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  1164  1165  1166  1167  1168  1169  1170  1171  1172  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  Next

Comments 58551 to 58600:

  1. Hansen and Sato Estimate Climate Sensitivity from Earth's History
    Very interesting paper that shows the dependency of historical climate forcing sensitivity on the accuracy of the historical temperature reconstruction used. As Hanson and Sato say themselves: "Global temperature change calculated by multiplying the sum of the two climate forcings in Fig. 5c by climate sensitivity ¾°C per W/m2 yields a remarkably good fit to the "observed" temperature (Fig. 6). The observed temperature is based on the assumption that 4.5°C is a reasonable approximation of the LGM-Holocene surface temperature change, and thus a scale factor of 2 is used to convert δ18O deep ocean temperature change (equation 6) to surface temperature change. However, we could obtain an equally good match between the temperature calculated from the forcings and the temperature from δ18O if we assumed the LGM-Holocene warming was 6°C and fast-feedback climate sensitivity was 1°C per W/m2, or if we assumed that the LGM-Holocene warming was 3°C and climate sensitivity was 0.5°C per W/m2. If LGM cooling is so uncertain as to be anywhere in the range 3-6°C, we can only conclude that the fast-feedback climate sensitivity is 3 ± 1°C for a 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing. Thus accurate knowledge of the global temperature change between glacial and interglacial states is needed for empirical evaluation of fast-feedback climate sensitivity." So their 3±0.5°C for a 4 W/m2 CO2 at 68% probability looks like it is directly based on their estimate of LGM global cooling being 4.5±0.5°C at 68% probability. Therefore I think the really interesting part of their paper is the Fig7 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity chart more than the narrowed sensitivity itself.
  2. Hansen and Sato Estimate Climate Sensitivity from Earth's History
    The recent Hansen and Sato papers are easy to read, make very simple arguments, and are very compelling. The thing I can't judge as an outsider of course is whether his selection of source data realistically reflects the range of estimates in the field, and as a result if he is realistically including all the uncertainties. Someone who is more deeply read in the paleoclimate literature might be able to comment on that. I'd be interested to see a robust critique, but I don't remember any examples of anyone taking on Hansen in the primary literature. And I'm slightly bothered by how round the numbers always are. S_ff is always 3C, and the uncertainty is always a round number. That's a stupid criticism, because it's probably just a desire not to implicitly suggest a greater precision, but it bothers me slightly.
  3. citizenschallenge at 17:48 PM on 23 May 2012
    Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
    Yup, another great informative article. well... and yes... I couldn't pass up bootlegging a copy onto whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot That "embed code" is the coolest. Also I started a thread over at SkepticSocietyForum that might interest some of you. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com" _________________________________________________ Post #1 Postby citizenschallenge » Wed May 23, 2012 1:05 am "So you have problems with my sources and I have problems with your sources" ~ ~ ~ "I know some claim SkepticalScience.com is no different from WattsUpWithThat.com. "I have been told: "it's just a different perspective, you choose to believe SkepticalScience.com and I choose to believe WUWT.” But, is it as simple as that? How do we decide on the respective veracity of each? . . . " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {and so on and so forth...} Keep up the good work :-) cheers, peter
    Moderator Response: TC: voracity --> veracity. Let me know if I've misunderstood, for I am pretty voracious ;)
  4. Dikran Marsupial at 17:12 PM on 23 May 2012
    CO2 has a short residence time
    IanC The adjustment time and residence time in my paper are both for the atmosphere. IIRC there is a preferential uptake of "light" CO2, so C14 would have a slightly longer residence time, but there is so little of it it would have no real effect on atmospheric residence and adjustment times. Martin A No, it doesn't depend on the system being non-linear. The one-box model discussed in my paper is linear, but it has different residence and adjustment times. I don't think the basic physics of ocean uptake is contraversial. Siegenthaler and Sarmiento would be a good place to start. However it would probably be a good idea to reconcile the difference between your model and mine before going on to the oceanic uptake.
  5. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:24 PM on 23 May 2012
    Hansen and Sato Estimate Climate Sensitivity from Earth's History
    HS12 narrowing the error margins on their CS value to +/- 0.5 C is pretty significant compared to previous values more like +/- 1.5 C. If their methodology stands up to scrutiny this is quite useful. And it should make the cut for AR5.
  6. New research from last week 20/2012
    Note: I did not know where to put this comment without being out of topic. I taking my chance here It would be interesting to see if the correlation between temperature anomaly and solar cycle claimed in this paper will survived the transition from HadCRU3 to HadCRU4. "Reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance as a precursor for long-term solar activity predictions: a nonlinear dynamics approach" Stefano Sello http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4966.pdf The nice thing with this model is it will be easily proven/or disproven within 5 years at a 3 sigma level (see figure 9).
    Moderator Response: TC: For your convenience: The plot is of HadCRUT3 Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Apparently, according to Sello Southern Hemisphere temperatures are not governed by solar activity /sarc. Until Dana adds Sello to his Lesson's from Past Predictions series, the best place to respond to this post is here
  7. There's no empirical evidence
    matzdj's questions @180 are either nonsensical or grossly misinformed. Take his first question as an example. His question assumes, falsely, that CO2 has a constant "absorption band" regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. On the contrary, as the CO2 concentration increases, the current absorption band widens, and new absorption bands form, as can be seen by this comparison of modtran emission spectra for 375 and 999999 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere, and with no other greenhouse gases: 375 ppmv 999,999 ppmv The Modtran model is reasonably, but not entirely accurate. In this instance it introduces a large inaccuracy by preserving atmospheric temperatures as if there was no change in CO2 content. If temperatures were allowed to adjust, the large W shape between wavenumber's 400 and 800 in the 99.99% example would be a large V or U shape instead, indicating much larger "absorption". The reason for this is that the outgoing spectra is not a product just of absorption of surface radiation, but also of radiation from the atmosphere. For empirical comparison, here are the IR spectrums of the Earth, Mars, and Venus. Note that the absorption from Venus is from the surface radiation with a blackbody spectrum for 735 degrees K, not the 260 degrees K shown: In his second question, matzdj assumes the Earth is just 700 meters deep by using the OHC record for only that portion of the ocean. He would have done far better to use the OHC record for the first 2000 meters of the ocean, as below: Better yet, he should have used the data for the entire Earth, as in figure 4 above. So, "Isn't there information from NOAA that indicates that although Global Heat Content has risen over an extended period, it has recently done an abrupt levelling?" Umm. No! Not unless you ignore the available evidence from NOAA that you find inconvenient. Finally, in his third question, matzjd simply ignores the fact that the correlation between CO2 forcing and temperature was first predicted from physical principles around 200 years ago. The correlation of the Earth's temperature to large changes in CO2 forcing throughout Earth's history for at least the last 600,000 years (the period with any available data) did not come as a surprise to anyone. It was a predicted consequence of the observed fact that CO2 is transparent to visible light, and absorbs Far IR radiation, the observed fact that the Earth re-emits the energy received from the Sun, primarily as visible light and Near IR radiation in the Far IR spectrum, and that energy is conserved. I have discussed extensively the experimental observations that make us confident of our understanding of the transmission and emission of CO2 in the atmosphere, and consequently make us certain that there is a greenhouse effect. As matzjd seems determined to ignore that evidence, here I shall simply show the correlation shown by the inexact (because of a lack of a precise temperature and humidity profile), and obsolete (1987 vintage) modtran model and observations:
  8. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #20
    I am not sure this is right place for this but it certainly belongs on SkS.
  9. There's no empirical evidence
    matzdj, why do you post the same graph as you posted on the 17th May on another thread? Did you read the responses you were given (several detailed responses including at least nine links to follow from myself and DB)? Did you do any analysis to determine whether there has actually been a significant change in trend? Or are you just here to repeat tired old debunked talking points and not listen to the responses you were given? The graph you provide is not [ocean] heat content from NOAA - I provided you with the link to NOAA ocean heat content (the same as Rob's above) on 17th May. Until you do the analysis to determine whether there has been a change in trend, your comment is empty of substance in any case.
  10. If you want them to remember, tell a story
    Folks might be interested in looking up Randy Olson ("Storyomics: proof that scientists evolved from humans" and "Don't be such a scientist: talking substance in an age of style").
  11. Rob Honeycutt at 08:59 AM on 23 May 2012
    There's no empirical evidence
    matdj... Here is the page I find for NOAA's Global Ocean Heat Content... LINK Note specifically the second panel in the series. 0-2000m. I don't think you're going to see any "leveling off."
  12. Rob Honeycutt at 08:08 AM on 23 May 2012
    There's no empirical evidence
    matzdj... You're not presenting a chart of "Global Heat Content" as far as I can see. You're presenting a chart of surface temperature. Don't forget that most of the heat energy is retained in our planet's oceans.
  13. There's no empirical evidence
    According to this thread, " What the science says... Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming." I have several quesitons: 1. What percentage of the energy in the absorption bands of CO2 are being absorbed today? 2. Isn't there information from NOAA that indicates that although Global Heat Content has risen over an extended period, it has recently done an abrupt levelling? 3. Isn't the information in the argument a collection of items that indicate a correlation, but not a causal relationship? What are the experiments that have been run to prove or disprove the causal relationshio? Dave
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please document the paternity of your graphic (the data sources used and any changes made).

    [Albatross] Please also familiarize yourself with the comments policy. Your questions have been addressed elsewhere at SkS, so your above comment constitutes "sloganeering" which is in breach of the comments policy.

    As for the causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature, statistical tests have determined that changes in CO2 Granger cause changes in temperature (e.g., see here).

  14. HadCRUT4: A detailed look
    ( -Repetitive accusations of dishonesty, malfeasance and conspiracy snipped- )
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.

    This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or intentionally misleading comments. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  15. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Wait!! Hids wife is Jo Nova? OK....I'm now fully informed, viz. Dr. Evans...;)
  16. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Spaerica@27 sez... "From DeSmog Blog: Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California. M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University. M.S. Statistics, Stanford University. M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney. B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983). B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney." PERFECT!! Makes "Dr." Evans a *perfect* expert in climatology, and equally as clearly why the denialists embrace him. Now, why wasn't I smart enough to figger that out? /snark off
  17. If you want them to remember, tell a story
    My avocation (folk singer/guitarist) has *always* informed my vocations (race car mechanic, now geologist) in ways that I could not instruct anyone on how, but intuitively knew it was the correct way to 'get across' to an 'audience,' whether they be there to hear tales in song, or to hear tales in geological terms. In terms of speaking with people wrt climate change, I *always* attempt to 'story-fy' it, to put it (the science) in relatable terms for those who aren't scientists. It doesn't always work but I've found it works more often than not!
  18. CO2 has a short residence time
    The non-equivalence of residence and adjustment time evidently depend the system being nonlinear. Is there a reference where a non-chemist can read up on the chemistry of equilibrium between CO2 in seawater and air, to the level of calculating diffusion rates? It seems to be a topic that is: - not simple - somewhat controversial. I'd like to do calculations of my own to understand the nonlinearity.
  19. John Chapman at 01:04 AM on 23 May 2012
    David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    With degrees in applied maths, physics and statistics one wonders why Dr Evans' treatment of data has been so shoddy. Maybe the knowledge allows one to apply the maths to suit your objective which is partly to support wife Jo Nova's unscientific messages?
  20. Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change
    Kevin and jyyh: The following statment suggests that the research findings summarized in the OP will be peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal in the near future. "The new measurements, which have not yet been published, suggest the densest waters in the world ocean are gradually disappearing and being replaced by less dense waters." The forthcoming paper will undoubtedly address in detail the questions/issues that you have posed.
  21. Michael Whittemore at 23:50 PM on 22 May 2012
    Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    My bad Tom, if a Mod could fix it, that would be great :)
  22. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    LOL Apparently I am so prominent that you can't even get my name right ;)
  23. Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change
    I think the ABW will still be the densest water about so when it's amount diminishes it's rather an indication of GW itself. Effects on circulation might be f.e. fewer cool periods in southern tropics and subtropics. Totally another matter is whether the increase in Antarctic glacial meltwater will mess up the circulation higher up in the southern ocean. This might increase the variation in weather on the southern parts of South America, likely New Zealand but nothing much more. But I'm just speculating here, if someone can say better please tell.
  24. Michael Whittemore at 23:36 PM on 22 May 2012
    Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming???? John Cook Dana Nuccitelli Rob Painting Doug Mackie Ari Jokimaki Andy Skuce Daniel Bailey James Wight Robert Way Glenn Tamblyn Riccardo Anne-Marie Blackburn Steve Brown Michael Sweet Barbel Winkler Neal J. King Hoskuldur Bui Jonsson and lets not forget, Tom Curtis Skeptical Science is the back bone of the Climate Change movement. Science today cant reach the community like skeptical science does. It is only early days for this website, but I see a noble prize on the table if everyone including all the great commenters, keep up this fantastic work.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text per request.
  25. Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change
    Wikipedia on Antarctic Bottom Water. I suspect I'm not the only one who is a bit in the dark as to the implications. Is the rest of the ABW likely to go? If it does, will the thermohaline circulation shut down, or just change? Are there any clues as to what the resulting climate change would look like? (I presume that there are no answers to these questions of course.)
  26. CO2 has a short residence time
    Dikran, Sorry what I meant was, the residence time as the time it takes to reduce X to 0 in the absence of a source , which is just X divided by the flux of X out of the box. I believe this is the standard definition of the residence time. To clarify, in 131 are you referring to the residence time and adjustment time of CO2 or C14? I might have misunderstood you.
  27. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    @25 DalyPlanet- You strike me as playing the role of 'concern troll'. Try checking google scholar for Jim Hansen's scientific publication record....and then consider this question: There is a strain of global warming deniers who promote the following substitution judgemement: "If Global Warming were real and really a problem, scientists would be out demonstrating in the streets about it". How sure are you that demonstrating **really** reduces someones scientific stature...as opposed to simply providing fodder for the never-ending rhetorical games that the fake skeptics engage in having no facts or reasoning to support their case? Everyone else: Here's a counter billboard for Heartland- "Heartland created a phony billboard about who prominent advocates for the consensus global warming view are. We'd like to show you who the prominent deniers of global warming are- The rest of the billboard is blank, except for a footnote- "Drawing a blank? So did we... the denial of global warming is lead from a faceless backroom." And then let Inhofe, or Limbaugh, or Christy, Spencer etc complain.
  28. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    dalyplanet - The Hiroshima bomb is a perfectly commonly-used unit of energy that people can relate to. It has been used for many years in innumerable cotexts. Crying foul over it strikes me as an attempt to distract from the point, rather than accept the very large amount of energy being added to the Earth system daily. Such units come in all shapes and sizes. Brits often use units of "Wales" or "London Bus". Other units of measurement, including the Hiroshima Bomb, can be seen in this fun list of 10 unusual measurement units. Hiroshima has been used regularly by geologists and astronomers for indicating the energy involved in asteroid strikes and volcanic eruptions, so it's hardly odd to use it here. Wikipedia uses it for the Tunguska event a recent large meteoroid impact/explosion.
  29. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    Hansen would be better served using Joules or at the least atomic bomb units as opposed to Hiroshima units. Thatcher as a "prominent advocate" has some concerns and needs to be ascribed the status of politician for accuracy.
    Moderator Response: TC: This comment consists of a simple reassertion of points you raised in a previous post, which has been well rebutted. As such, it constitutes simple repetition, and is in violation of the comments policy. Future violations may be simply deleted without comment.
  30. Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change
    Link is to UCLA press releases and does not relate to post
    Moderator Response: [JH] Link fixed. Thanks for bringing this glitch to our attention.
  31. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Hmmm. I have a brother with four degrees: a BA in musicology, two masters in musicology, and a PhD in musicology. As part of his PhD, he took some courses overseas and automagically got a second masters, even though he didn't really need it to complete his PhD. In a case like Evans', it is possible that he did a double-major at Sydney (thus the two B.xx), then a Masters, and then went on to Standford for a PhD, where he also got credit for courses that allowed him to get two M.S.s in the process. It's to his credit that he could cover all those requirements, but it wouldn't necessarily take 4+4+2+2+2+3 years... Just guessing about the details, though. ...and my guess is that my brother probably learned 2/3 as much about climatology in his four degrees as Evan seems to have learned in his six...! I only have two degrees: a B.Sc. and a Ph.D. I moved on to the Ph.D. program without needing to complete the M.Sc. program I'd started in. My Ph.D. had a specialization in physical climatology, though, so I think I'm ahead of both Evans and my brother. And quite a few people I've known for a while end up surprised when they find out I'm a "Doctor", as it's not the first thing I tell people. Don't get me started about Tim Ball, when it comes to bragging about credentials!
  32. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    The situation with regard to Thatcher and her apparent politically-motivated change of view later on in life, reminds me of the case of Roger Revelle and how he was shamefully used by the likes of S Fred Singer.
  33. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Hah Andy, nice one!
  34. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Dikran @ 26 "it certainly wouldn't go down well with an English audience" Not so fast. Mark Lynas is English and nobody accused him of boastfulness for titling his best-seller Six Degrees...
  35. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    It seems, based on davidpalermo's links, that the earlier views espoused by Thatcher were rooted in science, whereas her later change of mind, in her 2003 book Statecraft, was driven by politics. Sadly, Mrs Thatcher has suffered a severe decline in her health, including dementia, since the year 2000, so it would be impossible now to challenge her on her reversal of opinion. I actually don't see much problem using her earlier speeches. They demonstrate that a scientifically informed political leader with an indisputable conservative world-view can say sensible things about the climate crisis.Even if she later changed her mind, her earlier views prove that concern about climate change is not linked to left-wing politics. The Heartland Institute would have us believe that anyone alarmed about climate change is mad or bad. Peter Sinclair's excellent video demonstrates that such a view is totally and utterly false.
  36. Bob Lacatena at 04:14 AM on 22 May 2012
    David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    I think that part of what's funny is that 3 of those degrees are in the same thing... EE. Most people would just say they have the PhD, not take credit for having a BA, an MS, and a PhD all in the same thing. How often have you heard someone say "Trust me, I'm a doctor with three degrees."
  37. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    To me, anyone who introduces himself as having 6 degrees is trying way too hard to sound credible. It makes me immediately think "there's a reason he said that - probably because he doesn't know what he's talking about but wants to sound credible." And this is of course confirmed by the content of his talks, not to mention the fact that his degrees aren't relevant to climate science.
  38. Dikran Marsupial at 03:17 AM on 22 May 2012
    David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    @sphaerica that would be a "no" then ;o)
  39. Dikran Marsupial at 03:15 AM on 22 May 2012
    CO2 has a short residence time
    IanC residence time is the length of time an individual molecule of CO2 stays in the atmosphere, rather than the time it takes to decay to zero. C14 is constantly being generated in the upper atmosphere, so it does have a non-zero equilibrium level. The real problem with Essenhigh's paper is that hea appears unaware of the distinction between residence time and adjustment time. His estimate of residence time is completely uncontraversial, the problem is that a short residence time doesn't mean that anthropogenic emissions are not the cause of the long term rise. The link between residence time and the attribution of the rise in his paper is very tenuous.
  40. Bob Lacatena at 02:31 AM on 22 May 2012
    David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Dikran, From DeSmog Blog:
    • Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
    • M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
    • M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
    • M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
    • B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
    • B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.
  41. CO2 has a short residence time
    Dikran, For the case of C14, the residence time is the same as the adjustment time. I tend to think of the residence time as the time it takes to reduce X to 0, while the adjustment time is the time it takes for X to approach a particular equilibrium. In the case of the C14, the initial perturbation is so large that 0 is effectively the equilibrium, and the data does support a simple exponential decay to 0. In which case the linear model is valid, and the residence time and adjustment time are the same. IMO, the fatal flaw of Essenhigh2009 is that the equilibrium for overall CO2 is very far from 0, so although his model is 'validated' by the C14 data it doesn't actually carry over to the anthropogenic CO2 problem, as it is in a completely different regime!
  42. davidpalermo at 02:08 AM on 22 May 2012
    Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    I have been reading that Margaret Thatcher changed her views on Man-made global warming and is now a skeptic. I think that should be addressed. Apparently both deniers and mainstream science supporters are using Thatcher to make their case. What gives? http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/margaret-thatcher-hailed-as-champion-for-climate-skeptics.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton
  43. Dikran Marsupial at 01:57 AM on 22 May 2012
    David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    chris, it certainly wouldn't go down well with an English audience, where self-deprecation is more the norm. It does rather beg the question whether any of the degrees are in relevant subjects. More to the point, in research your qualifcations are not a big deal, what matters is the quality and quantity of your publications (as measured by e.g. your h-index) or academic awards or prizes, which show that you can usefully apply what you studied for your degrees.
  44. Bob Lacatena at 01:50 AM on 22 May 2012
    David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Tristan, You forgot Degree Enumeration, which is a rare and highly self-valued field of study.
  45. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    John Rocket Surgery, Actual Science, Computational Theology, Psychohistory and Nintendo. Chris No, it's not polite in Australian culture nor any culture I'm aware of.
  46. David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
    Regardeless of the ensuing content of this video, when I hear Evans introducing himself at the start: "Hello, my name is Doctor David Evans [...] I have 6 university degrees..." Something does not sound right. Does anyone know a credible and honnest scientist who introduces him/herself in such boastful way? In Japanese culture for example, it would be considered very very rude, perhaps in English culture he may get away with it: I'm notr sure as English is not my mother tongue.
  47. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    Grrr, keyboard with stuck keys.... Most answers to the Haertland-hate-Billboard either took the type of argument to ridiculousness, or answered the science. I propose something other, show people Heartlands own history of industy-paid, fake expertise: A picture of e.g. Fred Singer, withe the subtitle "tabacco-industry paid fake expert from Heartland" (if this seems to harsh, one could just omit the "fake", but I go with tamino on this). Main text: "I still believe smoking does not cause cancer. Do you? Heartland.org" (Haertland.org can be replaced with a source of real information either about Heartlands role in the smoking-debate or with information about the dangers of smoking) Its mirroring the attack; but not with the same logical fallacy, but known facts about the paid lobyying of Heartland.
  48. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    dalyplanet@15, I really must take strong exception to some of the assertions that you made in your post. While Heartland did remove the billboard, they did so under duress and have remained unapologetic for their actions. In fact, Joe Bast has been bending over backwards to try and justify what they did (see here) and in the process Bast refers to Mike Mann as a "madman". Also, Heartland still stands by its assertion that "....the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." You mention Thatcher, while you are entitled to your opinions of her (I am not a particular fan, but what we think of her is irrelevant), it does not change the fact that what she says in the video is supported by the science and in present day by observations. People who have watched the video will not that it also features such greats as Hawking, Sagan and Schneider. It is very unfortunate that you tried to dismiss the Hiroshima analogy as "sensationalism". Ever since the Hiroshoma bomb scientists have been using that analogy to help readers comprehend and understand the huge amounts of energy involved or released during certain processes, and certainly not to engage in sensationalism or appeal to emotion. Telling someone that the earthquake off Japan last March released about 2x10^17 Joules of energy means nothing at all to most people. But they can very much appreciate the huge amounts of energy involved when told that the quake released the energy equivalent to 600 million A-bombs. Similarly, during the Thunderstorm Project, Dr. Braham and his colleagues determined that the amount of energy released in the lifteime of a sing-celled thunderstorm is equivalent to 50 A-bombs. Those are but two of many examples. So when Hansen is trying to convey to a lay audience how much energy is being accumulated each year in the climate system on account of the planetary energy imbalance being imposed by us emitting GHGs, telling them that the increase on the order of 10^22 J/yr would not be helpful. Hence, he like his colleagues, uses the A-bomb analogy, and there is nothing wrong with that. You trying to claim that his stature as a scientist is being reduced for standing up for what is right is not only demonstrably false, but a form of ad hominem argument and possibly in violation of the comments policy. Regardless, that he is an activist (it is sad that some people consider others standing up for what is right to be a bad thing) has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity or value of his findings appearing in his scientific publications. Hansen continues to publish prolifically in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and is very much respected by his peers.
  49. DaneelOlivaw at 14:59 PM on 21 May 2012
    Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
    Very cool investigation, Mark. I love this kind of in depth stories about climate myths. I commend you for your honesty in contacting the people involved and reproducing their comments (albeit marginally helpful in this case). I'm always amazed with people's obsession in using local records to imply global temperature and their simultaneous reluctance to use *actual* global averages.
  50. Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
    yes, Climate Reality is going ahead with the billboard campaign. Funny little story- I actually passed along my billboard and website idea to a person who works with Climate Reality and...lo and behold...a week later they came out with their campaign. Actually, it seems we both came up with the idea independent of each other. Great minds think alike? :)

Prev  1164  1165  1166  1167  1168  1169  1170  1171  1172  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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