. This is because of the feedback mechanisms that occur between the corals and the animals and plants that live amongst it - and the symbiotic relationships present. The fact that coral growth is limited to an increase of BELOW 1.5 degrees Celsius is very frightening, considering the possibilities of severer warming. Furthermore, that the scenario conducted only shows two thirds to be able to adapt to extreme conditions. It is situations like these where the environment (in this case coral reefs) cannot adapt appropriately to changing climates, that mitigation to anthropogenic activities is vital to their survival. Because while natural climate variability does occur, anthropogenic impacts put species at risk of extinction where before they may have had a chance to adapt and survive.
  11. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Yes, John Hartz, this weekly post is very useful. Ouijit@7. Yes, I believe that the indefatigable dana1981 has a post in the works to debunk the Daily Mail article. Indeed, he has already prebunked it.
  12. Climate sensitivity is low
    "it is still very hard to grasp that incoming direct TSI can be modified by "earth climate" to such a high level that it in fact marginalizes the source's direct influence" How about considering how different the climate of the earth would be (ice ball) without any GHG then? If you dont think that theory is believable then consider that you deduce surface temperature of any rotating planet anywhere given TSI, albedo, aerosol and ... atmospheric composition (ie GHG).
  13. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    I agree with jonas at 5, very useful for keeping those not in the loop informed.
  14. It's the sun
    Interesting article on this topic: Steinhilber et al 2012, "9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings". They use Be10 and C14 isotopes from ice cores and tree rings to reconstruct total solar irradiance over that period, taking advantage of some more recent ice cores for cross-checking. They then compare that to the Asian climate record, and find good coherence - albeit with periods of very low coherence, which they state are "...pointing to other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks. Their forcing data will apparently be made available at the NOAA server for paleo datasets, although only his 2009 revision is currently up.
  15. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Vrooomie and gpwayne, if you were looking for practice at trying out John's techniques, then SA Dean did give you that opportunity. But although Mr. Dean did gussy up the standard run of the mill "sceptic" arguments and deliver them politely, they were obviously still just that from the outset.
  16. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    If coal continues to be replaced by natural gas in the coming decade or so and with it, the production of aerosols which have a very short life in the atmosphere, it should be possible to get a handle on the relative cooling effect of aerosols. Could we be in for a wee upturn in global warming just when we least need it (this year's Arctic ice melt)
  17. Climate sensitivity is low
    Falkenherz wrote: "So, what level of TSI difference started and ended the shifts we observe from the ice cores?" Rather than explain to you again why the glacial / interglacial cycle is not caused by changes in TSI I'll just point you to the previous time I explained it.
  18. Climate sensitivity is low
    Hi! It is still very hard to grasp that incoming direct TSI can be modified by "earth climate" to such a high level that it in fact marginalizes the source's direct influence. A problem many sceptics seem to have, too. Coming from the discussion of the alternative TSI reconstruction from Shapiro e.a. http://www.skepticalscience.com/shapiro-solar-2011.html#comments , which is counter-argued in that linked article because his observations would imply a very low climate sensitivity when compared to the reconstructed temperature curves from Ljungqvist. I read here with special interest about Hansen 2008 and his long term comparisions from earth history. Hansen 2008 does not bring forth any TSI data, but from his footnotes you get the impression there is almost no significant shift in TSI levels throughout earth history. However, he also states "The possibility remains of solar variability on longer time scales.", which he debunks by pointing out the TSI development of the last decades (last page); which I find not entirly coherent. Is there any data on TSI levels throughout earth history? (For example, for the last 450k years from Figure 2 of this article? I never really understood what part of the 6 Degrees difference from the ice cores is attributable to GHG and what part to TSI. Sure is only that TSI was the driver of the shifts from warm to cold and vice versa. So, what level of TSI difference started and ended the shifts we observe from the ice cores?)
  19. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    From my perspective it is more effective to stop in on WNR than a broad troll of the literature. Hurrah for cogency. Yours FPjohn
  20. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    #48 JoeRG : Apologies if I repeat what you already know, but Table 1 is radiative forcing, related to the gradient of the OHC-time series. The error on a gradient is the measurement error plus non-linear components (e.g. ENSO/solar/volcanoes) which also add to the noise. By taking a longer trend you are including more data, and their average contribution reduces towards zero if the noise distribution has a mean-square of zero, so the error estimate falls. Try it in a spreadsheet with a trend plus white noise and then calculating the trend and standard error for different time spans. Even if the noise characteristics don't change, the error in the trend estimate is reduced as more data are included. Larger standard errors earlier on would serve to increase the error, but from Nuccitelli et al's numbers it seems that lengthening the trend calc from 6 years to 28 years more than compensates. Finally, you can see the same effect using Kevin C's excellent trend calculator. 2005-2010 has a trend error of close to 0.65 K/yr. Taking it from 1970 to 2010 reduces the error to 0.036 K/yr.
  21. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    gws, yes, thanks! So I will now look into the bigger picture from that quoted article "how sensitive is the climate" in order to fully understand the argument of this article here.
  22. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Falkenherz @32 In general, the answer is yes. As you are not a scientist, let me explain what this means in the science world: 1. If the Shapiro result is defensible in methodology and argumentation, it contrasting past results (metaphor: does not fit existing puzzle) is provisionally accepted 2. This leads to more questioning in this field (actual skepticism!) to explain why different results were obtained, which usually improves the science down the road 3. When said improvement comes along, the result that does not fit into the improved picture becomes marginalized (even if we cannot clearly explain why it was wrong) So far, any arguments made in the past not fitting global warming theory (call them "rogue puzzle pieces") by forwarding alternative explanations (e.g. the Lindzen Iris hypothesis) have not stood the test of time outlined in 1.-3. So if past is any indication of future, Shapiro et al. will not cease to exist, but it may get marginalized quickly unless more evidence fitting it is appearing in the peer-reviewed literature. Does that help?
  23. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz, It is, unfortunately, common that people do not talk "eye-to-eye", and online, without benefit of direct feedback or physiognomy, even more so. That said, people here immediately responded asking you to be clearer on message. It took a while before it was understood here that you meant to say that "serious" skeptics argue that "TSI drives all other changes" (your initial "top-up"), aka also the observed CO2 increases. Needless to repeat ?: No, no evidence for that being the current mechanism of climate change. Instead, plenty of evidence for the universally acceptance mechanism. And no, no hard feelings, you are welcome to be back with more as long as it's not too far our ;-)
  24. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Lloyd Flack "I think climate change denial is more common in physics than in most sciences. " Yeah. Another one is Geology, particularly what is called 'economic geology' - the geology of digging stuff up. That is perhaps easy to see why. They spend their working lives 'building our world' by finding stuff to dig up. So they have an emotional vested interested in preserving the merit of what they have done. Then the focus of their working life is about the questions of 'what rocks, where?'. They don'tactually need to focus to much on the story of why those rocks are what they are - you left that behind in your undergraduate days. And they don't spend much timeon the academic geology - history of the Earth, what processes occurred over that history, a deep understanding of the chemistry of the past. Yet they are surrounded all the time by the immensity of geology. So it is easy to lose sight of the causes of geology andthe part living systems play in that - Photosynthesis gets invented 3.5 billion years ago, photosynthetic organisms flourish in a CO2 rich world. They start elevating the O2 level in the atmosphere till, at around 10% O2 the so-called 'Great Oxygenation Event' occurs. Rising O2 levels start to react with the masses of iron dissolved in the oceans to produce Iron Oxides- Rust. This precipitates out and sinks to the sea floor where it builds up in thick layers. Which we are mining today, 2.5-3 billion years later. If their career hasn't led them to think deeply about why the geology is what it is, not just what it is, they can easily be overwhelmed emotionally by their sense of themeaning of their working lives and lose sight of this.
  25. It's not us
    Carbon500 wrote: "Sometimes it's useful to stand back and just look at the contours of a graph rather than playing games with trend lines and placing all your faith in statistical results." So... avoid any hint of actual math and just let your preconceived notions guide your 'understanding' of the data? "The section of graph I'm talking about is quite different in character from what precedes it." True, in that it does not show as rapid an increase in atmospheric temperatures... but you implied ("Finally, the globe is warming? Is it?") that it doesn't show an increase at all, which is simply false. Even if it weren't false it would be the wrong graph for what you purport to be disputing. That's a graph of lower atmospheric temperatures, not "the globe". The oceans of the world are a vastly greater reservoir of energy than the lower atmosphere... and measurements of ocean water continue to show a high rate of warming. Finally, even if we could use just the lower atmosphere to determine whether the globe was warming, while ignoring the vastly more significant oceans, and we pretended that the lower atmospheric graph you posted did not show the warming trend it actually does... your 'conclusions' would still be wrong because there has been extensive research on the various factors at play in atmospheric temperatures over the past hundred years and the 'difference in character' you note has been explained by measured changes in factors other than the greenhouse gas forcing. Basically, greenhouse gas warming continues to increase and is the primary driver of the continuing warming trend. The short term variability you cling to is the result of other smaller factors (e.g. solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, soot, et cetera) varying up and down enough to change the slope of the trend over short time frames... but not enough to stop the inexorable upwards march.
  26. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
    Further to the Met Office's rebuttal (see #4 above) I'd just like to point out that Judith Curry has a problem with David Rose's piece too.
  27. It's not us
    KR: Sometimes it's useful to stand back and just look at the contours of a graph rather than playing games with trend lines and placing all your faith in statistical results. I have a good reason for saying this. In an industrial research project on which I was engaged many years ago the statistics of a crucial experiment showed significance (and yes the correct test was used, in case you're wondering), but because I was suspicious further experiments ensued and a great deal of time and money was subsequently saved on the project on which I was engaged. The section of graph I'm talking about is quite different in character from what precedes it. Never mind, you look at it your way, I'll look at it mine. Where have I made the claim that the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas hasn't been experimentally proven? Have I even suggested that I have issues with satellite data? Had you read what I said properly, you would have noted that I was enquiring as to whether a laboratory experiment using an artificial atmosphere had ever been carried out to assess the effects of CO2.
  28. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    There is an interesting Scientific American article that seems to help explain why people believe misinformation even in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary. The article is called Diss Information: Is There a Way to Stop Popular Falsehoods from Morphing into "Facts"? . It turns out that correcting misinformation can inadvertently strengthen it. I'm facing an uphill battle in getting a single AGW denier to accept anything but AGW denier misinformation. It's just frustrating...and not worth the effort I put into it.
  29. Climate time lag
    Sphaerica... "Your statement is also an insult to all of the people who have posted responses ..." Look, it is rather easy to blame me. All I did in the beginning here, at #295, was ask a simple question, which could have answered with a simple "no" and some explanations, and those could be included into the article. Instead, most of the comments I received back were like "what nonsense are you talking about?", pressing me to justify my questioning and my intellect. I was at no point getting personal to anybody, but I do not feel treated in kind. ( -snip-) Let's leave it at that, this is getting out of hand and not helping anybody to understand things better. Thanks for all the answers I actually was able to pick out of the sum of all comments, they nevertheless helped me understand some things.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
  30. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    I am trying to understand the point of the article better: - pointing out that doubled CO2 will yield 3,7W/m2 radiative forcing - comparing that with effects of TSI forcing according to Shapiro on the Ljungqvist-data: "low climate sensitivity" - consequence would be, which is not expressively mentioned in the article: doubled CO2 would be less severe than assumed (if you assumed the same cliamte sensitiviy) - counter argument of the article: "A climate sensitivity this low contradicts the many lines of evidence supporting the IPCC range, and would make large past climate changes (i.e. transitions between glacial and interglacial periods) extremely hard to explain." (includes link to another article here) Did I get the argumentation logic correctly?
  31. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    With "to quote the infamous wording of IPCC, 'very likely'", I seem to strike a nerve, again. By saying "infamous", I was referring how much deniers get worked up with that wording, by demanding "100%-proof" and thus debunking IPCC assessments on totally wrong premises. I am aware what the article is trying to do; it discusses the findings of the Shapiro essay. So, I repeat: The TSI graph from Shapiro seems to be much more suited to explain the antique and medival warm periods, by linking them to a much clearer high TSI level. On top of it, TSI and temperature from that time seem to roughly match today's. Marcus earlier up seemed to draw exactly the opposite conclusion. That's why I put a questionmark and wanted to discuss this more. Your answers so far were not helpful. Spaerica, as a side remark, I find it strange that Marcus' statement was not contested, mine is, but the basis of our observations are the same "eyeballing method". (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Tone-trolling snipped.
  32. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
    Fantastic tool. That is all I have to say.
  33. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Jim Eager (#28) "With just two posts SA Dean managed to achieve the purpose he intended, namely to reinforce myths and derail the thread". Can I suggest that it might be worth revisiting the article, and John's elaboration, of the subject, which is good communication? I made mention earlier of arguments that speak to motive. Here, you assign blame and motive to a poster whose motives you cannot know, and whose actions do not appear to me to merit condemnation. If we are to hope that reason will prevail, we surely have to adopt a simple maxim: that people like SA Dean are innocent until proven otherwise. I tried to adopt some of the methods discussed in John's book - respect for Mr. Dean's concerns in particular - while arguing that some of the premises he employed may be mistaken. Reason, where employed and respected by both parties in any discourse, should prevail. I would hope - reasonably - that Mr. Dean might think through his position. It's all I could ask. I don't expect anyone to change their mind just because I put a counter-position. The best I can hope for is reflection, introspection, and perhaps some modest revision if my arguments were presented well enough. And none of that would be possible if, instead, I just dumped SA Dean into a convenient bucket called 'denial', assigned him motives consistent with my own generalisation, and dismissed his concerns as disingenuous without having the slightest evidence to support my dismissal. We can judge, or we can debate from a position more humble, and I think more appropriate. As angry as denialists make me, if I continuously frame the debate in their terms, I am conceding my rationality to their lack of it. Deniers will dismiss me, what I say, and the science I find credible, simply because they believe I'm a 'warmist', 'alarmist', or have an agenda - their arguments nearly always speak to motive, and not science (since they don't have any). Surely we should not seek to emulate them?
  34. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    I've seen denialists rabbiting on about this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29H885LXz Can anyone tell me the actual context?
    Moderator Response: [DB] The Met Office response is here.
  35. It's cooling
    It's the Daily double, and we're in jeopardy.
  36. It's cooling
    And now we have not warming line repeated at the Daily Mail..again. Mail
  37. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Looking at upcoming articles I notice that there is a mix of research and communications issues for our pleasure. I still think it would do us all a great service if we could have separate threads/forums for science, policy, communication. Thought they intersect, policy does not dictate science and the two need to be kept separate. Same is true with communication, how you say it does not alter the objective metrics. Both policy issues and communication styles are important intersections for denialist to attempt to muddy the waters of science, hence the need for separation, IMHO. Regardless, this is the best site I've found for objective discourse and factual analysis.
  38. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Ouijit, responding to the twistings of TDM is both a full-time job and pointless, since such an endeavor would have absolutely no effect on either TDM or its regular readers. I simply point people to the Met Office to get what was actually said -- with bonus context!
  39. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    John Cook: I think it would be a service to all if you collated a rendering of a few of the post in this thread for ease of copy/paste. This thread is not about the science, this thread is about the card game of communication and how certain words are dealt to further the gambit of obfuscations which in turn are played to win the hand of "reasonable skepticism". In particular, the articulate comments from gpwayne go a long way in addressing this style of discourse and how it is manipulated, either purposefully or through an inability to be clear and concise, in an effort to dissuade objective analysis in favor of accepting rhetorical flair. Addressing the style, syntax and vocabulary (the memed list of adjectival pejoratives) of denial would be a solid addition to your wonderful handbook.
  40. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Maybe it's in the works but I'm keen to see SS respond to "Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago" published in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
  41. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Nick, I think most denialists want an excuse to do nothing whether from distaste for environmentalists, Gore, taxes, international treaties etc. Anything half plausible will do to convince themselves.
  42. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    News Roundup is really useful. (And I agree about the comments adding insight)
  43. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    #32 From Peru, I think climate change denial is more common in physics than in most sciences. As the most basic and fundamental of all the sciences it usually deals with the simplest systems. Too many want a simple mathematical description of what is going on and do not develop a feel for the behaviour of complex systems. Some don't know how to handle observational rather than experimental data. This makes them too likely to accept the simple arguments that denialists make, especially if this fits in with their ideological preferences. This is only a tendency and as far as I know only a minority of physicists fall for it.
  44. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean mentions one of the standard denialist obfuscations - that the Earth's systems are too complex to understand which lets them jump to the false conclusion that we cannot know what will happen if we alter the balance of atmospheric gases by injecting extra greenhouse gases. Very simply, we don't need to understand every element of the complexity at all to figure out what will happen - that is a complete red herring. What we need to know is this. Does CO2 have a greenhouse gas effect? (this is certain). Have we/are we still increasing it? (this is certain). Is our increasing the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases causing the planet to heat up to a new equilibrium temperature? (this is certain). How much will Earth heat up? (this is less certain). Only on the very last point is there any legitimate scientific debate at all and most of it concludes that we have a sensitivity of 3 deg C per doubling of CO2. A very small minority of credible scientists (Lindzen, Christy Spencer etc) claim the sensitivity is 1 deg or less per doubling but outside of the science arena this is not relevant to what politicians should be doing. With the certainties known (as above) and the probabilities about which there is some small debate, what politicians need to think about urgently is risk assessment. If sensitivity is 3 deg, then certainly the greenhouse gases we have put up/are still putting up there will cause serious trouble that we won't be able to escape from for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. If sensitivity is a lot less, then nothing much will happen. It all comes down to taking a chance on what you believe if you are not completely up to date with the science which suggests that some feedbacks are much faster than were expected (ice/tundra melt). Faced with Dirty Harry's climate gun should any sane politician gamble that the sensitivity bullet left in his Magnum is a dud or not? Remembering that making the wrong choice can lead to a bad outcome for not only the individuals making the choice but also the rest of the 7 billion here, the political forces have to be asked - do you feel lucky, punks?
  45. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    > "From your perspective, does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose?" Yes, absolutely. For guys and girls outside the insider scene, there are four challenges: - what is consolidated science saying? (myths debunked) - how to debunk obvious nonsense, in a fact oriented way? (gish gallops debunked) - what are the science news (New research: not yet consolidated, but worth knowing) - what is the perception/politics/direction/trends worldwide (News Roundup). It's the fourth pillar. The fifth is: "Comments". Which often give really interesting additional insights.
  46. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Doug H @2, news roundup, not weekly digest.
  47. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Agreed with citizenschallenge. The News Roundup along with the weekly listing of new research are likely to be two of the most useful features of SkS.
  48. Doug Hutcheson at 11:08 AM on 15 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    ... does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose? Certainly: where else would you put the Toon of the Week? The summary is a good way of catching up when time is limited, or after I have spent some time away from my computer.
  49. citizenschallenge at 09:52 AM on 15 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    Question: "From your perspective, does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose?" To be blunt... damned straight the Weekly Round-Up series serves a very useful purpose ! And it should definitively be continued.
  50. empirical_bayes at 09:46 AM on 15 October 2012
    A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Sorry, "Kevin C".

Prev  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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