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  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  Next

Comments 53251 to 53300:

  1. actually thoughtful at 13:01 PM on 1 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
    Solutions.
  2. 93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
    It might be nice to hope that James Murdoch might make some difference, but, well, if he's going to, where's the evidence? He can hardly say he doesn't have a platform; why isn't he using it? Frankly, NewsCorp is so ridden with ideologues that it's very hard to imagine it ever changing without a root-and-branch, intentional - and highly-unlikely - clean sweep. Once centrist, The Australian, for instance, is now not much more than a far-right-wing thinktank that happens to publish the national daily. Just as Rupert created it. It is a veritable crypt of Zombie notions, and not just regarding climate...
  3. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
    Could you post more replies to the "it's too hard/too expensive" lines? I keep getting hit with comments about windfarms chopping up birds, or that solar can never supply all our energy needs, or that going off coal will wreck the economy. But don't stop what you've been doing, you're the best in the business.
  4. TomPainInTheAsk at 12:11 PM on 1 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
    I also agree with YubeDude's second request: Please, more articles that examine the techniquest behind the skepticism (& denialism) arguments manufactured by people who are real pros at it. (-snip-). The new Spin Doctors are light-years beyond that now.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
  5. TomPainInTheAsk at 12:07 PM on 1 October 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
    I second YubeDude's request! Issues concerning policy and amelioration become political very quickly. Perhaps that is inevitable; financial resources are involved. IPCC Work Groups provide a separation of the science from more political aspects. It's a good idea.
  6. TomPainInTheAsk at 11:55 AM on 1 October 2012
    93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
    Arguments in the SkS Top 20 marked by “-” were not seen very much in play among the thousands of Yahoo News comments. Perhaps they are in decline, or they are not currently promoted by News Corporation's Fox News and WSJ editorials. It is easy to identify what lies Fox News currently broadcasts without watching Fox programs, just by the frequency of remarks in Yahoo News. 1 Climate's changed before 4.6% 2 It's the sun 4.5% 3 It's not bad 4.3% 4 There is no consensus 3.4% -5 It's cooling 3.4% 6 Models are unreliable 3.1% 7 Temp record is unreliable 2.6% 8 Animals and plants can adapt 2.4% -9 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.1% 10 Antarctica is gaining ice 2.0% -11 CO2 lags temperature 2.0% 12 Ice age predicted in the 70s 1.9% 13 Climate sensitivity is low 1.9% -14 We're heading into an ice age 1.8% -15 Ocean acidification isn't serious 1.8% 16 Hockey stick is broken 1.8% 17 Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy 1.7% 18 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming 1.7% -19 Glaciers are growing 1.6% 20 Al Gore got it wrong 1.6% Below are frequent arguments I encountered that are not in SkS's current Top 20. 24 Sea level rise is exaggerated 27 Mars is warming 1.2% (followed by Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto!) 28 Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle 29 Increasing CO2 has little to no effect 1.1% 32 IPCC is alarmist 1.0% 39 CO2 is not a pollutant 0.8% 54 It's a natural cycle 0.5% 60 Scientists can't even predict weather 0.5% 85 Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun 0.3% 86 CO2 is not the only driver of climate 0.2% 102 Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain 0.2% 106 Solar cycles cause global warming 0.2% 111 The IPCC consensus is phoney 0.1% 126 Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer 0.1% 133 The sun is getting hotter 0.1% 136 Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC? 0.0%
  7. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Does this in any way relate to Nils Axel Morner's arguments about lack of sea level rise. Did he "examine" tropical islands where this "3 meter beach" existed and therefore deterime that sea levels are dropping from that, or is that oo simplistic an explanation of his views?
  8. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
    I would like to see two distinct threads. One on the science exclusively and the other on policy and amelioration. When the later starts to challenge the former we lose objectivity when assessing the science. No doctor would make a diagnosis based on treatment protocols or cost; the diagnosis is based completely on the metrics at hand. Along those line I would like to see more articles that address the sophistry of skepticism which is dependent on conflating objective data streams with subjective policy. On the pure scientific front, I would like to hear from an atmospheric chemist on whether CO2 that carries the combined 18-O (combustion) and 12-C (old carbon) signatures are regarded as the Anthro-CO2 smoking gun. What papers I have found and read suggest but still leave vast wiggle room. In particular I have not found any research that looks directly at the combined signatures in CO2.
  9. TomPainInTheAsk at 11:11 AM on 1 October 2012
    93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
    I "lived" this news story when it was published on Yahoo News a few days ago. In fact, for nearly two days I didn't do anything else but reply to Yahoo News Comments, argue with Deniers and inform Skeptics. I directed as many as possible to the Skeptical Science website. It was an intense period of exchange - eat, sleep, and type away like a madman on my laptalk. John Cook may note a late September increase in hits to the SkS website. There were literally thousands of comments to this Yahoo News article. Its popularity was probably due to a number of factors: 1. The U.S. is approaching the "make or break" period in a presidential campaign that was already in full gear last year. Ultra-conservatives in the Republican Party has forced Governor Romney to retreat from his previous acceptance of ACC. It's getting crazy here, folks! 2. This story "93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading" followed immediately on the heels of the news story from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) that Arctic sea ice had hit "record" lows. 3. Many are upset that no questions involving climate change were planned for any of the three upcoming presidential debates. That may change. 4. Many are complete exasperated with News Corporation. As the article notes, it is not just Fox News, but also Wall Street Journal editorials. Some Yahoo commentors have also noticed a decline in the quality of WSJ news articles since Murdoch took over. Anyone wishing to discuss this further with me directly, feel free to contact me at TomPainInTheAsk@yahoo.com (-snip-). --Gary Walker (aka TomPainInTheAsk)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please refrain from the use of all-caps (converted to lower case above). Personal information snipped.
  10. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Not sure if this is helpful, but argument by analogy might be worth trying with those of a non-scientific background. The problem of arguing against global warming by using the record ice extent of the Antarctic is the basic one that there is no logical framework that says that a record Antarctic ice extent in winter cannot mean a record Arctic ice low in summer, or that this makes global warming impossible, or that this means that the planet is not going to suffer any consequences. It is simple falacious reaoning. No science is actually required to demolish this non-sequitur. Consider: I am a GP (and I am). A patient, a climate change contrarian, shows up in my surgery. He has a painful left leg. After some necessary investigations, he returns for the results. "I have some bad news", I say, "your investigations show a nasty malignant sarcoma of your left tibia. You will need an amputation to save your life" "Nonsense" says the contrarian, "I don't believe you, there's nothing wrong with me, look, my right leg is fine, in fact it's better than it's ever been" as he jumps up and down on his one good leg to demonstrate the unimpeachability of his logic. The issue is that both the Arctic and the Antarctic belong to the same natural entity, indeed if you subscribe to James Lovelock's thesis, the same organism. A healthy planet depends on the healthy functioning of all its parts. That the Antarctic ocean has so far escaped obvious global warming effects (though the Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly) then this is neither suprising, nor does it prove anything else.
  11. 93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
    You were right, the anti-science comments were the first!
  12. 93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
    There's been some outrage expressed by investors in the News Corp. global octopus concerning James Murdoch's ascent to the throne. That said, would promotion of the younger Murdoch improve matters w/regard to accurate coverage of climate change? There's reason to believe that might happen. An article in Grist covered this last year:
    James [Murdoch] gets the scale of the climate crisis: “This is crunch time right now. All of the climate prediction models suggest we’re on the worst-case trajectory, and some cases worse than the worst case,” he told The Observer in 2009. That same year, he talked up the benefits of “a gradually declining cap on carbon pollution” in a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Clean energy is a conservative cause.” His wife, Kathryn Hufschmid Murdoch, is a climate hawk too. She has worked and served as an advisory board member at the Clinton Climate Initiative, and she’s on the board of the Environmental Defense Fund. “Climate change is the most urgent global issue facing humankind,” she wrote in 2007. James “holds dinners that bring together environmental advocates, academics and executives,” according to The New York Times, including one in 2008 that included EDF head Fred Krupp, London Mayor Boris Johnson, and then-BP CEO Tony Hayward.
    Does James Murdoch hate climate skepticism as much as phone-hacking?
  13. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Great article. It is too rare to hear the first hand experiences of those most impacted by climate change. There is a series on traditional knowledge and climate published at National Geographic: Indigenous Peoples Can Show the Path to Low-Carbon Living
  14. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Carbon500 "to immediately link such changes to atmospheric CO2 is simplistic." As already noted in my previous comment, attribution can not be done with data from a tiny region of the globe. We agree, if it was that the only knowledge we have. Indeed, do you know anyone who did this simplistic link? In Caitlyn piece CO2 is not even mentioned, she just describes her changing environment. If instead you were willing to discuss the problem of attribution in general, I'd suggest to move it to the It's not us thread or any other more appropiate thread of your choice.
  15. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Riccardo: As a matter of fact, I cut the original extract I was going to post so as to get to the point. It seems I didn't cut out enough. I don't see how you can accuse me of 'cherry picking' when I gave a reference for my source. I'm hardly going to reproduce the entire paper to make a point about one aspect - I'm not arguing about global warming, nor am I arguing about the Inuit experience. Here's the sentence from my post which is the directly relevant one: "Attributing these changes to 'global warming' or 'anthropogenic forcing' does not address the specific meteorological changes resulting in these trends." I'd now like to add this from the paper: "The climatology of Labrador, then, is forced from a variety of factors, and consequently,is not easily categorized. The identification of changes, and isolation of the causes of those changes, is even more problematic." In other words, to immediately link such changes to atmospheric CO2 is simplistic.
  16. Pete Dunkelberg at 00:58 AM on 1 October 2012
    Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
    Learning is a slow process if you have to keep re-discovering the same things over and over. Let's recall Robert Park's 2000 book Voodoo Science on the subject of outrageous "scientific" claims and the people who make them and the people who believe them. In Chapter 6 (Perpetuum Mobile) Park takes several pages on one free energy scheme because he went to a promotional event, and thanks to long hot delays spent several hours with the believers. "It was classic flimflam." (p 129) But finally on page 132: "It is easy to dismiss the people who packed that stuffy makeshift auditorium in Hackensack for almost five hours as foolish, and even to feel that they deserve to be fleeced. But I came away with the impression that these people were somewhat more knowledgeable about technology than the average citizen, and mistrust of authority is not at all unreasonable; all sorts of outrageous claims are made in the name of science. Extending mistrust of scientific claims to include mistrust of the underlying laws of physics, however, is a reckless gamble. And yet, as we will see in the next section, people who have technical backgrounds and hold highly responsible positions fall into the same trap." I think the lesson is simply that it is easier for those with a little more knowledge than average to convince themselves that they know more than the real experts. Thus they may be slightly more inclined to believe flimflam and to reject either the basic laws of thermodynamics or their extended application on a planetary scale. [also posted just now at Eli's, where another comment reminded me of this thread.]
  17. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    jake @4, Thanks for brining this news. Dr Russell McKenzie from SE Louisiana University, as the one who is "honored to have someone of his [Monckton] stature", should go on the black list of shameless deniers of the worst kind.
  18. Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
    Global warming is caused not by people producing oil but by people using oil. If people stopped using gasoline to power huge SUVs, developing the bitumen sands would not be profitable and would stop. And rather than blaming Canada or Alberta for the geographic location of the bitumen sands, we should be thankful that the oil sands are in a province where a politician who questions global warming could lose an election.
  19. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    Monckton still manages to get university gigs. Used to think universities were better than this
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Link fixed.
  20. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    The very first "pollution" news claims reducing pollution " coal-fired power plants, gas fracking, diesel trucks and biomass burning" would cool us down by 0.5K. But how about the reduced aerosols associated with pollution reduction. That would mean signifficant warming. I think the current positive forcings of "methane, black carbon or soot and smog" are smaller than the negative forcing of aerosols and cloud seeding, all from pollution. The exact forcings of tha latter is uncertain, but I would disagree that the overall net effect of pollutant removal would be cooling. That does not make sense accoring to radiative forcing summary in AR4 Figure 2 here. Of course things like fracking are leaking CH4 so contribute to positive forsings only but I cannot say the same about all sources of pollution.
  21. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    I'm reminded that one needs to take care with terminology, as "extra-tropic" sometimes mean different things, and when comparing reconstructions, one should remember: Relative NH areas are: 0.13 60°N (Alaska, N. Canada, Scandanavia, Polar Urals, etc) Likely to show sharpest swings, ice-albedo feedback. etc 0.50 30°N (to pole, sometimes also called extra-tropic) 0.60 23.5°N (Tropic of Cancer to pole, ~Moberg(2005)) 1.00 0°N, NH (MBH98, MBH99, others) smoother curves expected One can argue about whether or not a given set of proxies actually represents the area claimed, but for sure, one would expect even perfect sets of proxies to differ by area covered.
  22. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    I constantly am scanning environmental news. This list is very helpful, as is the list of scientific articles. Of course, I am careful with the journalistic contents: what matters is solid long term consolidated science. But the broad view gives a hint of what is going on, and what key words to look for further if one wants to stay informed.
  23. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    CBDunkerson, you certainly know more about Muller than I do. It was only last week that I watched the interview “Rihard Muller at Climate One” on You Tube. That's the first time I've heard him speak. And no doubt your stopwatch (3 minutes) is more accurate than my six-year old memory of “An Inconvenient Truth”. The Katrina part SEEMED like ten minutes! I was squirming in my seat, thinking “Oh-oh, he's gone off base here.” It was so unnecessary. Obviously, our expectations differed. I anticipated more of an objective documentary, covering opposing aspects that highlighted uncertainties and something far less political. People walked out with the impression their beach-front real estate would crash in value by 2007 / 2008. (Actually, ALL California real estate crashed in value 2007 / 2008, but that wasn't Gore's fault.) Let me re-watch the film and get back to you.
  24. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    I have made an addition to the article based on a recent article in the Calgary Herald by Mike de Souza. (Hat-tip to John Hartz.)
  25. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    TomPain, Muller made a lot of exceedingly stupid accusations several years ago. Then he put together a study to prove how the global temperature series data was all a big fraud... and instead wound up finding that he had been completely wrong. His science is fine... his assumptions on many issues where he has not done the science continue to be wildly incorrect. "I still remember the film's ten-minute tie to Hurricane Katrina" So part of the problem is that you remember things which never happened. For the record, it was less than three minutes and Gore never says that AGW caused Katrina. Rather he talks about how warm ocean waters strengthen hurricanes and how AGW warms the oceans... allowing a viewer to make the inference that 2+2=4 while carefully not actually saying it. He does not cover a lot of complexities where AGW effects could also weaken or decrease the frequency of hurricanes... but none of what he says in that segment is incorrect. That's the sort of 'spin' I was referring to. The movie is largely true... it just isn't the 'whole truth'. It presents only one side of the issue and doesn't state a lot of the uncertainties. It is absolutely a 'political' argument... but it is not the huge collection of falsehoods Gore haters and deniers claim. Gore set out to issue a call to action against AGW and used every manner of rhetorical and emotional manipulation to achieve that goal... while confining himself to the facts, other than a few minor errors.
  26. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    the URL for "America's miasma of misinformation on climate change" is missing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/america-miasma-misinformation-climate-change
    Moderator Response: [JH]Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
  27. citizenschallenge at 07:39 AM on 30 September 2012
    Hockey stick or hockey league?
    It would be great to see this post updated to reflect recent findings, which lend further support to the argument you are making in this post. cheers
  28. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith, My position is simple and not personal. As a citizen of the United States of America, I find any curtailment of free speech to be unacceptable and appalling, particularly when exercised by a government on scientists in their own sphere of expertise. This attitude applies to such efforts in my own country (see the life and times of G.W. Bush), neighboring countries, allies overseas or enemies overseas or backwater dictatorships anywhere on earth or in history. I am further appalled by anyone who takes an "ends justifies the means" approach and somehow feels this is acceptable because they share interests with the intolerant/greedy parties involved. Gagging scientists, any scientists, is never an acceptable policy. Period. The facts that he's only doing it to climate scientists, and it's because he's doing so in a bid for the greater glory of Canada, and that the effort is supported by millions of Canadians are all irrelevant. Those facts do not make it right, not in the slightest.
  29. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Very interesting Rob P., thanks for pulling all this together. It is going to take some time to digest it all ;)
  30. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Predicting the future behaviour of any non-linear system (such as Arctic sea ice) is difficult, very difficult. But with that said, it is telling how when the correct approach is used and when one is guided by the data rather than ideology or dogma, then the forecasts made by the true skeptics tend to be more realistic and accurate overall. The fake skeptics (and fake skeptic bloggers) have been trying to reassure themselves (and the gullible and/or extremists who frequent their blogs) that we are due for a recovery in Arctic sea ice any day, or year, now. Yet the long-term trend is undeniably and statistically significantly down. These are the same folks who reassure themselves and anyone who is willing to listen that global cooling is imminent, any month, year, decade now....yet the long-term trend is that of warming, especially over the northern high latitudes.
  31. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Andy, Thank you for highlighting this. It is so very sad that it has come to this. Not in my wildest dreams did I think that science and scientists would be under siege, especially by the government. On a positive note, it is heartening to see that the scientists (and some politicians too) are standing up for what is right. Very good post @ 26 Bob. I concur.
  32. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Carbon500 missed to quote the first part of the conclusions of the linked paper. For the sake of completeness, here it is: "Temperature and precipitation trends at Labrador over the past half-century are generally consistent with those observed, on average, throughout North America and those anticipated, on average, under a global warming scenario. Temperatures have increased marginally inland, while minimal cooling has occurred along the coast. Precipitation increases have been observed, on average, throughout the region, with regional and precipitation-typing details." This conclusions tells me that - the data from Labrador are consistent with the global warming scenario - that attribution can not be done with data from a tiny region of the globe. None of them is that surprising and surely shouldn't allow anyone to talk about "CO2 hand-wringing". Superficiality, cherry picking and confirmation bias are not good allies of the scientific progress.
  33. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Dana, maybe we can agree to disagree about Gore. I still remember the film's ten-minute tie to Hurricane Katrina. The science was better than its emotional alarm bells. But, enough of that! You live in the Bay Area? I'm in Merced. Give me a call [snip] There is a good chance we'll be cooperating on some rebuttal editing! Ciao. A piu tardi!
    Moderator Response: [d_b] Phone number removed for everybody's best interest.
  34. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    (-snip-). So how many other possible causes for the observed changes might there be? "Trends in secondary fields, such as frost and snow-on-ground, are generally consistent with expected results from trends noted in temperature and precipitation. Attributing these changes to 'global warming' or “anthropogenic forcing” does not address the specific meteorological changes resulting in these trends. A preliminary analysis of wind directional frequencies and “days-with” analyses does not provide even a preliminary indication of cause and further work is required to provide a better understanding of the reasons driving these trends." www.iemr.org/pdfs/confer/Waterfowl_Conference_Bruce_Whiffen.pdf
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
  35. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Gore's film got all of the fundamental science right. There were a few details that weren't correct, like about the Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers for example, but in my opinion getting the basic science right is the most important thing, and the film did that quite well.
  36. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Thanks Tom. The newest blog posts are listed in the left hand margin of the page, below the list of most popular myths. Otherwise you have to know what you're looking for and use the search bar towards the upper left (i.e. search for "PBS").
  37. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Tom, we cover Antarctic vs. Arctic sea ice here. I believe MarkR is working on an update blog post on the subject too.
  38. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Breaking news of another kind of parasol. Yahoo News just posted this, 10 minutes ago: "Asteroid Dust Could Fight Climate Change on Earth" http://news.yahoo.com/asteroid-dust-could-fight-climate-change-earth-132248031.html The Deniers are already swarming in for the attack!
  39. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    SW, "Annual average sea ice is interesting but not very relevant for albedo" I agree, and said as much above. Antarctic summertime sea ice trends are more strongly positive that wintertime, so the massive decline in summer sea ice (pairing North and South) is really all about the Arctic. It is astonishing to think that I may see the Arctic icecap, a continent sized feature of the Earth, disappear during summers within my life-time.
  40. Sceptical Wombat at 23:08 PM on 29 September 2012
    Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Barry Annual average sea ice is interesting but not very relevant for albedo. The Arctic and antarctic still pretty much freeze over in winter which doesn't keep the sun out because the sun doesn't shine on these places in winter. In fact winter sea ice helps keep the ocean warm by acting like a blanket. What is important is sea ice in spring, summer and autumn, particularly June and July in the arctic and December and January in the antarctic. During those months on clear days the polar regions actually receive more energy from the sun than equatorial regions on similarly clear days. The presence or absence of ice at that time dramatically affects the ocean's albedo. In the arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly in those months and in the antarctic it has barely moved. If you want to see what has been happening to global sea ice I suggest that you try plotting the sum of arctic and antarctic sea ice but giving one of them a six month lag - so as to line up the two winters and the two summers. You will see not much change in winter coverage but a massive change in summer coverage.
  41. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Great article! Well done. Where would I find an "entry point" to this article from the home page. I stumbled on it via an "author search" for Dana. I'm obviously new to SkS, still learning the ropes.
    Moderator Response: [DB] This page offers a sequential list of every post ever made at Skeptical Science.
  42. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    CBDunkerson, thanks for the link! I'll check it out. Gore's film is “largely accurate”? Debatable. I thought it was 85% accurate when I saw it in 2006. Over time I've revised that estimate down. “Richard Muller on Climate One” (search for it on You Tube) gives it only 50% - the other half = wrong, misleading, or alarmist. Muller is a harsh critic, but many of the best scientists are. On Yahoo News comments, it seems more knowledgeable posters are Gore-averse. 85% accurate was a poor grade for a film of Gore's budget and influence. His star has fallen in the U.S.
  43. Physicist-retired at 21:55 PM on 29 September 2012
    Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    I wonder if anyone has seen this new study from Geology: Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard. In brief, it shows that, since 1987, summers at Svalbard have been 2C - 2.5C hotter than they were during any time in the last 1800 years - including during the warmest parts of the MWP. While this paper doesn't directly address the video above, I think it must have serious implications for Arctic sea ice in general. It might also be a useful addition to the rebuttal on the 'MWP was warmer' article.
  44. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Tom, the value is for Arctic + Antarctic annual sea ice - or 'global' sea ice. Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the Arctic decline. Not to be confused with the video above, which is mainly about summertime Arctic sea ice. The Arctic sea ice minimum, taken as the average extent for the month of September, has declined by 36%.
  45. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Barry, 6.7% less sea are ice means that much less albedo? Besides the Arctic, what else would this 6.7% include?
  46. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Wow! GREAT video!! Well done, Mr. & Ms. Cook! ("Behind every great man stands a great cook.") You've made me not regret that foolish late night cup of coffee I drank. (It is now 3:35am in California.) Think I'll have another cup & watch it again! :-) (Not really) Good work featuring "The Debunker Guidebook"). That was the first thing I downloaded when I found SkS. Brilliant! Do you mind if I use this forum to wish-list future SkS developments? Such as: * Letters to the Editor (In "About" or "Comments" tab) - SkS-wide remarks (e.g. mission, road-map, topology) * Reviews of other Websites (Real Climate, World Climate Report, WattsUp...) [I have recent example how WCR warps the science and lies about study conclusions.] * FAQ (e.g. “Why is 'climate change' preferred to 'global warming', and ACC preferred to AGW?”) * “Open Issues” section reflecting areas under debate, or SkS entries needing updates to match latest findings.
    Moderator Response: [JH] Be sure to check out the SkS Weekly Digest and the SkS Weekly News Round-up. they plow some of the ground that you have identified.
  47. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    TomPain, see the existing thread on 'An Inconvenient Truth'. As various scientific and legal reviews have indicated, the film is largely accurate with only a few minor errors and a degree of spin (i.e. emphasizing some facts while downplaying others). The skeptic claims that it is 'full of inaccuracies' are themselves false.
  48. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    A skeptic friend who has posted here did the work for me and says global annual sea ice area has declined by 6.7% from the 1979 - 1988 average.
  49. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Could someone add some quotes from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that have been debunked? I have knowledgeable friends, UEs (Unconvinced by the Evidence) and CEs (Convinced by the Evidence) who think Al Gore's film was a "hit alpha amidships". I'm a CE since the 1990s (Lovelock's "The Ages of Gaia"). I'm not an Earth sciences guy (B.S. applied math / physics, M.S. computer science) with only a casual knowledge of climate science, but I spotted many over-reaching claims when "Inconvenient Truth" first opened. Not good! Gore politicized the issue & passed many alarmist messages based on some claims that were not true or misleading. The damage continues... ACC is too important not to acknowledge excesses on more than one side and send out the repair parties.
  50. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Wow! GREAT video. "Seeing is believing" - even for non-believers, one can hope. I will be recommending this to every UE (Unconvinced by the Evidence) that I know. Thanks, Barry & Peter Sinclair.

Prev  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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