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  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  Next

Comments 53801 to 53850:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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"?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. It's not bad
    ...edit 284. should read "therapeutic hypercapnia" ...my bad
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.)
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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?
  33. 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
  34. 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 :)
  35. 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).
  36. 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.
  37. 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.....;)
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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...
  41. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    No worries Dana, Watts' tantrum is very revealing. More troubling is that his email yo you could be construed as a threat of violence against you. His emotional blog post also shows that instead of trying to rebut the substance of your excellent article he has elected to engage in vitriol, personal attacks, hyperbole and promulgating falsehoods (e.g., claiming that the forum is "secret"). But let us ignore Watts' empty rhetoric and address the one scientific issue that he tried to argue against. His failure to comprehend the >100% number is just yet another example of why Watts is not an expert in the discipline of climate science. On the one scientific issue that he did try and argue, he failed miserably and made a rookie mistake. As far as the >100% figure goes, a recent paper in Nature by Huber and Knutti (2011) determined that (my highlighting): "Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small." Dr. Gavin Schmidt has also addressed this (my highlighting): "Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been (and some) is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I'd say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff." So Dana is in very good company, because he actually follows, respects and understands the science. At this conjecture he has a choice 1) Either he is ignorant of the science, or 2) He knows better and is pandering to the emotions and gullibility/ignorance of his readership. Either option reflects very poorly on Watts and underscores the reason why the media should be ignoring him.
  42. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    CRV9, My main point is that same one exemplified by your statements that people can still buy cigarettes (i.e. the tobacco companies beat/rigged the system before) and the realities of a democratic society. It's exactly why what PBS did isn't "not that bad" but rather horrifically bad. Three Days of the Condor: the closing shock ending is that Robert Redford has given information on a secret government plan to take over the Middle East oilfields to all the major newspapers.
    Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk… but how far if they don't print it? Turner: They'll print it. Higgins: How do you know?
    Back then, people believed that journalists were the sentinels of both government and society. They kept everyone shooting straight by letting people know, and letting democracy work. Of course that was always something of an idealistic fantasy, but even in an incomplete incarnation it's an important part of making democracy work. And that's exactly why PBS is so dramatically, epically wrong on this one. You can't say "oh, well." You can't let the Koch brothers buy our future by buying the media that's funded by our tax dollars and once existed as the unwritten check-and-balance to the other three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Journalistic). I don't think the point that you took from the interview, that AGW is important (please drop the small "c", it's unnecessary), was at all conveyed, and they clearly made no effort to do so. They didn't ask any hard questions. They didn't follow with a quick summary of how wrong he was on how many points. They just put it out there so that people could nod and doze and agree with whatever made them feel good about themselves. Epic fail.
  43. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Aha....I found that the alleged (and untrue) quotes from Glenn Tamblyn, on WUWT, were in fact a commenter on Lewandosky's blog; seems Watts has once again misattributed a commeter's rant with a person that Watts just conveniently dislikes. Typical. I hope Glenn sets the record straight, although I know setting records straight with Watts is a fool's errand.
  44. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    dana@65: I wanna know *lots* more about the "secret web forum/off limits forum" Tony prattles on about: We *all* love a good conspiracy rant, especially if it's true! /sarc off Amazing how, when I plug the alleged "secret forum" comments into the Googlator (and let it be known that I have two left hands, wrt to really serious drilling down using the Interwebs) the only source of the alleged quotes from Tamblyn/Nuccitelli are....on WUWT. Hmmmmmm....you think Tony would ~leap~ at the chance to provide the actual *link* to your "secret web forum," no? If it existed....;)
  45. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Yes, false balance, false equivalence and false controversy. Michaels, the segment producers, and News Hour obviously only wanted to put up a show that would keep the views in their seats and News Hour was not interested in factually accurate reporting that would correctly inform the public on climate change. Watts is of course completely transparent. He is only interested in sowing doubt in order to avoid any tax or carbon trading scheme or regulation that, in his opinion, would be "catastrophic to our economy." He is happy to use scare tactics to further his unsubstantiated opinions while ignoring the truly alarming effects of global climate disruption. This is situation we in the US find ourselves in. The only scientists the Republicans in Congress are willing to listen to are Christy and Lindzen so I would say the deniers have won for now. Watts should actually be very pleased. He needn’t worry about what the vast majority of climate researchers are saying because the vast majority of US media outlets are not paying attention. Watts should be basking in the glory of the national attention he has gotten from News Hour. The weak online responses from News Hour will not detract at all from that.
  46. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    It might be worth comparing Muller @ PBS with Muller at CBC. Deep Climate discusses the latter, in Richard Muller Radio Rambles, part 1: Kochs “very deep”, “very thoughtful” and “properly skeptical”.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Watts is a shill, and while it's important to examine him and why the Newshour brought him on, his credentials as a "climate scientist" are easily debunked. Few comments here are about Muller, who is also controversial, but much more interesting too. Through books and classes he has advanced scientific literacy among the public, including regarding warming. But he loves media attention too. I wrote about him here: http://renewabledoug.blogspot.com/2012/09/pbs-newshour-climate-and-professor.html
  48. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Sphaerica@54, I don't dispute what you said. But you know we still can buy cigarettes, legally. I know a nuclear scientist who knows it causes cancers and still smokes. No, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. In this democratic society every dumb, ignorrant, gullible mind like mine has the same one vote as a brilliant mind like yours has. I'm trying to talk about reality in a democratic society. As much as cAGW is real and an inconvinient fact to some, the half of our representitives say it is a hoax is real and an inconvinient fact. And the PBC show clearly said so. I really thought that was its main point. The fact Bill Nye is speaking out publicly or the media is picking it up, the fact PBC is doing AGW with Mr. Watt are the fact we are talking about it in main public. Which is a good thing. And this is not about cAGW only. This is about science as a whole. I think we tend to look at the trees and not seeing the forest. Debate, controversy, pseudoscience shouldn't just hang around in blogsphere where the sun don't shine. It should be out there in main poblic for everybody to see. You are not afraid of your scientific stance, are you? Even the bad publisity is good sometimes.
  49. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    You know, when Watts says "the gloves are off," what does he mean? The only fists that matter are the fists of scientific research. What's Watts going to do? Ramp up the rhetoric? Rhetoric*0 = 0.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Here is the link for the Huffington Post article PBS NewsHour's Climate Change Report Raises Eyebrows (VIDEO) referred to by John Hartz at 21 above.

Prev  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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