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  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  Next

Comments 56501 to 56550:

  1. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    It's my understanding that the IPCC predictions for SLR account for thermal expansion but not melting ice, since there is too much uncertainty in models. Given the speed with which ice is actually melting, it seems more than reasonable to assume that SLR will be much more substantial than IPCC projections. (a good summary of arctic ice is here: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/asi-2012-update-9-stormy-weather.html) The Smog Blog has excellent graphs for US air quality: http://alg.umbc.edu/usaq/
  2. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    There is a terrific current ozone data report at http://airgraphing.pscleanair.org/ It covers the Puget Sound Region around the Seattle area. One can track particulates, NO3 - really you can make your own reports. It really is terrific - and other regions should have similar tracking. For instance, See Aug 17th select ozone in the location Enumclaw - or any area. Select Average or hourly measure. Some bad ozone that day - it was 95 degrees, sunny, low wind and lots of combustion pollution. (cough, cough)
  3. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Xterrajack: You may want to compare Dole et al with Rahmstorf and Coumou (2011), and then read Otto et al (2012). This post at Real Climate is also relevant. The literature and methods on attribution of extreme events is developing quite rapidly at the moment.
  4. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    While there are certainly issues associated with climate change, there are errors and assumptions in this post. For instance, a paper by Dole, et al, 2011 concluded that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability. Dole is employed in the Physical Sciences Division of the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA. And, for a 1 to 2 meter sea level rise to occur by 2100, it would require the average annual rate of SLR to increase by a rate of 3.7 to 7.3 times the current rate. Those numbers are well above the current upper bounds projected by the IPCC.
  5. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    error: should be fig.2 !:=)
  6. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    thank you for the super informative post and the illustrations ... I am especially thankful for the animation in fig.1 ...
  7. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Thanks RPauli and DaveW. Sphaerica, you can download the book (for free!) as a pdf in dropbox here: http://www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/ I wrote it precisely so that there would be a compilation of sources - peer-reviewed, published science - with links and illustrations. Scientists have in fact been studying the effects of ozone on plants for many decades and the conclusion is that plants are more sensitive to ozone than people or animals. According to Peter Cox of MIT, 40 ppb is the threshold above which ozone damages plants, which absorb it through stomates in foliage and needles. In many parts of the world, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, 40 ppb is now the persistent background level of tropospheric ozone, while localized peaks are far above that. Even remote areas are impacted as precursors travel across oceans and continents, which has been tracked by satellite. It's well-established that the first impact is to roots, as plants are forced to allocate more energy to repair injury at the point of entry. Hence plants - including trees, perhaps especially since they are exposed to chronic, cumulative damage - are more vulnerable to drought and wind. By the time injury is visible on foliage (which is common by midsummer) internal damage has already occurred. Another well-established effect, observed in both field work and controlled fumigation experiments in both the US and Europe, is that outbreaks of insects, disease and fungus opportunistically attack plants and trees that are weakened by ozone. Hence many uninformed foresters and others who prefer not to blame industrial civilization for the global trend will blame biotic factors for the decline in forest health.
  8. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    BC - that's not something I have looked into. Presumably giant ice sheets have accumulated on North America, Greenland and Scandinavia because of the gulf stream - water evaporated off the warm Atlantic sea surface and then transported north. Siberia is not endowed with such a 'moisture conveyor'.
  9. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Nicely done.
  10. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    Chriskoz - sorry for the confusion. It's due to the lack of up-to-date images on this particular aspect. I should have checked a bit closer before posting two images that would confuse attentive readers, such as yourself. Figure 4 is the rate of uplift when averaged over the last 10,000 years - see figure 2 in Paulson (2007). Whereas figure 1 in Horton (2009) is the modern-day rate of change as depicted by Peltier's earlier deglaciation model (version 4). The Patagonian observation is not included in the GIA model simulations because it (the deglaciation model) can't actually predict the location and scale of future ice losses - the Patagonian uplift being observed more recently. Rather, what it does do is help in disentangling the Earth's response from the loss of the giant ice sheets many thousands of years ago, from the mass loss occurring today. I'm now starting to think that I should have kept this post a bit simpler, and shorter.
  11. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    There is no GIA over most of Siberia despite it being at similar latitudes as Canada and Europe, presumably because there wasn't much in the way of ice sheets there. Do you have any idea why? I'm guessing it's to do with the Gulf Stream producing moisture which end's up as snow and ice. Besides the top end of the North Atlantic the other hot spot of activity is the WAIS as per chriskos's question. Is there some corresponding reason for this?
  12. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Gavin Schmidt has posted a blog on Hansen 2012 and its critics at Real Climate. The early section contains little that is not seen above, although well worth reading for Gavin's clear exposition. The later section contains an interesting discussion of the non-linearity of impacts with increasing temperature, and the consequences with regard to criticisms like that of Cliff Mass.
  13. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    And now my comments are not being posted at Cliff's site, not even an unrelated question about an image from a local modeling run. Geez. I suppose I invited this on myself but I thought Cliff had a thick enough skin to suffer a little criticism along with praise (and cash contributions to his modeling efforts, for that matter). Enough, time to move along.
  14. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Jeekers, Sphaerica "underimpressed" with WitsEnd?? You know, she only provides the links to sources - you actually have to read them. I found links to EPA studies, European studies, even studies from the Bush Administration and the National Crop Loss network. And a few hundred more at http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/p/more-links-to-research.html She has a printed book if you prefer paper. WitsEnd is only making it easier to find the content, you can find it on your own if you prefer.
  15. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Keen, Just my opinion, but I've seen Wit's End before, and I am dramatically under-impressed. It completely fails to make its case. In particular the links to research are almost entirely tangential, or not even research papers -- just articles and such. If ozone impact on trees is a real problem, scientists should study it and establish it as fact. For now, for me, it's pseudoscience, and it's also a distraction to real problems that we can credibly identify, like global warming. We have enough on our plate without trying to pile on everything we can possibly think of.
  16. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    "The presence of ozone in the troposphere in concentrations above 40 parts per billion near the earths’ surface is corrosive and toxic to humans, other air breathing animals and many food plants." Numbers of people are commenting on ozone damage to people and food plants...there exists a pretty strong case for serious and rapidly developing damage to our trees as well - check out Wit's End blog There really is something happening! DaveW
  17. Review of new iBook: Going to Extremes
    I can't purchase the book in the Canada store.
  18. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Jason @134 and michael @139 make a good point. We've been busy determining whether Field's comments were consistent with the body of scientific literature (and showed that they were), but Roger raised another issue, claiming that Field should not have 'gone beyond' the content of the SREX because supposedly he was there purely as an IPCC SREX representative. But as you note, Field began his testimony specifically stating the many different pieces of scientific literature that he would be referencing. The more we look into his comments, the shallower Roger's position becomes. Coincidentally, I noticed that the LinkedIn Climate Policy Group members often use the term 'agree to disagree'. Maybe it's because they so often discuss policy, which is an area where people can have opposing but valid opinions. That's a bad habit to get into when discussing science though.
  19. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Thank you for posting, Agnostic. The Lancet medical journal has identified Climate Change as potentially the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century. Health professionals are trying to increase awareness of this. I do think your post would gain from some revision. Frustratingly, for example, there remain no specific treatments for the arthropod borne viral infections you list (e.g., Ross River virus). Also, the points need referencing, especially the part about ozone. Crop failure and famine is most certainly a health issue, as is conflict over resources, and extreme weather events. And dealing with all these things will carry a large opportunity cost as our health care systems are diverted from current preoccupations such as cancer and heart disease.
  20. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Dana, I am shocked that Pielke would directly misrepresent another scientist when he thought that you would not be able to check the original source. Congratulations on your persistence in finding out the real story. It will be interesting to see how Pielke justifies his statements in the unlikely event that he comes back to this thread. It seems that one problem is that Roger claims that Field should stick to the SREX report while Field stated at the start of his testimony that he would include more recent research. As referenced in the OP and in Hansen's recent paper, extreme weather caused by AGW has been associated directly with billion dollar economic losses since SREX was written. Why should Field limit his testimony to old data?
  21. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Now that I've cruised the entire thread of discussion here, I find it simply amazing that Roger feels free to fling bald accusations such as are quoted in comment #116, only to blithely announce that pressing concerns preclude his further participation in an extended effort to get him to take ownership of his own words. "Honest broker?" Hardly. He's certainly got the patronizing sneer down pat, but honesty is nowhere to be found in this schtick. I don't know if anybody remembers, but Roger also was one of the point men accusing Rajendra Pachauri of profiting by Pachauri's stewardship of IPCC; again, immoderate words were written by Roger and then widely quoted. When it became obvious that Roger had degraded himself by joining the baying pack of yahoos going after Pachauri, he simply refused to acknowledge his error, descending as usual into a blizzard of elliptical verbiage whirling around the actual topic: Pielke's own error. Pielke's got a good shelf life, though. Never seems to smell bad to journalists, etc.
  22. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    chriskoz@4 Rob's fig 4 shows crustal uplift, whereas Figure 1 in Horton (2009) shows changes in the geoid (essentially sea level). So, the two maps show different consequences from the same cause. You can compare maps for GIA effects on the geoid, the lithosphere and the water equivalent thickness at these links. As for Patagonia, I don't have access to the full paper, but judging from the abstract, this observed rapid uplift seems to be associated with historical (century scale, since the Little Ice Age) deglaciation on a localized area with a local low viscosity mantle. So I think that your suggestion that this is a small scale phenomenon may be correct.
  23. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    JasonB: "Bob, Roger actually addressed this in the comments of his blog post" Well, while we're quibbling about the meaning of words, I disagree that Roger "addressed" this. I consider his statement a complete weaseling out of the responsibility of testifying before Congressional committees. The idea that anyone can be allowed to spread misinformation because it's their "person opinion", and because some congresscritter in (climate) denial likes it, is abhorrent to me. After all, if I were to testify in such a place that Roger Pielke Jr. is a [self-censoring snip], and it wasn't true, would Roger give me a free pass because it was just my "personal opinion" and someone on the committee had invited me because they found the message "convenient"? What a load of crap. It's just another example of how Roger is biased.
  24. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    While I agree with everything written, there is another health issue that is only just touched on here and which I fear might be greater than these. Climate change will undoubtedly reduce the availability of food, through changes in the productivity of agricultural land and the scarcity of water (or the opposite; flooding). There's also the issue of acidification of the oceans which is likely to cause extinctions to some plankton species and thus impact on the availability of human food species further up the chain. While availability of food and/or water might not be considered directly a 'health' issue, it certainly plays a significant role in the ability of animal species -- including humans -- to stay healthy and fight off disease.
  25. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    barry@14: Yes, my use of "rotate" is not right. The Kahan Study questionnaire actually said "How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun?" I'll change it. Thank you. barry@15: I agree, when I read the questions in the Yale project, there were a few instances where my initial reaction was "well, it depends what you mean".
  26. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    JasonB - very good points. I never did understand Pielke's argument that Field's testimony was important and Christy's wasn't. I suspect it's just an excuse to avoid addressing Christy's myths. I should also note that at the LinkedIn discussion, MacCracken had some comments that I didn't previously see. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him here. Remember, this is what Roger claimed (emphasis added):
    "the fact that Field's testimony is at variance with the IPCC SREX is trivial to show -- for instance, over in the Linkedin Climate Policy Group, Mike MacCracken (former head of the USGCRP) accepted this"
    This is MacCracken responding to Roger in the LinkedIn Climate Policy Group 8 days ago, before this post was published (emphasis added):
    "I did not accept that the points you are questioning were misrepresentations."
    So basically Roger has completely misrepresented MacCracken here, who specifically said that he did not agree that Field's testimony contained misrepresentations. Ironically Roger has accused Field of being 180 degrees wrong, while himself claiming MacCraken said exactly the opposite of what MacCracken really said. It's funny that Roger even used the exact same (but 180 degrees opposite) language as MacCracken.
  27. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    On a positive note, SkS comes in at #1 if you do search for "john christy" congress, past month. :-)
  28. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Bob, Roger actually addressed this in the comments of his blog post:
    But let's be clear about one thing. Christy was cherrypicked by Republicans to deliver a certain message that they find convenient. The IPCC does not have that luxury. Field was representing climate science, Christy his personal views of the science. Field had an obligation to accurately represent the IPCC report, or alternatively to present his personal views.
    So because Field was representing real science, and is therefore important, any confusion about what he might have meant (rather than what he actually said) warrants accusations of misleading Congress, while Christy gets a free pass because he was just there because some folks are interested in his personal opinion as a regular Joe. The problem with this idea can be found in a few seconds on Google: "United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" "john christy": about 13,400 results. "United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" "christopher field": about 60 results, including Roger's critique a couple of times on the first page. If we use simpler terms, like "christopher field" congress, past month, we get 641 results: #1 is WUWT, talking about how Roger "demolishes" Field's testimony; #2 is Roger's blog post; #3 is an article about Field being caught lying to Congress by Roger; #4 is junkscience about "Field lying to Congress"; #5 is climateaudit talking about Roger's blog post; #6 is climateaudit talking about the SREX; #7 is Wired actually talking about the substance of the testimony #8 is Field being called a liar again. "john christy" congress, past month, gets twice as many results. So Christy's "personal views" has attracted somewhere between 2x and 200x as many hits, and almost the entire first page of Field's results is taken up by Roger, people who copied Roger, or people using Roger's blog posting to say Field is a liar. A tool indeed! I wonder what they would have done without an "honest broker" there to enable their behaviour? One of the great ironies, of course, is that a large part of Roger's criticism is that he feels that Field went "beyond" what the IPCC SREX had concluded (although this is clearly in dispute), while ignoring the fact that Field specifically states:
    In my testimony today, I will be presenting information from a variety of sources, including the assessments from the US National Academy of Sciences, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the IPCC, and papers in the technical scientific literature.
    In other words, Field was under the impression that he was being called as an expert to update the committee on the latest climate change science -- you know, because the hearing was actually entitled "Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.” and not "A Book Reading of the IPCC SREX" -- and so he specifically stated that was his intent. Even if he had gone beyond what the SREX had concluded, it would have been fine provided he was reporting on assessments from the US National Academy of Sciences, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the IPCC, and papers in the technical scientific literature.
  29. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Bob @130 - I totally agree. I've now made the point many times that while we're nitpicking about how explicit Field should have been in his testimony, Christy just repeated a bunch of long-debunked myths in his own. Pielke was hammered on this for a long time in his blog post comments, and I think the most he was willing to say was 'there are probably some aspects of Christy's testimony I agree with, and some I disagree with'. This is very characteristic of Pielke's strategy of trying to place himself between the 'skeptics' and 'alarmists' as the 'honest broker' in the middle. The problem is that sometimes the truth doesn't lie in the middle. Sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong. That's not to say the 'skeptics' are 100% wrong and the mainstream climate scientists are 100% right, but the truth unquestionably lies far closer to the mainstream side. Positioning yourself in the middle just makes you a little less wrong than the contrarians, and in the meantime you become a tool for delaying climate action.
  30. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Yes, nothing but a bunch of ad homs from Mass so far. Very disappointing. He's guilty of exactly what he accuses SkS of. Coincidentally, we just received some high praise from a rather prominent climate scientist regarding this post. I'm not going to name names, but he said this post is the best he's seen on the Hansen paper, most accurately reflects his opinions about it, and when he's asked about the paper by journalists, he refers them to this post. So it appears that Mass' criticisms aren't shared by those with expertise in the subject. Of course we already knew that, but as long as we're going to appeal to authority (as Mass does with his silly 'no graduate degrees in atmospheric sciences' jab), we've got Mass trumped there too.
  31. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Philippe: ...and I'm sure he'll say "Thanks!" at the end... ...but the whole "we'll agree to disagree" is just one of his tactics to avoid engaging in honest discussion of the questions or issues. Again, just another indication that there is no reason to trust him.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 02:10 AM on 19 August 2012
    Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Bob, I suspect that Dr Pielke Jr may simply agree to disagree on the merits of Christy's testimony...
  33. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    I think OPatrick makes a very valid point, but even more important to me is that Pielke Jr. has basically made us follow his blimp of debating the accuracy of Field, leading us away from the serious errors in Christy's testimony. Pielke has taken something that is barely even a molehill, and turned it into a mountain of discussion. Quoting Albatross' and dana's article:
    The real irony here is that Pielke Jr. and McIntyre falsely accuse Field of misleading Congress while completely ignoring that John Christy actually did mislead Congress in the very same hearing.
    If repetition is a key to remembering, casual readers of this thread will see lots of discussion of what Field did, but little of what Christy did. The fact that Pielke Jr. is completely unwilling to apply the same level of of analysis to Christy's testimony is extremely telling. Basically, what Pielke is doing is akin to creating a Sacrificial Anode - a spot to focus the discussion and divert it away from what he is really trying to protect: the inaccurate and unfounded attacks on climate science by Christy. If Pielke Jr. does return to this discussion, it would be beneficial to keep hammering away at this issue - asking him why he does not apply the same fine-tooth comb to Christy's testimony. There is no necessity to argue nuances of what Christy might have meant or how he should have been interpreted - Christy is just plain flat-out wrong about so much of what he said that you can drive a Mack truck through the holes. I highly suspect, however, that any further participation by Pielke Jr. will follow the same tactic of refusing to respond to direct questions or issues. Mr. Pielke: if you feel you are an "honest broker", as has been suggested, then please treat Christy's testimony in the same fashion as you treat others. The failure to do so is a clear indication that you have an agenda, and that there is no reason to trust you.
  34. The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
    Skeptical Science can help Hansen with a problem he is going to have with his next paper. He used "hot" for one sigma, "very hot" for two sigma and "extremely hot" for three sigma. The data already shows four sigma events occurring. What term will he use for four, five and higher sigma?? What is a stronger term than "extremely hot"? Would these work: four sigma = "extraordinarily hot" five sigma = "unbearably hot" six sigma = "hot as Hell" seven sigma = "hotter than Hell" eight sigma = ??? Who has a suggestion?
  35. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Some of the questions in the US survey are a bit narly, even for well-informed people.
    In the past, the Earth's climate always shifted gradually between warm and cold periods
    The answer is given as 'False', but how do you parse 'gradually'? I would have answered True, thinking that even the PETM event was a slower temp rise than current, and gotten that one wrong.
  36. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    "In a recent study by Daniel Kahan, "scientific literacy" was determined by asking rather simple questions, in this case, only 32% knew that the Earth rotates around the Sun one time per year"
    Oops, some unintended irony here - "revolves" is the word you want.
  37. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    Nice article Rob. A question: why there is a difference in numbers between Fig4 and figure 1 in Horton [2009]? Both figures describe the same thing: postglacial isostatic rebound. Fig4 shows much larger numbers, e.g. Hudson Bay (the bottom of Laurentide Sheet) appears to be rising 18mm/y on Fig4 while only some 0.6mm/y in Horton [2009]. Those must be somewhat different numbers (although both expressed in mm/y) that I don't understand. Also, a whooping 39mm/y rise of Patagonia is not marked on Fig4: does it mean that the rise can be a very local phenomenon, not to scale on global map? Then Western Antarctica is rising fast: does it mean WAIS has undergone serious melting in Holocene?
  38. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Yes Doug, a whole lot of empty words from Cliff Mass thus far. The 'atmospheric science background' appeal to authority just demonstrates he has not grasped the concept of Hansen's paper.
  39. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    As a frequent reader of Cliff's blog and admirer of his synoptic analysis and weather prediction modeling efforts I feel a little bit torn over his remarks about Hansen et al. Pondering on it, I really don't believe Cliff has a clue as to how frequently and deeply degraded is discussion around the topic of climate change; I think Dr. Mass is unwittingly emulating a lot of unworthy behavior, with basically good intentions but inadvertently poor results. If Dr. Mass has a fault, it's to do with dialing up his hyperbole to "11" a bit too often. Along those lines, I find Mass' description of Hansen's recent paper pointlessly offensive and insulting, and unfortunately harmful to his own credibility. I don't think Cliff understands how debased and empty words such as "deception" are when applied to climate researchers. It's much better to stick with specific complaints centered on specific facts. Mass published my remarks on his Hansen posts, except for one I invited him not to publish at all. Perhaps that's because I'm a bit more of a familiar presence at his blog? Tom, oddly enough Cliff appears to have published a reply to your comment that is free of content regarding your requests but does include another silly "appeal to authority" swipe at Skeptical Science. Oh, well. Nobody's perfect. :-(
  40. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Chrisoz - I am guilty of remembering/grabbing numbers from other arguments without thinking hard enough. The 3.7W/m2 is of course the forcing for doubling CO2 which hasnt happened. I definitely defer to IPCC for actual figures. Its still showing man able to produce forcings an order of magnitude higher than nature. Lanfear - the calculation is from difference in annual 65N insolation between min and max glacial divided by no. of centuries. I dont have the reference for that to hand, but probably on this site.
  41. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Honestly, given the quality of the arguments Mass made in his blog post on the subject, he's in no position to criticize anyone else for making 'technical errors'. As noted above, his post was exceptionally oversimplified which made it technically quite wrong. For him to then write off our post, which is based on numerous peer-reviewed studies, as being 'full of serious technical errors' - pardon me for being less than concerned, especially as he seems unwilling to specify what errors he thinks he's identified.
  42. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    I think Roger was objecting to my summary that when you boil it down, he's just quibbling over Field not being as explicit as Roger would have liked about the tenuous link between climate change and disaster-related economic losses. Why Roger objects to that I don't know - he didn't clarify and I think we've pretty clearly established that was the only aspect of Field's testimony that he seems to take issue with.
  43. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Dana quotes Roger: "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress." Roger rejoins: "Thanks, but I reject your characterization of my remarks." I'm probably not the only person left scratching my head over how a direct quote can be a mischaracterization. Roger's statement stands out as an immoderate remark and doesn't require any characterization or contextual preservation for that to be obvious. But perhaps my impression of Roger's apparent intent to characterize Field as deceptive is wrong. If that's the case, as usual the problem lies with the communicator, not the listener. If there's any lesson here, it's that more blogs could benefit by employing strict rules such as are found here at SkS. Swerving into immoderate words myself, I must say that Dr. Pielke Jr. seems of a piece with Dr. Judith Curry, who has a reputation for letting off a wild shot or two and then leading those who object through a gyrating semantic dance.
  44. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Doug Bostrom @20, yesterday, I posted a comment at Cliff Mass's blog asking him politely to list the "serious technical errors" so that Dana could correct them. He has not bothered to list them, nor to allow my comment to be published. That failure is certainly not due to a lack of time or attention, as he has approved for publication another comment since then. I have repeated the request today. My repetition of the request was slightly less polite. I pointed out that without a listing of the errors, his comment amounts to an argument form authority followed up by an ad hominen. IMO his response is certainly worth no more than the detail he is provided to give.
  45. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    I forgot to mention, thanks for the article! This sort of long-wavelength attention span is one of the distinguishing and excellent features of SkS. Not to plot spoil, but readers willing to skip ahead will likely find the sea level effects of Greenland's ice mass pretty mind-blowing. Our planet is nothing if not full of dynamic potential. It'll be very nice to see a more elaborated discussion of the topic.
  46. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    What disturbs me most about this episode, and so many more like it, is the way that genuine valid criticism gets swamped by hyperbole. As Dana notes above it may be arguable, for example, that Field was not as explicit about economic losses as he could, or should, have been. However when Roger Pielke starts his post with claims that Field was 180 degrees wrong and fundamentally and unambiguously misrepresenting the IPCC it is inevitable that he will attract criticism for these claims. Certain commentators will then focus on the way that Pielke was 'attacked' and the impression will be given that anything critical of the consensus position is once again being dismissed out of hand. This seems a very common pattern to me.
  47. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    Thanks Doug. Will be getting to that in a later post in this series. I suspect a lot of this will seem highly unintuitive for a number of readers.
  48. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Thanks, DSL. That has spoiled my entire day. ;-b Here's a clickable link: Apocalypse Not: Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Worry About End Times Your characterization of his article is pretty good. It's mostly a polemic, cherry-picking the most extreme alarmist statements from the past and then helpfully reminding us that the world did not, in fact, end. He glosses over the fact that at the same time as these alarmist comments were made on HIV/AIDS, acid rain, DDT and the ozone layer, others were busy making unscientific and false claims that these things posed no threat at all. These counter-consensus claims were all given undue press attention and were embraced by reactionary political factions, indulging in wishful thinking in an attempt to preserve the status quo. Draw your own parallels with the climate crisis, because Matt Ridley won't do it for you. In the case of AIDS, for example, HIV denialism to contributed to what can only be described as an apocalypse in Southern Africa. Thanks to AIDS, there are an estimated 30 million people who no longer have to worry about the end times. (Wikipedia) It would be a disgraceful rhetorical sleight-of-hand to associate Ridley with the disaster made worse by fringe HIV/AIDS denialists. Nevertheless, he seems to think it is a legitimate tactic to associate anyone worried about the prospect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with the very worst alarmists, including Harold Camping and the Mayans. Ridley used to be a fine science writer. It is a shame to see him fallen to the level of a partisan hack.
  49. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    It's worth noting that beyond isostatic effects large ice sheets adjacent to oceans can influence sea level relatively local to the ice sheet quite dramatically by the gravitational anomaly they create. The numbers around this effect can be startlingly, nonintuitively large, particularly adjacent to such impressive ice masses as Greenland. Discussion toward the end of this article: The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly by Region More: Global geoid and sea level changes due to present-day ice mass fluctuations The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse The impact of Greenland melt on local sea levels: a partially coupled analysis of dynamic and static equilibrium effects in idealized water-hosing experiments
  50. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    BTW, the National Science Foundations is giving 19 million in grants for climate change education: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/08/nsf_promotes_climate-change_ed.html

Prev  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2026 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us