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  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  Next

Comments 54051 to 54100:

  1. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    "Back then in MWP there was no need to ever change a bulb!"
  2. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    On a related note, the UK now has a climate skeptic (or possibly just a wind farm skeptic - h/t Stoat) as environment minister - however he has no responsibilities with respect to climate change, except for possibly being able to affect wind farm permitting (The Register), and a health minister who believes in homeopathy (Telegraph).
  3. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Yes Bill, if you go over to John's original link that started all this, http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065 The denierati (mainly consisting of 4 or 5 hard core denialists blessed with truly epic stupidity), are too busy making what they imagine to be clever rhetorical debating points, whilst avoiding discussing the actual science intelligently (or at all); totally oblivious to the fact that with every asinine comment, they confirm the original thesis of John's article. Their DNA obviously doesn't carry the irony gene! On another note, we seem to have lost all the fake skeptics, including Eric (pity, I sort of enjoyed his convoluted attempts to reconcile his mutually contradictory positions), hence we appear to be talking amongst ourselves.... Ah, for the good old days...
  4. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    When I heard Romney's acceptance speech I think he did mention renewables but that part of the sentence was drowned out by appluause for the fossil fool bit.
  5. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I agree that the reaction is more interesting than the original survey. Questions of methodology and the questionable nature of online surveys aside, most of us who've been in the debate for a while were simply unsurprised, because the results aligned with our own experience. 'Who knew?', as Monbiot tweeted sarcastically. And there the matter may have rested... But the fake skeptic response has really been the gift that keeps on giving. And an ever more convincing confirmation of the original results. The (over)reaction also reminds me of those Fundamentalist groups that apparently cannot stop themselves stridently decrying the perceived 'blasphemy' of some relatively obscure Arthouse cultural production, turning it into an international cause célèbre - and hit! Spreading its message across the globe in the process. Not only do some people apparently not get irony, they also cannot seem to grasp the basic wisdom that sometimes the less said really is the better...
  6. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    Dale @ 2, It has occurred to me that the government changes are actually very smart politics, nullifying attacks from both directions simultaneously. Firstly, look at it from the "green" side: provided the number of carbon certificates issued by the Australian government gradually decreases over time as proposed, emissions will decrease. They may not decrease in Australia if Australian firms decide to buy them from Europe instead, but buying them from Europe prevents another European firm from buying them which means the reduction is still real. It doesn't matter if the CO2 is not emitted here or if it's not emitted in Europe, as long as it's not emitted. Australia will be doing "our fair share" and nobody can argue otherwise because the bottom line is the total emissions. Now look at it from the economic side: a large part of the scare campaign has been based around the idea that it will wreck our economy because our businesses will be uncompetitive and we're sticking our neck out too far beyond what the rest of the world is doing. This change neutralises that attack — we won't be paying too much and won't be sticking our neck out too far because we'll be in the same boat as hundreds of millions of other people, participating in the largest carbon market in the world. If other countries in that market limit emissions even more, we automatically have tighter constraints on emissions because we're competing in the same market for those emissions. If they loosen them, we automatically have looser constraints. Once the ETS is in place, Australia automatically plays its part and avoids becoming uncompetitive without having to change anything. (This becomes more true the more our competitors join the same market. I suspect that these benefits will convince more and more countries to do so, although it may take some time.) As for the coal power stations: their owners felt they were worth more than the government was willing to pay. If the government can reduce the same amount of emissions for less money elsewhere then they should do that. Those owners may turn out to be wrong: the European price may go much higher over the next few decades than they've assumed, which will greatly devalue their asset, but that's their problem now. I never really liked the "direct action" part of the plan anyway — it's like giving tobacco companies money in exchange for not selling cigarettes. I haven't looked at how the legislation works, but I would have thought none of this should have too much of a detrimental effect on the budget. If carbon costs much less than forecast, then the compensation required is less as well, so that should roughly balance out.
  7. Philippe Chantreau at 16:02 PM on 11 September 2012
    A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Thank you Bill for that update. We are all anxiously awaiting Foxgoose comments. These stories always end the same way, it's as predictable as a Hollywood movie. Incidentally, the reactions speak volume on the validity of the studies' results. Perhaps the methodology wasn't perfect but the conspiracist ideation is definitely there. This is quite comical.
  8. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    "President Obama's energy policies are good, although his lack of leadership on the climate change has been insufficient to take us off the potentially catastrophic climate path." This sentence seems to mean the opposite from what is intended. What is an insufficient lack of leadership? This could be replaced with "...his leadership hasn't been sufficient to..." or some such phrasing.
  9. New research from last week 36/2012
    Link to the full text of Polvani and Solomon fixed, thanks. :)
  10. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    "Al Gore and IPCC have blinded us!"
  11. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    Dale @ 2, Yes, it looks like the Australian government is backpeddling, but some observers point out that the link to the EU scheme will make dismantling of the Australian scheme more difficult. Of course political considerations seem to slow and weaken climate action at every turn.
  12. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I wrote:
    I've seen a really good graph somewhere...
    I've found it: Credit goes to Michael Tobis and Stephen Ban.
  13. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    The second is also used in many posts here (example) and originally comes from Foster and Rahmstorf 2009.
    Oops — that should be Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, not 2009. Tamino's analysis is excellent, as you would expect. ;-)
  14. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Bob Loblaw, Thanks for the link. I actually downloaded that book some time ago but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Sounds like I'd better! bill,
    It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.
    It seems that for some people, accusing others of malfeasance requires such a low burden of proof that simply searching for someone's name in their Inbox is enough effort to put in before doing so. Then, when it turns out that their efforts wouldn't have worked anyway, they blame the victim for not making it easier for them to check their own mail before they made the accusations. Personally, I'd be searching for words like "survey" and, if need be, checking every single email during the month or so in question before I'd accuse someone of lying. I guess I'm old-fashioned like that.
  15. Antarctica is gaining ice
    I would expect Zwally to have the numbers right. The interesting science question is reconciling the ICESAT data with the GRACE data. This abstract was done in July. The point for Watts is provide some reassurance to readers wondering about the arctic meltdown. All his readership cares about is having an excuse to do nothing. I suspect for the average US citizen, the effects of climate change are so far small, in the future, and happening elsewhere, whereas any sort of mitigation is perceived as less spending power by one means or another.
  16. Antarctica is gaining ice
    I would be cautious about reading too much into these results. This is also just a conference abstract. Then again, Zwally does good work. It also keep in mind that they conclude that: "A slow increase in snowfall with climate wanning, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses." If true, one has to wonder for how much longer that might hold?
  17. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    KR @1 - thanks, fixed. Dale @2 - fair points, but it's still very early in the Australian system. Better to have a system in place that can be weakened or strengthened than no system at all.
  18. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    Please note the Australian Govt appears to be back-peddling on the carbon tax. They've already removed the floor price, linked us to the EU carbon market (so companies can substitute cheap international credits with the expensive AU ones) and also cancelled the coal power station buy-out process. State Govts have also been cancelling/down-scaling the residential alternative energy schemes and subsidies.
  19. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    Moderators - Fig. 1 has badly formatted HTML code, missing the initial "h".
  20. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Yah, barry - sounds like accelerated loss in addition to accelerated gain - perfectly consistent with global warming, as the authors note: "A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses." Watt's the big deal? Ha ha ha, but more seriously, how long would you expect the mass gain to last, if indeed it is happening?
  21. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Apparently an internal document, not a peer-reviewed study. Maybe they have submitted/plan to submit.
  22. Antarctica is gaining ice
    The WUWT report is about recent ICESat data that apparently show mass gain in the Antarctic ice sheet from 2003 - 2008, citing a paper (and linking a video) by lead author Jay Zwally. The NASA page on it is here.
  23. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    philipm,
    The problem is not just laziness about making sense of science. Superficially, fake balance accepting the logic that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge implies that journalists need to learn more science.
    This is a really good example -- on the one hand we have multiple, relevant experts telling us about Arctic sea ice, nicely balanced by another guy at the end telling us what he doesn't know: "Climate change is a murky science," [Christy] said. "To some [i.e. those who are experts on Arctic ice] it's an easy answer to say it's due to extra greenhouse gases. To the rest of us [i.e. those who aren't], separating natural variability from human impacts remains a wicked problem." (Editorialising mine. :) Perhaps the reporter should have asked himself why he was balancing his report with "expert" opinion from someone who finds the whole problem too difficult to solve? Since when is that news? There are literally billions of unqualified people they could have asked who could have said they find it all a bit complicated as well. Why didn't he "balance" it by finding some nutjob willing to say that the oceans were going to boil next week? Why is the "balance" always between the mainstream view and only one of the two potential fringe views? Why do they get to paint the mainstream as "alarmists" rather than looking for real alarmists (preferably those who actually are hoping for One World Government (TM)) so that the mainstream can look sensible and conservative in contrast? It's not just the problem of false balance, it's that the false balance is biased and always goes only one way. (I've seen a really good graph somewhere (here at SkS?) that visually represents the gamut of views on climate sensitivity and shows the mainstream clustered around 3C with a big bump at low sensitivities representing "skeptics" and a long tail to the right with "extreme warmists" and showing how including just the "skeptics" and not the "extreme warmists" creates the illusion that the "true answer", which "must lie somewhere in the middle", actually lies in the trough between the mainstream and the "skeptics"; whereas if the "extreme warmists" were included, then the "middle" value would actually be the mainstream view (and the "middle ground" fallacy that many people intuitively believe would actually give the right answer).)
    But really, it's simpler than that. The mode of argument and the chief sponsors are exactly the same as for a range of other faux debates from tobacco to ozone hole. Failing to spot this is a major fail.
    Absolutely. Why are their BS detectors so utterly useless that even when it's the same people from the same organisations saying the same things about climate science as they used to say about medical science (re: tobacco) they still don't detect it?
  24. Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
    @ dana1981 #27: I do believe that you are being a tad too harsh on Watts. After all, he and the Wattsonians come from a parallel universe where the laws of physics and chemistry are entirely diffeerent than those that apply here on Earth.
  25. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    philipm, The first graph is used in many posts here (example) and originally comes from Murphy et al 2009. The second is also used in many posts here (example) and originally comes from Foster and Rahmstorf 2009. The third originally comes from Santer et al 2011, discussed here at SkS and mentioned in many other posts. If you right-click on each image you can obtain the URL for the image hosted by SkS.
  26. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    "Rapid rebound in bulb luminosity confirms theory that low amount was because of storm causing abnormal min"
  27. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    I trust that the following will not offend... "Man may have made the bulb, but only God has the power to turn on the electricity."
  28. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    It's hard to stop a moving object... "Wipe off those fingerprints on the bulb before you screw it it. We don't want people to learn who made it and where it came from."
  29. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Blogger's Hall of Amnesia As well as McIntyre – the man who chucked around allegations first and then got round to checking his Inbox – it’s:
    Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact) Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact) Dr Roy Spencer (no reply) Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply) It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.
  30. New research from last week 36/2012
    Yes, our salvation undoubtedly lies in Tupperware, lots of it. We'll need the UN world government to enforce purchases but that can easily be woven into Agenda 21. Anybody found cracking PE and attempting to make moonshine go-juice can be sent for a "moon landing," heh-heh-heh.
  31. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "Unless you are a scholar and a well known scientist, no one may seriously listen to what you say, write or research. I am not a scientist but an electronic engineer with long years of interest in geology and history." Umm...did anyone *else* get hit by the low-flying Irony Horse? Astrofos, I would indeed ask you, AGAIN, to justify your earlier comments, pointed out by Daniel Bailey, plus now please explain why anything you say should be taken as authoritative from this point on. FYI: I have a bit more than an "interest" in geology: i have a degree and 14 years of experience in the field.
  32. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    But it was much darker during the MWP!
  33. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    'Living rooms have been brighter in the past!' I'm rather disappointed LA21 hasn't been mentioned yet. And, of course, the Illuminati (boom boom!)
  34. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    "How many Wattsians does it take to install a CFL? NONE! They all deny they work!" John Hartz, you are on a roll...I canna resist!
  35. New research from last week 36/2012
    Doug, we were warned.... Just one word >;-/
  36. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    Eric wrote: "Most skeptics agree in principle on the need for a new light bulb, but believe that the modeled light output of most light bulbs is exaggerated by a factor of two." Sounds about right... given that the modeled output of the light bulbs would (like climate models) have been refined until it matched actual observed output. So, restated; 'Most 'skeptics' believe that observed reality is exaggerated by a factor of two.'
  37. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    "The bulb is just poorly sited - see my pretty pictures??!!" "The bulb will change itself"
  38. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Australian Climate Madness I just love that! Sounds as though the name was chosen in a moment of irrational exuberance, too hastily to realize the double entendre. My immediate association on seeing the words: "coal exports."
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    Sorry, but the ideas just keep coming: "Say 'Ad hominem attack' three times before you start."
  40. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    "Switching on my lightbulb* won't make any difference, and it will blow out my power bill." [*Sadly, there is evidence that illumination doesn't work for some - it's the King Arnulf Effect.]
  41. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    In case anyone missed it, Astrofos is trying to poe Lewendansky's survey subject.
  42. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    Yet another: "Put on your Galileo T-shirt before you screw it in."
  43. Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
    Daneel @26 - Let's be fair to Watts. That graphic would indeed show a quick sea ice extent recovery if you would just flip it upside-down. I'm sure that's what he meant. After all, Watts seems to view the world upside-down and backwards.
  44. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    I have notice that Australian Climate Madness and Climate Depot are prominently featuring a misinterpretation of my words, suggesting that I have said that Lewandowsky has no moral recourse but to rewrite, retract or correct his paper. More accurately, I believe that Lewandowsky has no recourse but to rewrite, withdraw or correct if he agrees with my analysis. I doubt any AGW "skeptic" will want to argue that disagreeing with an analysis by Tom Curtis is itself an immoral act - and certainly I would not either. (How does it come about that so simple a premise needs explaining?) I have left the following comment at Australian Climate Madness, and emailed Marc Morano requesting a correction. I would appreciate it if anybody who comes across a similar misrepresentation directs people to this post.
    "Your claim that, “As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper” is an over interpretation of my words. It is very obvious that Lewandowsky has the very moral option of simply disagreeing with my analysis. If he disagreed, then he would be acting immorally if he did rewrite, withdraw or retract. This is a distinction you should easily be able to make. If you cannot, you are committed to the belief that every climate change “skeptic” with whom I disagree and who does not rewrite, withdraw or retract is acting immorally – a view to which I certainly do not hold."
  45. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    geoffchambers @150, for the record, up until about December 2010 I was only an occasional reader of SkS, and do not recall the survey at all.
  46. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    John Hartz: Increase the wattage. It will make plants grow faster and bigger. Corollary to "Global warming will expand the surface of the planet, a good thing!"
  47. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Stephan has a new post up providing all the pertinent details enquiring minds would want to know.
  48. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    geoffchambers@150 Thank you for the clarification.
  49. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    Perhaps we should start a pool on when the Wattsonians will rise up in self-righteous indignation over Ari's toon and this comment thread.
  50. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    You speaketh volumes beyond words alone...

Prev  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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