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  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  Next

Comments 53501 to 53550:

  1. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Bernard @102 Seen the video a few times now, and I agree. The responsible action is column A. However, the possibility of either those two columns occurring, is small. The probability of futures lies mostly in between those two scenarios presented in the video. Take column A. The possibility that humans are not impacting climate at all, is minuscule. Same as column B, the possibility that humans will completely destroy climate, is minuscule. Thus the weight of probability is in the middle somewhere. Thus single-focused action (or inaction) is not correct. It's some balance of middling action (in economic terms). With knowledge we can reduce the pool of possibilities and narrow in. Thus reducing the cost to human society whilst dealing with the problem. But throwing everything into one basket, is a bad investment. If everything goes into the basket, there's nothing supporting it.
  2. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    @AHuntington1 #51: You have conveniently ignored my request to provide documentation for your assertions. Personal opinion and sweeping generalizations have virtually no value in a discussion of scientific evidence and findings.
  3. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Bacteria within arid environments (which are usually grasslands) primarily survive the dry season's "bacterial holocaust" by living in the rumen of a grazer.
    No, rumen-adapted bacteria primarily survive by living in the rumen of a grazer. Bacteria that live in arid environments have other adaptations to survive, including sporulation and simple dispersal by wind, water, and/or on fomites. Internal bacterial communities are remarkably resistant things, and don't much allow externally-adapted species to board the ark whenever the rains don't come. Apart from this, there is a gaping logical fallacy in your overall argument about climate change and land use. The form is:
    If A, then B. B, therefore A.
    I wonder if you realise what it is?
  4. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    If anyone sees any quotes mined from the stolen private forum, I would urge them to pay attention to the ellipses. In one quoted passage that I saw recently, there were eight ellipses. You can bet that the editing was done to remove context and qualifiers in the original and to try to frame the comment in the worst possible light.
  5. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    whoops...please excuse the grammar. i forgot the old adage, "post once, edit twice"..
  6. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale at #93. I'm also impressed by your comment. Kudos. Apply the same discrimination to the body of scientific evidence, and I might just have to 'friend' you on FaceSpace. Or MyBook. Or whatever. ;-)
  7. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    DSL, that is fascinating! This completely makes sense, as wetter regions can handle a high level of mismanagement (such as overgrazing) in comparison to drier regions with more sporadic temporal fluctuations in rainfall. As the planet warms regional rainfall patterns would change (horse latitudes begin drying), this makes the local environment have higher fluctuations in rainfall (and drier) and more susceptible to mismanagement (such as overgrazing) and subsequent desertification. For this reason anthropogenic desertification will always be faster in environments with higher seasonal fluctuation in rainfall over places with a less seasonal fluctuation in rainfall.
  8. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Further to Rob Honeycutt's comment at #56 regarding Dale's comment at #4:
    Well, not without taxing your own population into poverty...
    Dale might like to ponder the implications of The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See. And if, after watching the video, Dale still thinks that his fears trump Greg Craven's challenge, I would invite Dale to post a counter-analysis here actually refuting Craven's summary of the choices that we face.
  9. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    @John Cook: Nice article but you forgot to mention that all will be revealed on Dec 21 of this year.
  10. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    John Hartz, essentially, yes I do believe that the spread of the Sahara has been largely the result of mismanagement of land. Increasing rates of desertification across the globe are the result of the same mismanagement. When I say ecological perspective, I mean a perspective that takes into account the ability of bio-diverse ecosystems (or lack thereof) to influence local climate and desertification in general (water cycles, decomposition cycles, solar cycles, mineral cycles, carbon cycles). Ecological systems have evolved for millions of years in order to withstand and thrive in conditions with extreme variations in local rainfall over time. As humans learn to work with and exploit these natural systems, the "negative" aspects of more sporadic rain will be reduced and the positive aspects enhanced.
  11. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    AHuntington, are you aware of the relationship between the Hadley cells and desertification in the horse latitudes? Try Johanson & Fu (2009) for starters. From the abstract:
    Observations show that the Hadley cell has widened by about 2°–5° since 1979. This widening and the concomitant poleward displacement of the subtropical dry zones may be accompanied by large-scale drying near 30°N and 30°S. Such drying poses a risk to inhabitants of these regions who are accustomed to established rainfall patterns.
  12. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Oh, when I say "arid environments" i am referring to environments with extremely sporadic, sometimes torrential rainfall contrasted with extreme drought. Not completely lacking in water but with extreme temporal variations in water level. This as opposed to a rainforest, which has (relatively) consistent temporal moisture content.
  13. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What Watts doesn't know is that Dana gets a royalty fee from the scooter company everytime someone posts the picture on a blog. I sure would like to get on that gravy train. PS - There's also a virus embedded in the photo and Dana can activate as he sees fit.
  14. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    The stolen dump has been seen on the web by now then? It's been a while since I've been to SkS and now I wish I had been a little more regular lately.
    Response: [JC] The stolen SkS database has been online since March 2012 but there has been renewed interest since the release of Lewandowsky's paper finding a link between climate denial and conspiracy theorising - ironically in search for conspiracies in our private correspondance. Some bloggers have held off on republishing stolen correspondance for ethical reasons but have managed to overcome those pesky ethics more recently.
  15. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    @AHuntington1 #47: How about some references of peer-reviewed published science that support your currently unsubstantiated assertion that "desertification is almost strictly a land management problem." Also what exactly do you mean when you say "from an ecological perspective"? Finally, do you believe that the southward expansion of the Sahara desert is a "land management problem"?
  16. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    The state and variety of a given ecological system plays a huge role in desertification. In most arid environments there are essentially 2 seasons- wet and dry. Wet seasons in an arid environment often exhibit torrential downfalls. Dry seasons are usually characterized by extreme drought. It makes sense that increasing global temperatures would increase the landmass of "arid" regions and increase the sporadic nature of rainfall (and overall precipitation levels). Certain biological systems have evolved to cope with extreme variations in rainfall(notably huge herds of ruminants and deep-rooted perennial grasses characterize arid environments). Bacteria within arid environments (which are usually grasslands) primarily survive the dry season's "bacterial holocaust" by living in the rumen of a grazer. Similarly, deep rooted perennial grasses improve hydrological cycles by reducing erosion, increasing water permeation into the soil and acting as a storehouse of water during the dry bacterial winter. Large herds roaming the land effectively manage the grass; they "trim the lawn" so to speak, and also apply bacteria ridden fertilizer to the land, and their hooves "till" up the hard packed soil surface (which is common in arid regions) "planting" the seeds of native perennials and increasing the soil's permeability. Increasing the number of perennial grasses/square foot also help the solar cycle through increased photosynthesis which helps bacteria cycling(more sugar available to the immediate environment). My point is that land management is the primary factor driving current trends in desertification- not atmospheric Co2 levels. A slightly warmer world with increased precipitation and more arid land, could actually have amazing benefits, if land managers took steps to encourage the biological systems that evolved to cope with such harsh climates, and thrive within them. From an ecological perspective, desertification is almost strictly a land management problem. Proper planning would heavily negate the potential problems associated with higher levels of more sporadic, "extreme" rainfall.
  17. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    I think the denialists are in damage control mode with this year's Arctic sea ice extent shattering the previous record by over three quarters of a million square km. And they didn't appreciate Lewandowsky shining a light on their conspiratorial thinking. So they went into über conspiracy thinking and super attack mode, casting all ethical standards aside to troll through stolen private correspondence. Meanwhile back here in the real world, the SkS team will continue reporting on the goings on of the global climate, including that inconvenient and alarming Arctic sea ice record.
  18. It's not bad
    Doug_bostrom, If I did make such a concession, it was a typo. My claim is that elevating Co2 within a certain range increases kreb's cycle efficiency (metabolic rate), thru its antioxidant activity and its role in increasing the efficiency of oxygen distribution to the tissues via Bohr principle (as I have said many times).
  19. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    mandas @99 I agree. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) has occasionally broadcast the views of "skeptics" for the sake of presenting a "balanced" view and my objections have been exactly the same as yours - and of course because the views expressed by the person interviewed (Lord Monckton) were so blatantly wrong yet went unchallenged. The upside of that interview was that it gave me, and more notably Dr Tim Lambert (UNSW), the opportunity of showing how wrong Monckton was, and is. While I do deplore public radio broadcasting unchallenged views on any subject which are wrong and unsupported by science, my particular criticism of PBS (and the ABC) is the failure to engage a well informed alert interviewer able (and willing) to quickly pick-up on the rubbish espoused by the person being interviewed.
  20. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Actually, I have absolutely no problem with PBS - or anyone else for that matter - interviewing Watts or any other 'sceptic'. What I do have a problem with is the reporters not doing their job and not asking the hard questions and taking 'sceptics' to task for their misrepresentations. When Watts remarked that Muller had not been peer reviewed, the reporter should have asked Watts if his work had been peer reviewed. When Watts raised the issue of UHI, the reporter should have asked him about adjustments etc. That would be the best way of dealing with people like Watts. Hold them up to the light so everyone can see just how lacking in substance they really are. While they hide out in their blogs, or only get interviewed on Faux News, they will not be exposed for the charlatans they are. PBS gets a mark for putting him on, but get marked down for not asking the proper questions.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    "...I haven't read the comments on his post about me, I'm pretty sure I can guess what they say." I think this clip sums up the comments, fairly well. Summation of WUWT comments about Dana and his electric scooter
  22. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @93 - thanks. I wouldn't generalize about anyone in any given group based on the behavior of a single individual (unlike Watts, coincidentally). That being said, Watts does have the most traffic of any 'skeptic' site, and while I haven't read the comments on his post about me, I'm pretty sure I can guess what they say. That being said, the post kind of made my day. Watts tells me he's going to 'take the gloves off' and the best he can do is post a photo of me on an electric moped and illustrate that he doesn't understand how negative numbers work? Yikes.
  23. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Yeah John, I shouldn't say "the reason." After all, for most networks selling soap is job one. The "battered network syndrome" is just one of several reasons for cowering silence, I'm sure.
  24. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @Dale #93: My repsect for you just went up a couple of notches. Civil discourse between two parties is always better than throwing hand grenades at each other.
  25. It's not bad
    Why should the metabolic benefits of Co2 in relation to animals/bacteria not be considered? What, with no actual claims attached? You've just said upthread that you make no conjectures on what might specifically happen in the way of metabolic benefits. How does one evaluate "it might be good?" W/regard to my "free land is good" argument vs. the "drowning land is bad" negative aspect, I'm sure you're aware of the sea level issue? Another thermal expansion problem, unfortunately, coupled w/ice loss.
  26. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @doug_bostrom #90: With all due respect, you have ignored the 500 pound gorilla in the room -- the humongous amount of advertising revenues flowing to the media from the fossil fuel industry.
  27. It's not bad
    Honestly, the metabolic benefits of Co2 to plants already is considered here. Why should the metabolic benefits of Co2 in relation to animals/bacteria not be considered? This is the question you must answer. Or you could dispute the information I present.
  28. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, you said, "emulating your level of justification for claiming that metabolic benefits of C02 should be considered w/regard to climate change--namely none--" This is ridiculous. Just saying that I have no justification, after I repeatedly provide it is willful ignorance (or just poor communication). What aspect of my argument is flawed? What are you talking about, specifically? If you can not be specific, you probably are dealing with an emotional attachment to a belief.
  29. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, that is an interesting theory. Not to get too off topic but, I must ask, what do you mean by "For every km2 we get in handily expanded dry land we lose way more in freshly drowned land."? Would this be the result of increased evaporation and H2O in the atmosphere? Are you saying that total rainfall would increase on the planet during heating due to the greenhouse effect? (i vaguely remember reading something about Co2 causing the greenhouse effect which would cause increases in water vapor, which would wildly exasperate the greenhouse effect) Is this essentially the theory you refer to?
  30. It's not bad
    ...edit 284. should read "therapeutic hypercapnia" ...my bad
  31. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Watts rant on Dana is uncalled for. I may read his site (sometimes there's a really good article on science, but they are definitely drying up), but sometimes he makes it easy to be embarrassed for being a sceptic. *sigh* Dana, please don't take Watt's rant as indicative of what all sceptics are like. Some of us actually respect our fellow humans.
  32. It's not bad
    Well, emulating your level of justification for claiming that metabolic benefits of C02 should be considered w/regard to climate change--namely none-- then I claim we should consider the thermal expansion of the dry land on Earth in response to climate change as a possible benefit. Work it out; it's a surprising number. On the other hand, just as with speculation on how we might enjoy breathing more C02, there are downsides to all the thermally gifted "free land." For every km2 we get in handily expanded dry land we lose way more in freshly drowned land. Which leads to the further benefit of increased marine habitat, I suppose. Doubtless somebody's pushing that idea, too.
  33. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Advice to John and Dana: Don't let trolls post here. They will waste you and your readers' time, and drive you crazy, too, since evidence is something they prepare as if for a high school debate. At least in high school, the other side shut up after a while. These guys never do. Some of us have learned this the hard way.
  34. It's not bad
    *edit, post 284. "I don't know (nor have I claimed to know), but the beneficial aspects of higher atmospheric Co2 should at least be part of the cost-benefit analysis." should read, "I don't know (nor have I claimed to know), but the beneficial aspects which higher atmospheric Co2 would exhibit on mitochondrial respiration should at least be part of the cost-benefit analysis." -thanks
  35. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ANTHONY WATTS: "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things ..." So who are "they", Mr Watts? Not a conspiratorial cabal, I trust. Heaven forfend.
  36. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, you asked, "is it your assertion ahuntington1 that metabolic benefits of C02 are worth wholesale modification of Earth's atmosphere with attendant knock-on effects?" No, that is not my assertion. Where did you read that; can you quote me saying that? I am not making predictions on net effects. In fact, the more you make predictions on net, potential, future effects the higher propensity you have to be wrong. As to how increasing Co2 might help you in your daily life (whether through higher atmospheric levels or "therapeutic hypercabia") is up for you to decide for yourself, based on the available information and your specific health status. The same is true for Vitamin C, D, retinol and calcium. You asked, "What's the risk/benefit equation here, in other words? " I don't know (nor have I claimed to know), but the beneficial aspects of higher atmospheric Co2 should at least be part of the cost-benefit analysis.
  37. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    As to the mystery of why climate change is so nearly invisible on mainstream television, I suppose we're seeing the reason. For the person looking at viewer feedback there's no equation for success. Ordinarily this wouldn't be an issue but when folks are running anger machines bent on turning back the clock of knowledge the whole situation becomes chaotic. --Network runs piece on threats from climate change. --Network gets beat up by synthetic outrage from gullible people who've been coaxed back into the Dark Ages. --Network is traumatized. --Network attempts to show "other side." --Network is beat up by people attached to reality. --Network is traumatized. --Network decides to tiptoe away from topic entirely.
  38. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Examiner.com is a bizarre space. I've seen Gaia, magnetic, and chemtrail stuff show up there. Newsbusters is akin to NewsMax, which is basically Tea Party News. Huff is also a weird space. It used to be bourgeois left, but now it's simply liberal-sensational. Media Matters is low rhetoric left. The Einstein quote is spot on, and Watts is simply encouraging the madhouse.
  39. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 09:25 AM on 20 September 2012
    PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @ yocta - seems to be a phenomenon more common to the USA than other countries, going by opinion polls. (Would be good if Lewandowsky or someone could determine if there is a cultural bias in addition to the ideological bias.)
  40. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    This is turning out to be quite a bit of a frenzy. If you just Google news search PBS Climate Change as of 9am Thursday Sydney time, you will see the top four: PBS gets pummeled for showing balanced global-warming piece From a self confessed skeptic looking to challenge the scientific consensus PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warming Skeptic to Speak From NewsBusters (blog) PBS NewsHour's Climate Change Report Raises Eyebrows (VIDEO) From Huffington Post (considered Left leaning I believe) PBS NewsHour Propagates Confusion On Climate Change From Media Matters for America (blog) It would be very interesting to perform some sort of metric to see the direction and weighting the different organisations discuss this event. I know something like that was done on The Australian (Newscorp owned) a while back. Since someone brought up Einstein I think it is pertinent to put a quote from him here:
    This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation
  41. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What is really interesting over there is that so many people seem unable to grasp that the figure could be greater than 100%. Lots of huffing a puffing about it too.
  42. It's not bad
    Taking the conversation back to square one on "C02 is a metabolic benefit," leaving aside whether that's true or not is it your assertion ahuntington1 that metabolic benefits of C02 are worth wholesale modification of Earth's atmosphere with attendant knock-on effects? Can you describe specifically how my day might be so much better breathing an atmosphere with a higher C02 concentration that the disadvantages are outweighed? Once you've shown in concrete terms how I'd stand to benefit from increased C02 respiration, next you need to show how confident you are in your predictions. Guaranteed? Maybe? A long shot? What's the risk/benefit equation here, in other words?
  43. It's not bad
    Philipe Chantreau, talking past me and scoffing at my claims, without refuting them (or even addressing the evidence I present), does not prove anything. What specific assertion have I made that is “confused” or “conflates different reactions as well as apparent assumptions”. If you don’t tell me what you are referring to, I will not know what it is (nor will any other reader). Of course adaptations to higher altitudes are responses to hypoxia of varying degrees (adapting to mild hypoxia provides the benefits that athletes who train at high altitudes exploit). Mild hypoxia would be the result of increased internal Co2 to O2 concentrations (but the Co2 would protect from severe hypoxia to an extent). I have read the Everest study on mitochondrial density, how do you square that with studies like this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0034568770900113 To quote, “Hearts of domestic cattle from two groups, one born and raised at sea level and the other born and raised at an altitude of 4250 m, were studied to determine whether any mitochondrial adaptations to high altitude could be demonstrated. Direct counts of mitochondrial number revealed a 40 % increase in the high altitude hearts [..]” Here is some information on altitude training published by San Diego State University. http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol24/table.htm To list some information presented in the link: “ALTITUDE USES MORE GLUCOSE THAN SEA-LEVEL Brooks, B. A., Roberts, A. C., Butterfield, G. E., Wolfel, E. E., & Reeves, J. T. (1994). Altitude exposure increases reliance on glucose. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(5), Supplement abstract 120.” This implies increased Kreb’s Cycle activity at high altitudes. “ALTITUDE DECREASES RELIANCE ON FREE FATTY ACIDS AND INCREASES DEPENDENCY ON BLOOD GLUCOSE Brooks, B. A., Roberts, A. C., Butterfield, G. E., Wolfel, E. E., & Reeves, J. T. (1994). Acclimatization to 4,300 m altitude decreases reliance on fat as a substrate and increases dependency on blood glucose. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(5), S21, Supplement abstract 121.” This implies increased Kreb’s Cycle activity at high altitudes. The lactate paradox not showing up in every instance does not disprove my claim that adaptation to high altitudes (therefore exposure to lower internal O2 to Co2 ratios, capable of inducing mild hypoxia) increases krebs cycle activity. You said, “This treats of O2 mediated vasoregulation: [..]” -I don’t quite see what your point is here, would you mind elaborating a bit? You also said, “It also appears that ventilatory response to CO2 is not significantly different among altitude acclimated subjects, although it is slower.” -Well, yea (and what do you mean by “it is slower”?). Why would the ventilatory response differ among people already acclimated to high altitudes? The study you posted did find a difference between high altitude natives and people living at sea level. To quote your study, “The major findings of this study were as follows. First, under conditions of euoxia (PETO2 _ 100 Torr), total ventilatory sensitivity to CO2 in HA natives is around double that of SL natives at SL.” So, would you mind elaborating a bit more on your point here? You need to be more specific in your criticism for me to be able to address your concerns. Dikran Marsupial, I have provided evidence for Co2’s antioxidant effects (in vivo) and Co2’s ability to increase oxygenation of tissues in vivo via the Bohr effect. Here are in vivo studies supporting Co2’s role as a fat soluble antioxidant. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7770796 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7581542 And here are some in vitro studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9190222 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9139450 Also consider therapeutic hypercapnia- boosting internal CO2 levels- to avoid lung injury. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/168/11/1383.full Interestingly (to quote the above link), “Acidosis, notably hypercapnic acidosis, is protective against organ injury in multiple experimental models”. This might explain the lower mortality rates in people at high altitudes. On question (i), adaptation to hypoxia does affect metabolism (see above links), and increasing internal CO2 to O2 ratios will induce this adaptation (via mild hypoxia). High altitudes are one perfect example of this. That leaves (ii); I cited the higher metabolic rates of people living at high altitudes, and the fact that they experience lower mortality rates. (see the wiki link I posted earlier and http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/6/495.full ) These at least correlate increased metabolism with lower mortality rates. Do you have any evidence suggesting higher metabolic rates to be harmful? Or which suggest less ATP produced per glucose being beneficial in comparison to more? JasonB, you said, “I was under the impression that higher metabolic rates led to more oxidative stress and shorter lifespans” -Oxidative stress is dependent on many environmental factors, luckily Co2 is an antioxidant; supporting oxidative metabolism on the one hand and reducing oxidative damage on the other. Even if that theory is correct, Co2 would be protective. Look at the Wikipedia link I posted earlier, and the above link for evidence of reduced mortality rates among those at high altitudes. I will re-post the link I cited earlier regarding the higher metabolic rates of people at high altitudes here: http://jap.physiology.org/content/16/3/431 You said, “Note that Spaerica was making the very valid point that all else is not equal,” -It is actually a completely invalid and irrelevant strawman that Spaerica built up against me, which you have now started attacking. To repeat myself (again), I am not making a judgment on the overall cost-benefit analysis, I am making a specific biological argument, in a specific context. I am only asking for this point to be included in the analysis (just like other ceterus paribus arguments which have already been included). The amount of resistance I am encountering when making this point is quite odd for the comments section of a website called skepticalscience.com; the inability to recognize my argument, as I have laid it out, characterizes dogmatism. CBDunkerson, See above strawman. Spaerica, See above strawman. Also, I am getting tired of reading attacks against my writing style, and accusations of “gish gallop” and various logical fallacies without making any attempt to specify what part of my argument you are actually attacking. My writing style is practically meaningless compared with the content of my argument (which you have consistently ignored) and attacking it borderlines on ad hominem. I will not reply to any more or your posts, unless you actually specify what you are talking about- unless you have something to say about the information I present. ..Geez, sorry for the long post. thx
  44. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 08:38 AM on 20 September 2012
    PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Talking about Watts' "Epic Fail" in arithmetic, I'm wondering if it's true that he's never seen a multiplier greater than 100%. Maybe he is of the view there are no negative forcings or feedbacks, which would be really funny :)
  45. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    In his meltdown post, Watts noted that he's actually co-author on two peer-reviewed papers. I've revised the above text accordingly, and linked to the second (which is about land use change influences on climate - very long list of authors on that one).
  46. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    "Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa" ["don't talk about them but look and move on"] Dante, Inferno They don't deserve our (limited) spare time.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    "Watts is not going to like that one either. It may very well cause him to blow another gasket." I'm an old mechanic: I'll stand by with the Bar's Leak. Though, I'm not sure there's enough data to assume it'll work on that model of blown foo-foo vlve.....;)
  48. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    I'm trying to find a reasonable disagreement with Albatross' final point on how to understand Watts' presentation of net warming. I'm not very motivated to help but surely there's somebody who can step forward and explain via a third way? Is it so simple? Innocently ignorant, economical with the truth, or... what?? It would be very easy for Watts to resolve the problem, by amending his blog entry to correct himself, vanish the problematic paragraph, or explain how he's correct. I suppose at the end of the day there's no alternative but to let him set his own standard of reliability. Nobody else is going to be able to address the issue with the same degree of authority as Watts himself.
  49. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Albatross @78 - Huber and Knutti (2011) is the light blue bars in Figures 2 and 3 above, coincidentally. vroomie - we have a post partially about the SkS forum which will be published tonight. Watts is not going to like that one either. It may very well cause him to blow another gasket.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Albatross - I would completely agree, many of the posters on that Watts thread - including, primarily, Anthony Watts - appear unaware of negative numbers, or their effect on sums (as I noted there, with somewhat predictable responses). Between the choices of (1) Watts being ignorant of the science, and apparently of basic math, or (2) Watts being deliberately misleading, in what I would consider a highly unethical manner - well, I cannot say which conclusion is more damning to Anthony Watts. Because, quite frankly, either conclusion is rather horrible. And there really aren't any other choices...

Prev  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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