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  1209  1210  1211  1212  1213  1214  1215  1216  1217  1218  1219  1220  1221  1222  1223  1224  Next

Comments 60801 to 60850:

  1. actually thoughtful at 17:07 PM on 25 March 2012
    Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    dunc461 - it seems you are in the mode of "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing" - in the real world, it is cheaper to use renewable energy than it is to use fossil fuel, when all variables are included. That will not change based on the number of people on the planet. That will not change based on the energy density of the economy. Buildings take ~40% of our annual energy usage, yet we know how to make zero energy buildings. Over the life of the building, the savings of not paying utilities greatly exceeds the initial cost of conservation and renewable energy. Therefore the cost of mitigation is negative for buildings (ie you save money, so there is no cost. There is a savings). This comes from the real world, from experience, from the evidence of reality. If your spreadsheet does not report this result, please adjust accordingly. And you state many times no nuclear. This is an assumption that the Chinese, for one, are invalidating right now. Again, your spreadsheet needs adjustment. The task of avoiding the worst of global warming is mainly the task of ending coal now, and switching off of oil over the next 20-30 years. If you think Americans won't figure out how to do that and make/save money, you are not a student of history. I suspect clever people in other countries will also contribute. The idea that getting off of fossil fuels is a cost is an assumption. An assumption that is not born out by reality. It is a savings.
  2. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    > If John wants to set up a fund +1 J Bowers
  3. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I also suggest going over to Bishop Hill to give Montford some stick for linking to the file via Tom Nelson. If John wants to set up a fund to hire someone or a service to try and trace the hacker, I'll gladly contribute. Via a secure server, mind ;) Hey, you never know where it'll lead to.
  4. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Changed password, notified FB-friends, in case someone has voyeristic tendencies and wants to compromise their computers by meddling with the cracked file.
  5. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I suggest everyone change their IP address. You may need to contact your ISP if you have a static IP or a long lease IP. Best to err on the side of caution, IMHO. How To Change Your IP Address
  6. Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
    To be fair, His Lordship has been extremely distracted by issues of enormous moment, busy as he is with Sheriff Joe Arpaio to establishing that... wait for it!... Obama's birth certificate is a fake! Seriously. Now, anyone prepared to download a trial of Adobe Illustrator, or who has it already on their computer, and who has a scanner with OCR software (also download-and-trial-able) can quite innocently replicate the damning 'separate layers' (actually separate groups on a single layer) in a scanned PDF of a document that this high-profile posse claims proves conclusively 'this thing has been fabricated'. Simply find a printed document with text placed over a graphic background of some variety, and then let the software - I used ABBYY FineReader - scan it to a PDF. Open this in Illustrator, and notice how it has all the separable bits and bobs in a number of groups - just like the Birth Certificate does! Not the world's greatest scanning practice, perhaps, but a pretty-damn-good refutation of their argument, I'd have thought. It would appear to me that some people just forgot to be skeptical! ;-) ...
  7. Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
    He is not a journalist, not a scientist, and not much of a lecturer. Monckton is an entertainer.
  8. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    arch @#64 - Indeed - the sound you're not hearing is me holding my breath!
  9. Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
    Apparently, according to Anthony, there is no further need for his Sublimely Scented Excellency to further debase himself and address the impertinent Hadfield any further, as Hadfield has now contaminated himself by association with an untouchable, greenman3610: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/23/moncktons-slide-presentation-to-the-california-assembly/ See comment and response at 8.13 a.m., March 24.
  10. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    How do I unregister at SkS? See my comment #59.
  11. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I am also getting the "That username has already been taken" message
  12. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Dana @43, Yes, we agree. In case I wasn’t clear I think the other emotions are all valid too. Bill@57 – You mean there’s nothing at all about how Katniss has been lied to and manipulated for purely political reasons by SkS? I guess that will come out in one of the later installments. ;)
  13. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    A bigger concern could be over the viruses, trojans, worms and stolen passwords that silently do damage. The nefarious payload that does blatant damage does us a favor by its reveal... I fear the invisible attack that acts as a relentless parasite. Personally, for my comments here...I could say that now I have an excuse for all the blunderingly stupid things I have said. But thanks for all that you do. Fail gracefully and try to make new mistakes.
  14. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I do not know if it is a coincidence but I sure have had a lot of Comet Cursor problems in the last few days
  15. Stauning and Friis-Christensen on Solar Cycle Length and Global Warming
    Aha: clearly a new case of divergence.
  16. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    John Russel@45 We can only hope that some of the facts sink in but the contrarians do not have a very good track record with regard to reading comprehension.
  17. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I suspect this is causing John some anxiety, but for my part, I would ask him to rest easy, mostly. I comment anonymously because I fear the irrational behavior of, I guess, irrational people. But I think only a small set of people commenting/posting here would actually receive personal attention, and I do not think I am in that set of noteworthy people. I use different passwords depending on the nature of the material; ie, my password here is in the set of social media/I-don't-really-care passwords, which is distinct from my financial passwords, etc. So, even if the passwords are decrypted, I'm think I have little to loose. I work with databases and software; Andy Lee is giving good advice. My expertise is not in security or web hosting; his knowledge is beyond mine is this area, but my limited understanding jives with his advice. Kind of curious what is posted about me, but not so much that I want this site to post a link. If I had to guess, I would hazard that this is the work of a highly motivated, at least moderately skilled, but delusional person, and not the work of someone directly involved in the denial industry. I don't see what there is to gain for the professional deniers by hacking identities. Russian? Maybe, but I suspect whoever did it merely used a Russian site to post because of legal considerations. Honestly, what is to be gained by this hack? I suppose that it could be used to sway opinion (out of context or misunderstood quotes - same as climategate), but personal information does not change the laws of physics; so, I'm wondering what the hacker was hoping to achieve.
  18. Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
    Thanks for the update--I haven't read about the Younger Dryas since the early 1990s, very interesting to see the multiple sequels and theories.
  19. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I tried to change my password but got the message that the name is already taken. I tried the 'forgotten password' route, entered my name and email address, and it said the password has been sent to an email address that isn't mine. What to do?
  20. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    What a bugger. I haven't noticed anything odd yet. I'm guessing mainly spam or unwanted blog visitors might happen, and can cope. Hard to see how it could be used on more sinister way.
  21. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    The charming Bishop Hill - how did I think to look there? - has provided a helpful link to one Tom Nelsons' blog, where Mr Nelson futher provides a link to the zipped trove of material and a few opportunities to blather on for the self-styled 'leaker'. But what's most interesting is the culled 'revelatory' material Nelson has kindly posted. Because there's a rather outstanding hole in it where anything even resembling a 'smoking gun' might be. How I laughed when I realised that the best they could come up with was -
    To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion.
    With the description of what this goal actually is conveniently omitted from their cherrypick lest it might turn out to be, oh, what, perhaps, increasing the audience for the website? For sound AGW science generally? Something equally 'sinister'? Then follows a list of whole bunch of proposed - wait for it - outreach activities that I commend you all for undertaking. It's a genuine pity about what promises to be a rather interesting paper's probable chances at Science given this untimely revelation of its submission. Other than that this really says most about is the truly grubby arm of Denial and the pathetic lengths to which they are prepared to go.
  22. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    This is too bad. In November 2010- Thanksgiving Day- someone hacked me- HD crashed. Same Thing Christmas Eve 2011. I have total protection from McAfee-stuff still can get through. Recently my Google account was compromised- sent them a nasty note. My Boston Globe account was also hacked. It seems someone is out to get me/us. Lets face it we probably have enemies as climate 'crusaders'--- I successfully changed my email and password. Carry On.
  23. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Nefarious activity can be easily spotted with login attempts from unusual ip addresses especially from vietnam, india, pakistan, brazil, africa and other countries where many users have no clue about safe surfing, and ISPs have no obligation to keep their networks clean. (This is my personal gripe, so I developed an adaptive firewall and track 1.5 million addresses over the last decade)
  24. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    In a roundabout way, this is recognition that SkS is a thorn in the side of the Denial Industry and deserves such attention.
  25. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I get same error message as in 51 above -- no update button, just "send message". Also, when do the "forgot password" it comes back and says email sent to a bogus gmail account.
  26. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Thanks for that joabbess. I've implemented all your suggestions but it still won't let me change my password; since I don't use this site's password for any other log in, perhaps it doesn't matter too much... ...still, it should be possible for me to change my psswd here!
  27. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    @John Cook I too got this message: "Your update wasn't completed because one or more errors occurred. Please resubmit after making the following changes: That username has already been taken." Unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately - the email address in my profile is no longer valid. So I cannot use the "forgotten password" option. I have, in the meantime, changed my password on the only other website I used it. But I would like to avoid the embarrassment of seeing inappropriate messages posted under my name. Any suggestions?
  28. It's not bad
    Apologies for the delay in replying, mohyla103, but I have been working on something else and have only just gotten around to reading the relevant paper myself. Having done so, I believe you are once more focussing on details which are not as black-and-white as you seem to believe. Firstly, the fact that the relevant figure is 49.1% (i.e. the average snow and glacier-melt contribution to the annual flow of Chenab) over a 10 year period, suggests that the contribution is likely to have been over 50% during certain of those years. In fact, one of the graphs in the paper (showing mean monthly flow characteristics) showed how great were the deviations in monthly flow during the summer months. Also, that 49.1% contribution is concentrated in the four (mainly summer) months of June to October, so certain of those yearly rates can easily be over 50% at times during summer. Combine that with the 51.1% contribution to the yearly flow from the summer months, not all of which, of course, is due to glacier-melt but more than 50% of which could quite easily be due to glacier-melt during certain summer months of certain of the years of the study. Finally, you haven't taken account of two of the other figures in that study which showed seasonal (if I remember the term correctly) and permanent snow covered areas during March and September - again if I have remembered the correct months. During March the maximum coverage was roughly 80% but during September that that had dropped to roughly 20%. I can't believe that the amount of snow-melt would be a huge proportion of total snow/glacier-melt runoff anyway, but as the summer progresses the contribution from snow-melt would get less and less while the glacier-melt would at least remain constant but would actually probably increase. (See this abstract for further information). This means that glacier-melt would become a very large percentage of total snow/glacier-melt runoff so that, again, during certain years and certain summer months, glacier-melt would be "as much as...50-60%..." (You can see more about snow-covered areas in this study from 2001. So, to me, you have not shown that in fact your "reading of the original sources was correct and it was Barnett who was confused and/or did not report data accurately in his paper". You have made an unfair accusation for which you have not been able to provide clear evidence - you have read some abstracts and one paper, and then considered that you know more than Barnett and can accuse him of 'confusion' and 'inaccurate data-reporting'. You wrote that "[c]learing up misunderstandings is a good thing, be they my own or ones in published papers". I believe the misunderstanding is yours and not that of experienced scientists or the peer-review system. And, Barnett was NOT wrong (as far as I can see) to cite this paper as evidence, and the peer-review process did not miss any errors which you believe you have discovered. You should withdraw the accusations you have made, including the following : Considering the same kind of wording and figures appear in the abstracts of the other 2 papers cited by Barnett for this claim, I strongly suspect he and the reviewers committed the same error there.
  29. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I am glad John announced this, and a little curious just what "persona details" the hackers think they can get. As others have already speculated, emails have some value (they can be resold to spammers). But I am little more concerned if those "personal details" include passwords. Hackers could then use that to try to see if any users have used the same password somewhere else, for their login to a site with more interesting, e.g. financial data. Or it could be just an attack on the site for its position on AGW, which has made a lot of powerful enemies out of certain unscrupulous organizations and people. As for its being on a Russian site, there are two things we must not forget about today's post-Soviet Russia: 1) entire generations have been brought up to admire not civic leaders, not politicians, do-gooders or capitalists, but the Mafia and the Mafia-like structure of the KGB 2) there really are huge criminal networks of hackers taking advantage of loose law enforcement in Russia to run their hacking from there. This hacking is not the casual hacking of bored teenagers, it is very focused on criminal intents. Like Sphaerica says, we should change passwords and retire the one used on this site.
  30. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Without naming names, the two guilty parties thus far who have (without pause) posted links to people's personal and private information that was obtained illegally by hacking, appear to be representative of a larger group of "skeptic" blogs and groups who have an agenda against climate scientists and science in general. It is unfortunate that some "skeptics", seemingly unable to make substantiated and scientifically based counter argument to the theory of AGW, are forced to engage and endorse criminal behaviour. To me these desperate and extreme efforts underscore the vacuity of their arguments and that this is absolutely no longer about the science (or scientific integrity) for most "skeptics" and those who deny the theory of AGW, but rather them pursuing an ideologically-driven agenda. Some might go so far as to say that the hacking of CRU and now SkS is tacit admission by the "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW are losing. Continually refuting the constant barrage of misinformation and deception from "skeptics" is tiresome (bit necessary) and it takes much more time and effort to refute a myth than "skeptics" spend fabricating them. The sheer volume of misinformation that is being disseminated by "skeptics" and contrarians is one of the reasons that SkS needs a team of volunteers. I have no doubt that this latest hack will only strengthen the resolve of John Cook and his team to continue standing up for the science and the pursuit of truth. Thanks everyone here for their kind words and support, and thanks to Anthony Watts for taking the high road.
  31. Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
    william aerosols are washed away quickly in the troposphere. If they end up in the stratosphere and above they'll stay there much longer. I can't give you the number right away, but sure it will be long enough for the feedbacks to kick in; and once the atmospheric and ocean circulation have changed and the planet cooled, it takes time to reverse the process.
  32. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    @chris #47 This worked for me. Maybe it can work for you too ? I used the "Forgot Password" option, and then got an email with the password in, and was able to login and then change my password via the Update Profile form :- http://www.skepticalscience.com/profile.php?a=updateprofileform You might want to refresh your browser cache before trying any of this.
  33. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    My Profile won't let change my password. It says: ---------------------------- Profile Update Error Your update wasn't completed because one or more errors occurred. Please resubmit after making the following changes: That username has already been taken ---------------------------- any suggestions?
  34. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I am annoyed, but sadly not very surprised, that Skeptical Science has been hacked. The better you are, the higher profile target you become for those who disrespect climate change science, it seems. It continues to appall me that somebody with such excellent information technology skills should use them for such a worthless and destructive activity. It appears that sabotage is the last resort of those who are losing the academic argument, or who have the most to lose from the policy decided on the basis of climate change science, because of their stocks and share holdings in mining and energy.
  35. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Password changed successfully. I do hope the denial crowd spend hours and hours trawling through every comment on SkS. You never know they might learn something!
  36. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I also feel bad that this event has overshadowed Peter Hadfield's excellent Monckton debate video. Please everyone, don't forget about that post!
  37. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    arch stanton @41 - I personally view it as a compliment that the hacker felt SkS was important and influential enough to be worth hacking!
  38. Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
    Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the younger Dryas was caused by an impact, what mechanism would have caused it to persist for nearly a thousand years. We are told that aerosols, if not constantly renewed, would pretty well disappear from the air in a few weeks. Meteorite dust should do the same. As for the lake burst theory, it seems very reasonable that this influx of fresh water would shut down the Gulf Stream but surly this water would have been mixed into the sea in a few years at the most. What kept the Gulf Stream shut down for a thousand years.
  39. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Might be a good idea to send out an email to all members with a heading other than "skeptical science posts", as I tend to regard these emails as non-urgent, to be checked at leisure. It'd be good to send a message with a heading like "Skeptical science user details hacked" so that you catch everyone's attention quickly! I certainly won't be backing off, and very much doubt that anyone else will be either. I'm impressed by the display of integrity by Anthony Watts ... I only hope that perhaps he'll start to see just how low his "side" have sunk, and that perhaps he considers his position on other matters with similar care.
  40. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Well, wasn’t that ethical of them. John and the rest of you here – after you are done feeling outraged, disgusted, violated and inconvenienced - you should take it as a complement IMO.
  41. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    'Breaching a security hole' is a delightful euphemism. Let's insist it be called what it is: This is theft, a crime in most places. Anyone receiving these stolen goods is just as criminal.
  42. Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 25 March 2012
    Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I'm sure there are people pouring over the comments looking for the information that links SkS to Maurice Strong, the Rothchild's, Al Gore and other sources of massive funding. They're going to be sorely disappointed.
  43. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Oh, good. I miss all the hate mail I used to get when Tim ball unsuccessfully sued me and my University for a million denier dollars. dan.johnson@Leth.ca
  44. Daniel J. Andrews at 03:48 AM on 25 March 2012
    Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Password changed just fine. Thanks. I'm not worried about spam as that's my throwaway email address. Good on Anthony for his refusal to host the stolen material. That's two complimentary things I've heard about him today from sites that have challenged some of his posts in the past.
  45. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Whatever the hacker's motive, the net result will be to make the all-volunteer SkS athor team even more commited to its mission.
  46. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!"
  47. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    No spam or unexpected emails in my inbox from this, but profiles changed just in case. Apart from risks of harassment, due to private email addresses being exposed, there is also the possibility that the perpetrators just wish to scare people away from participating in SkS. Those that have chosen to participate anonymously (or pseudonomously) may not feel comfortable with the idea that their personal or work lives are at risk. Clearly, someone in the denialsphere is looking at SkS as "the enemy". This is the result of someone that considers SkS to be a serious opponent, so I hope that all contributors continue to participate.
  48. Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Luckily, I'd used a different password here--now changed per the update form. Other than that, I don't much care; anyone who spends a little time can find my real name and location. Which, of course, doesn't make the violation any less unethical--especially since others here may have reason to feel quite differently on this issue than I do.
  49. Dikran Marsupial at 03:00 AM on 25 March 2012
    Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    I would also like to thank Anthony Watts and the other bloggers who have refused to share the links; it is greatly appreciated. I hope the hacker draws the conclusion from their response that his or her actions were not in any way justifiable, especially revealing contributors private details, that was absolutely reprehensible.
  50. 2012 and all that at 02:51 AM on 25 March 2012
    Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
    Thanks for notification of this... this is terrible news and I hope the cuplrits are discovered soon. As per your advice I've changed my details.

Prev  1209  1210  1211  1212  1213  1214  1215  1216  1217  1218  1219  1220  1221  1222  1223  1224  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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