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  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  1249  1250  Next

Comments 62101 to 62150:

  1. Lindzen's Junk Science
    Dick @4, There is no bug. The "skeptical" (==ignorant or willfuly misleading) version draws from incomplete 2011 data and goes out of whack. The realist version draws from complete data. It is explained in this thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-2.html
  2. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Hi Dana, It was in the 26 February 2012 email, together with articles by Chris Colose and John Cook.
  3. A Sunburnt Country
    Hi Glen, I too am Australian and this poem has always been a favourite of mine. I also used to live in Wagga Wagga, and I watched as the area surrounding my house went under water. Just a small point though, and as much as I hate to be a pedant, could you please change 'loose' in the second paragraph to 'lose'. Cheers
  4. A Sunburnt Country
    CBDunkerson @7 I have to disagree with your post about the meaning of the Munich Re graphs. They are of Natural Catastrophe's not actual events. An F5 tornado in a field that causes no damage is a natural event and potential catastrophe but will not be logged as one unless it causes some damage or kills someone. If you do not believe me here is something from Re itself. On this Google link (I can't link directly to the document) Google link. Click on the NatCatSAV1 link 4 down and you can read what a catastrophe is yourself and it definately involves people and property.
  5. Dick Veldkamp at 09:01 AM on 8 March 2012
    Lindzen's Junk Science
    Sorry, this is somewhat off topic, so you can delete this after reading. Your excellent Escalator graph seems to have a small bug: in the 'Skeptical' version the temperature drops completely at the right end of the graph (but without a point??). I know we have had some 'flattening' over the last decade, but we didn't drop to the 1973 value, did we? Also in the 'Realist' version I don't see the drop. P.S. Of course if the value really occurred, we should include it!
  6. Lindzen's Junk Science
    Lintzen making an accusation of deliberate falsification by NASA is repugnant. Tony T. Watt holds court with this kind of smear tactic. Lintzen has drifted so far from his academic roots, it's MIT that needs to splain things to him. Historical records are revised whenever new data or errors of interpretation are uncovered (ask the guys at UAH about a career in it). Lintzen should accuse Spencer and Roy of the same thing. The U.S. Government just cancelled a NOAA project to do a detailed reconstruction of American weather conditions for the entire 20th century. That certainly would have revised the ddata sets, and by extension the global data sets. There is a current blog-buzz over apparent temperature adjustments to Icelandic data - without consulting the meteorologists in Reykjavik. Lintzen is no better than the blogs. The MET is coming out with a 'new and improved' HadCrut4. Ricky MIT might want to leave England before he smears that one. Lintzen, beyond whatever data-selection errors he may or may not have had, is playing the Janus when he points at inaccurate or insufficient data, and then cries 'fix' when the dataset is upgraded. He's jumped the shark on this one.
  7. Lindzen's London Illusions
    I don't keep old copies of the daily emails - it should be in the email on 26 or 27 February.
  8. funglestrumpet at 08:33 AM on 8 March 2012
    Lindzen's London Illusions
    dana @ 43 It's no good trying to sweet talk me by calling me 'fungles'! It will cost you a couple of drinks at least. I accept what you say, but I still cannot find Monckton Part 3 in the daily listings, so where am I going wrong?
  9. It's not bad
    JMurphy: The abstracts are all I had access to, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. The figures are already present in the abstracts though, so I would still consider my statement valid. I'm going to ignore the quotation you pasted in from the abstract because it does not mention percentages at all and it's the percentages that I said Barnett must have got wrong. Once again, the relevant sentence from the abstract is: "Reduction of water availability during the summer period, which contributes about 60% to the annual flow, may have severe implications on the water resources of the region..." Here we have an actual figure, 60%. The way I read this sentence is that there may be water flowing all year in this river, but the *water* from the summer period specifically represents 60% of the annual flow; i.e. the water from fall, winter and spring together makes up only 40% of the annual total. Do you agree with my analysis of this sentence? If not, please ignore the paragraphs below and clarify how I read this sentence wrong. Now if *all* the water flowing in the river in the summer period came from melting glaciers, this would mean that 60% of the annual flow does indeed come from glaciers, since the summer water accounts for 60% of the annual flow. However, I made the reasonable (wouldn't you say?) presumption that the summer flow does not only come from glacier melt, but also snow melt and rainfall. If you agree with my presumption, then you would agree only a fraction of the summer flow is from actual glacier melt, which means only a fraction of 60% of the annual flow is from glaciers. That's how I arrived at this "fraction" and I stand by my previous statement. How big is the fraction from glaciers? If 5/6 of summer runoff comes from glaciers (that seems pretty generous, but without further evidence I admit it's possible) then Barnett would still be OK using a figure of 50%, but any less and Barnett's figure wouldn't be accurate. Without searching the full text of the paper for a percentage for glacier melt specifically, we have no way of proving or disproving this. Considering his sloppy use of the other 2 sources, I don't have much confidence in his referencing of this source either. If you have access to the full text, by all means let me know if there is a figure for glacier melt specifically. If not, we'll just have to leave a question mark on this one. However, I'll take your lack of comment on the other 2 sources as agreement that Barnett's misrepresented the data in saying that "melting glaciers provide....50-60% of the flow" in these rivers. It is not melting glaciers alone, but the combination of melting glaciers and melting snowpack.
  10. Lindzen's Junk Science
    Me thinks I should be emailing Dr. Hansen about this. In fact, I will.
  11. PMO Pest Control: Scientists
    This sounds a lot like the George W. Bush administration. I know nothing about Canadian politics, but it would appear that they are are a few years behind the U.S., in political trends.
  12. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Professional misconduct complaint against Professor Richard S. Lindzen Sent by me to MIT today: Dear Sirs, I should appreciate some guidance about whether and how - as a non US citizen - I can make a formal complaint against Professor Richard S Lindzen for apparently repetitive hypocrisy, obfuscation and misdirection of several audiences, including the following: 1. At the Heartland Institute's 4th International Climate Change Conference in May 2010; 2. In testimony to US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010; and most recently 3. At a meeting in Committee Room 14 of the Palace of Westminster (at which I was present) on 22 February 2012. I have now sent Professor Lindzen 3 emails (on 23 and 25 February, and 5 March but, as yet I have had no explanation - let alone a satisfactory one - for the issues I have raised in my emails to him. Transcripts of my 3 emails have been published on my blog as follows: An open letter to Richard Lindzen (28 February 2012) - 1800 word email with questions from me. Prof. Lindzen – try this instead! (29 February 2012) - Many of my questions re-formulated as 17 statements via which I invited Professor Lindzen to explain his position. There is no cause for concern? You cannot be serious! (5 March 2012) - about 900 words - plus some very interesting comments from me and others. If nothing else, Professor Lindzen's repetitive divergence from - and ridicule of - the genuine scientific consensus regarding the nature, scale and urgency of the problem we face (i.e. anthropogenic climate disruption) and/or his invocation of conspiracy theory as a grounds for dismissing the validity and reliability of that consensus would appear to be in severe danger of damaging the international reputation of your highly-esteemed establishment. Therefore, if I do not hear from you within 7 days, I shall forward this email to Suzanne Goldenberg (US Environmental Correspondent for the Guardian newspaper) suggesting that she publish it forthwith because, in the continuing absence of a satisfactory explanation from him, I am inclined to believe that Professor Lindzen is part of an organised campaign to downplay, deny and/or dismiss anthropogenic climate change being orchestrated by right-wing, ideologically-prejudiced Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) such as the Heartland Institute and the CATO Institute. I have reached this conclusion, in no small part, as a result of my reading of research done by Peter Jacques et al., the findings of which may be summarised as follows: In prefacing their research, Jacques et al. observed that: “Since environmentalism is unique among social movements in its heavy reliance on scientific evidence to support its claims… it is not surprising that CTTs would launch a direct assault on environmental science by promoting environmental scepticism… (2008: 353). Furthermore, based on their findings, they concluded that: “Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement co-ordinated by CTTs…” (ibid: 364). Jacques has also highlighted the central aim of CTTs as being to cause confusion and doubt amongst the general public, in order to prevent the creation of a popular mandate for change (i.e. achieved by using a tactic developed by the tobacco industry of countering supposedly “junk” science with their “sound” science), which he refers to as the “science trap” (2009: 148). Based on the findings of the research published in 2008, Jacques therefore also concluded that environmental scepticism is a social counter-movement that uses CTTs to provide “political insulation for industry and ideology from public scrutiny”; and that this deliberate obfuscation stems from a realisation that “anti-environmentalism is an attitude that most citizens would consider a violation of the public interest” (2009: 169). However, Jacques does not blame the CTTs for the ecological crisis he feels we face, as they have merely exploited a dominant social paradigm; “because neoliberal globalism and its logic are protected from critique” (ibid: 119). I therefore trust that I may hear from someone regarding this in the very near future. Kind regards, Martin C. Lack. BSc (Geology), MSc (Hydrogeology), MA (Environmental Politics). Author of the Lack of Environment blog - 'On the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems….' References: Jacques, P. et al. (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, Environmental Politics, 17(3), pp.349-385. Jacques, P. (2009), Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power and Public Life. Farnham: Ashgate.
  13. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Am I the only person on the planet that wants to know why the most apalling piece of data manipulation to make a point out of nothing – a mismatched graph of Keeling Curve v Temp (at 28m30s in the video)? And why won't Lindzen answer any of my questions: Is it because it was a blatant piece of hypocrisy that Lindzen left out because he knew third parties would spot; but which went un-noticed by an un-critical audience and left them all with the very strong impression that CO2 and temperature rise do not correlate? surely Lindzen should be censured by his fellow AGU members and/or MIT for such blatant hypocrisy, obfuscation of relevant data, and misdirection of his audience; on at least 3 occasions since May 2010?
  14. Lindzen's London Illusions
    fungles - all new posts are automatically included in the daily digest emails. Lindzen's Junk Science will be included in tomorrow's email.
  15. funglestrumpet at 07:00 AM on 8 March 2012
    Lindzen's London Illusions
    Can we please ensure that all latest posts are included in the daily 'Skeptical Science posts' email for the day of their release? I missed Monckton 3 recently because it was not notified via this Sks posts email, and judging by the lack of comments, I suspect that I was not the only one to miss it on the day of its release. (I only found it eventually by mistake!). I now see that there is another post: 'Lindzen's Junk Science' post appearing at the top of the latest posts list side bar. Please, a policy of all or none at all. Not this 'it should be here, but isn't' policy we now appear to have.
  16. Lindzen's London Illusions
    @WheelsOC "Lindzen might not have even made the graph, just swallowed it uncritically." We'll see if he defends it tooth and nail a la Monckton (or rather, tries to change the topic), or steps up, won't we?
  17. Lindzen's London Illusions
    #38 If you want to get the measure of the Rev Philip Foster, check out my review of his book, While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate Change on Amazon, which I entitled Rev. Foster - For God's sake stick to theology!... (N.B. It is not ad hom - it is entirely factual criticism).
  18. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Rob wrote: "What I always see happening is, they torture some data in the attempt to establish low sensitivity, then they just ignore every other implication that holds." What, you think the laws of physics have to be consistent? Maybe the albedo of ice and the saturated vapor pressure of water change over time. Ever think of that, huh? :]
  19. Paul from VA at 06:22 AM on 8 March 2012
    A Sunburnt Country
    @10 Funglestrumpet. The last points are pretty close to unchanged, but broadly the number of events are higher than in the initial years. If the trend went up then went down, fitting a single trend would still appear upward.... There's an interesting cost graph in the docs linked by fpjohn@4, and it looks like the costs in recent years are highly variable, mostly due to major earthquakes. In fact the Tohoku earthquake was something like 80% of insurance paid out for all disasters in 2010. However, they didn't break down disasters by climatological vs. geological and instead did man-made vs. natural, so it's not easy to directly infer from the doc if climate-related disaster costs are also rising.
  20. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Re: Russell@32 Noticed the Lindzen event advert you linked to includes Rev Phillip Foster. In fact I think he was sitting next to Monkton in the Lindzen talk. Here is his famous armchair video, attempting to do some science: [link] It's sad really.
    Moderator Response: [RH] Hot linked URL.
  21. Lindzen's Junk Science
    If Lindzen had a real & robust case to support his claims re: contemporary climate changes, he would have published it in the peer-reviewed lterature, received the gratitude of almost every other climate scientist (who would be relieved to find that their concerns were no longer supported) and on the way to Stockholm for a Nobel prize. Instead, he's stuck presenting junk science such as documented here (or in the London Illusions post) to political figures and, for lack of a better term, celebrities, with political, ideological or financial interests in preventing effective policy action to avert warming.
  22. funglestrumpet at 05:38 AM on 8 March 2012
    A Sunburnt Country
    Is it possible that the trend graph is based on cost as opposed to frequency? As mentioned in the post, the geophysical events portion of the bar chart is reasonably level, considering that it must, by its nature, fluctuate. Yet the trend for the same component is shown as rising, which is either wrong, or the product of some other influence and the only thing that comes to my mind is cost inflation.
  23. A Sunburnt Country
    I wonder what the presumed rising premium costs passed on to the reinsurance buyers amounts to annually.I don't suppose that AGW 'skeptics' like to include those figures in their cost benefit analysis.
  24. Rob Honeycutt at 05:21 AM on 8 March 2012
    Lindzen's London Illusions
    What I never quite get from people like Lindzen who claim very low climate sensitivity is, how do they manage to reconcile this with even just glacial-interglacial cycles, much less any of up to 20+ other sensitivity estimates that suggest much higher figures? What I always see happening is, they torture some data in the attempt to establish low sensitivity, then they just ignore every other implication that holds.
  25. Lindzen's London Illusions
    #31 As I attended the Meeting they should not be able to refuse me if I request the info (although I am now labelled as 'hostile') I will see what I can do. BTW if people want background info on the politicians who were there, search the Category index on my blog for loads of insane quotations and psychoanalysis (it will make a nice change from all that complicated mathematics)... http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com #35 "This does not reflect at all well on Lindzen's employer, MIT." Therefore, if you are a US Citizen and/or a former or existing MIT student or employee, you should submit a formal complaint to MIT...
  26. Lindzen's London Illusions
    WheelsOC @33, "Lindzen might not have even made the graph, just swallowed it uncritically." Lindzen has yet again shown that, like Pielke senior, he is guilty of one-sided skepticism, and also appears to be willing to cherry pick and misrepresent the data to arrive at a pre-determined answer. This does not reflect at all well on Lindzen's employer, MIT.
  27. Lindzen's London Illusions
    WheelsOC @33, thank you for the advise. If we compare the URL for the 2008 data as provided at Real Climate with that for the current data, it is clear that Hayden's claim to have got both sets of data from the same website literally cannot be true. The reason is that the 2008 website has as part of its adress: /tabledata/ In contrast, the equivalent section of the address for the current data reads: /tabledata_v3/ The change in address from tabledata to tabledata_v3 was presumably concurrent with was presumably made with the switch from GHCNv2 to GHCNv3 in December 2011. The odd thing is that the address shown on the chart is indeed the current address. However, even a cursory check shows that he cannot have used both the Land Ocean Temperature Index of 2008 and of 2012. Further, he cannot have used the Surface Stations only data from 2008, for that would have generated a negative, not a positive sloping trend. Ergo, while he lists the correct current address he did not use the correct current address to obtain his data. It is difficult, therefore, to see how this can be explained by an accident.
  28. PMO Pest Control: Scientists
    Just based on current and recent past events, I would assert that it is in every human's individual interest to avert future rapid human-generated warming. That said, individuals can have competing interests which may overwhelm their interest in averting warming (e.g. financial or ideological interests). However, as you examine aggregate interests of larger and larger numbers of people, countervailing interests against averting warming IMO fall away fairly quickly. Certainly I can think of no nation-state which actually has a rational interest in propagating warming. Not even Canada.
  29. Newcomers, Start Here
    This is kind of a high level comment, more perhaps on perspective. Unless one subscribes to some form of naive falsificationism, it is not necessary that AGW debunk all arguments or apparently contrary evidence. It is only necessary that it do it better, and perhaps quite a bit better, than opposing theories. In this sense, perhaps this website format puts to much stress on a defensive stance rather than also taking the offense in addressing the shortfalls of skeptics. It's true that specific arguments that skeptics have are addressed here, but not the fact that there is no real "theory" advanced by the skeptics. Maybe we need a visual- a jigsaw puzzle of climatology with various components fitting together, and a jigsaw puzzle of various "arguments" on pieces that clearly do NOT fit together. Maybe you could pull out all the stuff that might comprise some kind of skeptical theory as a whole (given that it is trying to explain climate change- not deny its existence) and go on the offense. Not sure how this could be done exactly.I'm arguing for a change in perspective.Thanks for listening.
  30. A Sunburnt Country
    Sapient Fridge at 20:33 PM on 7 March, 2012 says Maybe this explains why the "Geophysical event" line in the re-insurer's graph also had an upward trend? I'd say that all of them should have upward trends, because of the larger population and larger populated areas (assuming the graph plots events with human relevance). So I would understand the Geophysical event line as the baseline. The steeper trends from the other ones is the telling detail in the whole graph.
  31. Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
    Regarding Fairoakien at #5: I don't see anyone addressing the fact that if Canada benefits, while at the same time USoA suffers from a temperature rise, then there will be a meaningful 'greener grass over there'-effect also which surely will be seen as a cost for Canada to handle. According to this study, this is partially already the case between Mexico and USoA.
  32. A Sunburnt Country
    Bernard, the Munich Re data in the article is showing number of events... with no consideration of cost or how many people were impacted. Thus, population changes have absolutely no impact on the trends shown. Actually, it is interesting that they have started presenting the data this way. Obviously number of people filing claims and total dollar figures are the most important factors for re-insurers and thus have long been carefully studied by them. Presumably they have are showing 'number of events' data precisely to counter claims that the increase in damages is entirely due to rising populations and standards of living. Re-insurers need their share-holders to understand that there is a rising trend not just in the 'cost per disaster', but also in the 'disasters per year'. Re-insurers compete with each other and thus are always striving to set their reinsurance premiums as low as possible. Yet they also have to charge enough to build reserves sufficient to cover projected future losses. They are thus always looking for the best possible analysis and projections and, as the article indicates, would be at a serious disadvantage if they planned based on faulty estimates. If any of the major re-insurers believed that 'global warming is all a big hoax' or 'it will not be that bad' then they could plan for fewer future disasters and significantly undercut their competitors on price and make a killing. Yet none of them are doing that. So not only must they all be in on the 'biggest conspiracy in history'... they are all participating in it against their own financial interests. Either that or deniers are crazy people. It's a tossup.
  33. Lindzen's London Illusions
    @Utahn and Tom Curtis: In the comments at RC, Hank Roberts identifies an earlier source for the graph in a post to Junk Science by Steve Milloy on Feb 7th, crediting it to Howard Hayden. I'll note that the URL Hayden claims to have used to get both sets of data is consistent, and doesn't switch between station-only and LOTI data, but with the result of Gavin's attempt at replication it looks like Hayden must have gotten it wrong somehow. Lindzen might not have even made the graph, just swallowed it uncritically.
  34. funglestrumpet at 01:51 AM on 8 March 2012
    PMO Pest Control: Scientists
    Brian Purdue @ 13 "When are politicians going to realise you can’t keep putting the national interest ahead of the interests of the planet?" It isn't even in the national interest to combat climate change. Pity that politicians just don't get it. It isn't like any other political issue when bullying and shouting will win the day. Old Mother Nature is a wily old bird who will have her way, regardless of what the politicians decide the laws of nature should be.
  35. A Sunburnt Country
    With only a verly slight alteration, I think two lines from the fifth stanza could be considered rather appropriate also, especially considering the statistic from the Munich Re report "[In] flood and fire and famine, She pays us back threefold"
  36. Stephen Baines at 01:38 AM on 8 March 2012
    Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
    Scaddenp...Understood. My question wasn't to do with the PETM so much as your response to Trent1492s query about variability in pH.
  37. A Sunburnt Country
    Nice to see that insurance industry analyses have been added to SkS's quiver of denialist debunking points. I used to bring this up elsewhere in the past: now all I need to do is to link to this page (hello to the people whom I have directed here!). For the sake of thoroughness though I am curious if there's a methodology that explains whether increasing and/or shifting population factors are accounted for in the definition/detection of an event. This will be the Denialati's first target for debunking the whole field, so it would be useful to know how robust these data are to demographic changes.
  38. John Russell at 00:50 AM on 8 March 2012
    Lindzen's London Illusions
    It's interesting to read the publicity for the meeting. I see that the meeting room was booked by Sammy Wilson(DUP), quote, "man-made climate change is a "myth based on dodgy science ..and ...an hysterical pseudo-religion." Note the recommended reading list at the end, which includes such seminal reference works as Donna Laframboise's 'The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert: IPCC Expose'; and, James Delingpole's, 'Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future'. The general slant of the recommended reading suggests that the audience was very much drawn from those with an anti-windpower, pro fossil-fuel agenda.
  39. A Sunburnt Country
    Swiss Re discusses earthquake frequency trends here http://media.swissre.com/documents/sigma1_2011_en.pdf yours Frank
  40. A Sunburnt Country
    Both Munich Re and Swiss Re are convinced of Climate Change on the basis of their own data. I think the geophysical events trend a useful proxy "control" for the distribution of population and assets in vulnerable areas effect. There is a caveat: geophysical events and climatological events, with meterological and hydrologic events, do not fully map together. yours Frank
  41. rustneversleeps at 23:36 PM on 7 March 2012
    PMO Pest Control: Scientists
    Globe & Mail Editorial Free Canada’s scientists to communicate with the public "... Ottawa should respond to the growing controversy – outlined in the prestigious journal Nature – by freeing its scientists. The magazine is calling on the government to show that it will live up to its promise to embrace public access to publicly funded scientific expertise... "...Federal scientists must be able to speak not only with their professional peers, but also with the public and with journalists, without vetting and preapproval from communications staff. This is the essence of the scientific process, in which experts exchange information and hold their work up for scrutiny. "If the U.S. can take this approach, surely the Canadian government is capable of the same level of openness."
  42. Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
    Fairoakien: Given the wealth of empirical evidence showing that global warming is unambiguously occuring: - temperature trends - unabated ocean heat content build-up - expansion of Hadley cells - melting of land and sea ice globally - shortened winters - changing migration and seasonal behaviours of animals - changing areas of plant growth - increased frequency and severity of warm severe weather events - and so on and so forth And given the empirical evidence unambiguously shows humans are responsible for the greenhouse gas forcing causing the warming: - changing CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere - decreased atmospheric oxygen from fossil fuel combustion - tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling - increased greenhouse gas forcings as shown by satellite and surface measurements of longwave infrared radiation - known physics theory (blackbodies, quantum properties of CO2, &c) supporting atmospheric greenhouse effect - and so on and so forth Why is it that you appear to assert a single graphic comparing a 1990 surface temperature projection to the actual surface temperature record is making you a "non believer"? When you examine all the evidence, why is belief even coming into the picture?
  43. Lindzen's London Illusions
    I did email and ask for a list of notable attendees from the organisers but they refused. They probably (like all other so-called skeptic groups) believe in open-ness for all but themselves. But from various sources, it seems there were two MPs there (Peter Lilley and Sammy Wilson), and I only know of one 'journalist' - Delingpole. Seems it was just mainly a gathering of the Lindzen fan-club.
  44. Newcomers, Start Here
    Yes, using m2 rather than km2 would have been a good idea. My mistake.
  45. It's not bad
    mohyla103 wrote : "I didn't read the full paper of any of those three as I don't have free access to them. However, the figures are right in the abstracts." OK, so firstly, when you wrote : "After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading!", you hadn't actually checked the sources - you read the abstracts and decided that was enough to make your 'misleading' claims. That seems to be very strong and yet insubstantial, as far as I can see, especially when you haven't read the details in the papers themselves. Anyone would need to be very sceptical of your claims, especially (with regard to Singh & Bengtsson) when you previously claimed "[c]areful reading" of that source allowed you to "deduce that glacier melt itself is only a fraction of 60% of annual flow, not a full 60%." Who claimed it to be "a full 60%" ? With regard to that "fraction", how have you worked out that fraction ? The abstract states : Under warmer climate, a typical feature of the study basin was found to be reduction in melt from the lower part of the basin owing to a reduction in snow covered area and shortening of the summer melting season, and, in contrast, an increase in the melt from the glacierized part owing to larger melt and an extended ablation period. Thus, on the basin scale, reduction in melt from the lower part was counteracted by the increase from melt from upper part of the basin, resulting in a decrease in the magnitude of change in annual melt runoff. I.E. Less from snow and more from the glaciers, leading to decrease in magnitude of annual change - in no way misleading or wrong with regard to Barnett et al's claim : "...but there is little doubt that melting glaciers provide a key source of water for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60% of the flow in other major rivers." (My bold) If you still think that is misleading, provide the evidence for a figure you think is more valid, i.e. under 50%.
  46. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Is there any record or list of who attended this meeting?
  47. Ari Jokimäki at 20:56 PM on 7 March 2012
    New research from last week 9/2012
    Thanks, gpwayne. For those who want to follow these things themselves (and it might be worth it as I only include a small fraction of published papers), here is a list of climate science journals (although this list could use updating).
  48. Sapient Fridge at 20:33 PM on 7 March 2012
    A Sunburnt Country
    That article states that "Earthquakes, Tsunami's, Volcanic Eruptions. Obviously not related to the weather or climate" but I've recently read in Focus (the BBC's lightweight science magazine) that their frequency could increase due to weight changes of water/ice on different parts of the crust. Sounds plausible. There is even a book on the subject called "Waking the Giant" although I haven't read it so I don't know if it's based on real research or not. Maybe this explains why the "Geophysical event" line in the re-insurer's graph also had an upward trend?
  49. Rob Painting at 20:16 PM on 7 March 2012
    Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
    Trent1492 @ 11 - funny how ancient ocean acidification episodes have exterminated many calcifying (calcium carbonate shell/skeleton-building) marine life though eh? Evolution does not confer upon species magical invulnerability to rapid change. We are seeing that already off the Pacific Coast of North America, where large natural variations in pH are common. Shellfish have adapted to these conditions, but are presently struggling with ocean acidification. Pacific oyster larvae now being dissolved by the corrosive waters there.
  50. Doug Hutcheson at 19:37 PM on 7 March 2012
    A Sunburnt Country
    Humans have continuously occupied Australia's land of 'Drought and flooding rains' for, IIRC, over 40,000 years. I wonder by how much the enlightened westerners who invaded this peaceful land two hundred-odd years ago have materially contributed to most of the country eventually becoming uninhabitable due to increased severity of those floods and droughts? As long as Australia remains the world's coal quarry and gas producer, we Australians will punch above our weight in the race to change the composition of the atmosphere. Not a legacy to be proud of.

Prev  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  1249  1250  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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