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  1256  1257  1258  1259  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  Next

Comments 63151 to 63200:

  1. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    Well....... We'd better start inventing that technology, so that we can make it practical and implement it before we go the way of the Romans, Maya, and Easter islanders.
  2. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    CBD #64 KR #65 Ice melt and evaporation (phase changes) will absorb some of the heat at constant temperature - just as freezing and condensation will give up heat at constant temperature. KR Yes transient *temperature* response - not energy gain.
  3. New research from last week 7/2012
    Hi CBD, I think there may be a common understanding of tipping point wrt Arctic Sea Ice referring to summer ice melt (and thus solar absorption into the Arctic Ocean) being self sustaining after CO2 tips it. I think a definition compatible with this hypothesis would be something like: global temperature required to melt the Arctic sea ice being higher than global temperature required to keep it melted after it does. Still loose, unfortunately, but the best I can do.
  4. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    owl905 "And the big reason for that is technology; hint- read the 1972 Club of Rome report. - they also missed the technology factor." And what technology was that specifically? It was converting oil into fertiliser. The green revolution in places like India (and some people say the obesity epidemic in western countries) is entirely due to converting a non-renewable resource into food. How will we continue to feed 7 billion+ people as the major contributor to the soil productivity of the last few decades steadily becomes more expensive and eventually disappears? Technology can probably do it. But not the technology we've known over the last 50 years.
  5. Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
    "If a long slow wobble (precession) was sufficient for Earth's feedbacks to raise the global temperature 8-12 degrees, we should be cautious, wary, risk-adverse of a global disturbance of 1 degree C, as this one degree disturbance occurs on top of an interglacial." I assume that the graph labelled "Temperatures and Sunlight" is in ºF rather than ºC, which makes the above sentence somewhat confusing. I've read in many other places that the end of the last glacial was associated with a rise in global surface temperatures of about 5-6ºC (which is roughly 8-12ºC).
  6. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, My "cursory dismissals" are based on reading comprehension, a general understanding of physics, and the use of google. They are very uncomplicated, and they are EXACTLY what you asked for. There were a couple of points that I was not qualified to comment on and I didn't, but the rest are all easily understandable and if read alongside Moncton's response, very clearly analyzed. They are certainly only slightly more cursory than Moncton's initial response to Abraham. You do not offer ANYTHING to contradict what I wrote. And there are actually a few things which are more a matter of opinion than anything else and a couple where he has a valid point. The issue at hand however is that in the first 77"points" Moncton shows Abraham's critique not only to be fairly accurate, but also that Moncton's refutations are themselves filled with distortions, errors and (if the moderator will allow) lies. I must say, I am disappointed in you Adam. So I am NOT going to go through the rest of the list. Too bad, maybe at 79 his arguments against Abraham start being valid.
  7. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, Monckton's selecting individual papers that suggest a warm MWP (and misrepresenting others such as Keigwin) still fails the test of asking if the whole globe was at the same time warm. You construct a strawman by suggesting climate scientists only think Europe/Greenland was warm in the MCA. You might want to check Fig 2 of Mann et al 2009, where you'll find some little yellow, orange and red squares in Africa and China, for example. You'll also find some wide swathes of blue areas, such as central Russia and Alaska. Net result: globally a muted signal. For a strong MWP = high climate sensitivity argument, simple physics says so. Climate responds to forcings. Unless you have a mysterious hitherto undiscovered large forcing on the scale of modern CO2 forcing that drives the MWP, you need high sensitivity to drive such a change (as you do to drive the glacial cycles too). If the driver is merely slightly elevated solar + reduced volcanics, then sensitivity must be high to explain a warm MWP. You can try Hegerl et al 2006 for a discussion of forcing over the past 700 years. Also: "the pseudoskeptic's dilemma" (h/t muoncounter). Climate sensitivity, as presently understood, allows for climate change over the past millennium, as presently understood. It will be worrying for all of us if the MWP turns out to have been a hot, widespread event. Arguing for a strong MWP and low climate sensitivity is one of the many self-contradictory statements made by Monckton and other so-called 'skeptics'.
  8. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Lessons from Past Predictions: Wallace Broecker may help elsa's understanding on this issue.
  9. Philippe Chantreau at 11:27 AM on 22 February 2012
    Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Funglestrumpet, I am not qualified to diagnoses but I seem to recall that what you describe may be called histrionic personality disorder.
  10. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Alex 25 and Tom 27- Yes, I suspected that his lordship was making his protestations insincerely for the benefit of his audience.It does amaze me though that they never seem to challenge him on any point,regardless how transparent the contradiction,or how offensive the tactic (swastikas...heil Hitler...really!!?)What does this ultimately say about the ethics of these so called 'skeptics'?
  11. Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
    Elsa - clouds and aerosols are uncertainties (again see the AR4 report) but with known limits. I frankly think Lovelock was both exaggerating and quoting dated information. This is not what I hear from private conversation with modellers. The physics is known, the modelling of it is the issue. As to your interpretation of the other two papers? Huh? Did you get past an abstract? B&S was written to respond to claim about solar forcing but used ALL of the GISS forcings and shows a purely phenomenological approach to attribution. Lean & Rind do similar. The point is that your claim about "lack of mathematical technique" is wrong. Model approaches to attribution are in AR4. Broecker wrote when temperatures were declining, pointing out the GHG forcings would soon overcome aerosols and warm the earth. With an incredibly primitive model (1975 - what was your computer?), he still managed to predict the temperature for 2010 with remarkable accuracy. Again, the point is this is the seminal paper on modern AGW and written when aerosols were dominant not "added to the theory". He correctly predicted GHG would dominate. "I would not agree with you that a model can differ on how to compute anything." Well I write the code for physical models (oil/gas generation) and so I respectfully disagree. Tell me again what the difference in model assumptions are? You claim you are not a troll, fair enough, but so far you have made numerous incorrect assertions about climate science and use them as the basis of your skepticism. Someone relying on unsupported assertions is hard to take seriously. Please quote science papers or sections of AR4 when making assertions in future.
  12. Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
    elsa#76: "my detailed criticisms" Your criticisms are hardly detailed, nor are they really criticisms. You've quoted James Lovelock more than once and that begs the question: Do you know what his qualifications are, so that his opinion on climate modeling can be placed in proper context? Why have you not quoted some of his other opinions? "Polar bears will not become extinct, they will just go back to what they were, which is brown bears. ...By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris. As far north as Berlin." These are not the opinions of a knowledgeable researcher (polar bears will evolve back into brown bears?) The fact that you rely so heavily on this type of opinion, rather than substantive science, seriously hurts your credibility.
  13. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Promoter so Poptech's list are looking for reassurances for their biases when they lack the skill or motivation to investigate the science themselves.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please, nothing more on the Poptech 'list.'
  14. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Camburn, the sources you have used (as well as others available via those sources) give plenty of information which should show you how unlikely it is that the MWP was global and/or contemporaneous; how unlikely it is that many temperatures were as high as they are today; how much resolution is actually possible, and what are the probable causes of the warming of that period. Here are some of the highlights, giving linked references where they are separate from your own references, which I assume you are already conversant with - but you may have missed the relevant parts I have picked-out : ENSO variability continued as now but oscillating about a colder mean state. ...cooler tropical Pacific Ocean... ...drier in southern South America, wetter in northern South America and Central America, wetter in the Sahel region of Africa but drier in coastal east Africa and drier in parts of the Mediterranean and southern Europe. (From your first relevant link, which is more particularly detailed with regard to Western USA) When the Z-C [ZebiakCane ENSO] model is forced in this way [with changing volcanic forcing and solar irradiance over the past 1000 years], eastern tropical Pacific SSTs tend toward a cool, La Nina–like base state during the model run's early period (circa AD 1100 to 1250) of high solar irradiance and reduced volcanism. Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States - Cook et al, 2004 (Paper referenced in your first link) ...temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China, and the effect of solar activity on climate cannot be neglected in any period of the millennium climate change. (From your second relevant link which I didn't really find to be the "confirmation" you labelled it) The following were found from that second link and are generally concerned with China rather than the increasing region you ended up describing (China/and the surrounding area/Asia) : The effective solar radiation and solar irradiance have significant impacts on the temporal variation of both temperature and precipitation. Volcanic activity plays an important role in the sudden drop of temperature before the Present Warm Period (PWP). There is a positive correlation between precipitation and volcanic activity before 1400 A.D., and a negative relationship between the two thereafter. The concentration of greenhouse gases increases in the PWP, and the temperature and precipitation increase accordingly. The warmest epoch in the MWP covered half of the 12th century. The increasing trend of temperature with model results is consistent with the variation in the instrumental data on the inter-decadal time scale, and exceeds the maximum temperature in the MWP after 1920 A.D Simulated analysis of summer climate on centennial time scale in eastern China during the last millennium - Wang et al, 2011 During past two millennia, a warming trend in the 20th century was clearly detected, but the warming magnitude was smaller than the maximum level of the Medieval Warm Period and the Middle Holocene. ...but the warming of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 900–AD 1300) was not distinct in China, especially west China Temperature and precipitation changes in China during the Holocene - Quansheng et al, 2007 To compare differences among the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Little Ice Age (LIA), and 20th century global warming (20CW), six sets of transient and equilibrium simulations were generated using the climate system model FGOALS_gl. The results indicate that MWP warming is evident on a global scale, except for at mid-latitudes of the North Pacific. However, the magnitude of the warming is weaker than that in the 20th century. The warming in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere is stronger than that in the Southern Hemisphere. A comparison of the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century warming simulated by the FGOALS climate system model - Zhou et al, 2011 Our data indicate that we are in the middle of the 260-yr-long relatively dry period and suggest that this climate will persist for about another century before the next 130 yr of relatively wet climate. The human-induced global warming over the past century, however, may add its own effects on top of this 400-yr cycle and exacerbate the intensity of natural fluctuation and drought Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains - E.Yu & E.Ito, 1999 From your third relevant link : In winter, the decadal-scale pre-1901 temperature anomalies mostly remain below the twentieth century average. Within the twentieth century, the 30-year filtered anomalies of both seasons do not exceed the uncertainty range of warm periods in previous centuries. Our spatial reconstructions indicate differences in the low and high frequency variability between the subregions of SSA. This study clearly revealed that temporally and spatially highly resolved multi-centennial climate field reconstructions are also possible in the SH. Nevertheless, skill values are still rather low and there is a striking lack of annually resolved proxy data, especially from tropical and subtropical regions (see Boninsegna et al. 2009) and from the eastern lowlands of SSA.
  15. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    Ken Lambert, my point was semantical. In no way do I endorse the suggestion that ENSO flux is an external forcing, any more than I think the seasons are responsible for the global warming of the last century.
  16. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    With regard to Poptech's list, I am aware of a recent project that has found over 24,000 climate change related papers in peer reviewed journals. Not all of those papers are peer reviewed, but just the requirement to appear in a peer reviewed journal is already a far more restrictive criterion than that used by Poptech. That means that Poptech's list of papers shows at best that 3.7% of relevant peer reviewed literature is opposed to the consensus. That is, like climate scientists who disagree with the consensus, peer reviewed papers that disagree with the consensus, are a very small, unrepresentative rump. Unfortunately I cannot link to that list as yet. So as an alternative approach, I did a search for "global warming" on google scholar. I got 731,000 hits. Allowing for duplicate entries and non-peer reviewed papers on that list, that means poptech's list is still much less than 0.5% of all scholarly articles on global warming. Promoters of the Poptech list will now no doubt say that science is not decided by consensus. Exactly right! So why are you quoting x number of papers opposed to the consensus, and hence appealing to raw numbers. If don't believe science is decided by numbers, why do you quote a raw number from Poptech instead of discussing the specific details of the specific papers (in appropriate threads)? The answer, of course, is the papers do not stand up to detailed scrutiny. They seek the anonymity of the list because they know they won't survive in the spotlight.
  17. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, still waiting for you to pick something which you think convincing. Closest so far would be Douglass 2007, see here and then take it the appropriate thread.
  18. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Typical Moncton - calls someone fascist while displaying the nazi swastica.
  19. Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
    The WSJ has now published a 'skeptic' response
    432 comments to it already, with the same old ratio of deniers to real sceptics. SkS debunking might amount to repeating much of what has already been said, because I saw nothing new in the letter. It seems that letters such as those from the 16 'concerned scientists' do little but subtract from the sum of human knowledge. I almost wish that the ENSO would reverse right now, so temperatures would resume rising unequivocally and make these disinformers look as wrong as I suspect they are. Almost. The trouble is, it will take unequivocal and widespread extreme, heat-related weather events to get the attention of Mr. Average and gain traction in the MSM. In other words, people are going to have to die before the message can get through and that is going to depend upon the MSM reporting the catastrophes and connecting the dots to AGW. I can only hope the situation becomes bad enough that it cannot be ignored, without involving the loss of the great ice sheets, or too many innocent lives.
  20. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam: 1) Accusing somebody of fraud on the basis of false, but easily checked information is never a small "minor point"; 2) I notice that you have not responded to my request that your check the validity of Monckton's purported direct quote of Al Gore. Please do so, and to not make ridiculous claims about my responding only to one "minor point" until you do so; 3) While you are about it, would you care to indicate whether or not Monckton's purported direct quote of Justice Burton is accurate? (Hint: it is not.) You want to treat Monckton's claims about the St Regis tower as an aberration, when example after example shows that getting facts wrong is his modus operandi. The man is literally a conspiracy theorist. He is literally a promoter of a "miracle cure" in the fine tradition of snake oil salesmen everywhere. He is a self admitted liar. And yet you expect us to believe things because "Monckton said". Wake up and smell the coffee.
  21. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Fans of the great man may be pleased to hear that we have been promised a new instalment of His Sublime Fragrant Viscountness's wisdom, due to be lavished on a grateful peasantry some time soon... On 7 February, WUWT published the latest in their Monckton/potholer debate. After posting a quite pricelessly irrelevent critique Al Gore, Christopher has promised an actual reply to potholer's work "in a fortnight". Anthony Watts is refereeing this, so I expect that His Imperial (and Simultaneously Metric) Lordship may be allowed a little more time... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/ ...but even so, I can hardly wait. He is better than Wodehouse.
  22. Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
    Scaddenp lest you think that it is only "denialists" that think along lines like the piece that you quote from me I would ask you to remember what james Lovelock had to say about the models: "The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet." Turning to the two pieces that you list: B&S talk mainly about solar forcings so are not really relevant here. The broeker study makes some forecasts of warming throughout the years 1940 to 1970. Here it would appear it did not even get the direction right let alone the quantity. The final decade that they list (to 2010) also has the greatest temperature increase, yet we know from elsewhere on this site that the trend was flat for that period at least on the surface. I would not agree with you that a model can differ on how to compute anything. You can feed in a set of assumptions to a model and look at the outcomes. The computation is a given, only the assumptions can be different. Bernard J I can assure you that I am not a troll. If someone provides proper logical answers to my detailed criticisms I will be happy to shut up and go away. Your post does not begin to do this.
  23. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    I have read more stuff about this silly theory and it is saying basically that the inner core would move towards Pangea and that would cause the gravity imbalance. The inner core contains about 2% of the earth's mass, and although it can move relative to the outer core, it is impossible for there to be a significant imbalance in the earth's mass. Think of the earth as a spinning object, because you obviously haven't. can we please stop discussing this lunacy and talk about the implications of the extinction on climate change today.
  24. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Defending Monckton with Poptech, with a healthy side of "E&E is legit!." Surely there's a mirthy analogy. This is like the anti-critical thinking trifecta. Imagine a world in which the science published in E&E was the best humanity had to offer. Talk about catastrophes. Adam, you're a curiosity. You have enough skill to understand a wide range of concepts, and you've done some reading. Yet you spend your time and energy defending goofy rhetorical games from Monckton, a wholly transparent and pathetic attempt to bandwagon the unwary (Poptech), and a journal that is a laughingstock for very obvious and well-documented reasons. I don't get it. I mean, I can come to several more probable conclusions from this small set of evidence, but moderation policy prevents me from listing them.
  25. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam: @12 - "Abraham has had nearly two years to respond to Monckton, yet he has not done so. When Abraham did his presentation, he had the responsibility to reply to any critique." @89 - "I'm sorry, but I don't really have the time or energy to respond to every single one of the points you listed." So Abraham is obligated to respond to Monckton's gish-gallop of a reply but you are allowed to dismiss counter evidence because it is too much work to go through? Double Standard.
  26. Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
    Thanks Paul. I'll correct the typo. Thanks MA Rodger: 1.2 +/- 10% is more accurate.
  27. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, if we want to assess whether the MWP was warmer or cooler than now, we need to put aside our preconceived agendas, and assess ALL of the evidence. If Kiegwin shows that temperatures in the Sargasso sea were warmer during the MWP than now, but the adjacent Laurentian Fan was much colder during the MWP than now, and that this is consistent with other evidence for a redistribution of heat due to ocean and wind currents, then we don't throw away all the inconvenient evidence that doesn't fit our agenda and cherry-pick a bit we like. Obviously if we want to assess whether the MWP was hemispherically or globally warmer or cooler than now we have to assess the data incorporating ALL of the paleoevidence. Every time this is done (there are more than a dozen studies multiproxy reconstructions published in the last decade), these always show that current temperatures are quite a bit warmer than during the MWP. You've shown an astonishing willingness to defend the indefensible. You consider it acceptable that: (i) Monckton uses a fabricated quotation to insinuate that Sir Richard Houghton supports falsehoods. (ii) Monckton uses a made-up graph to pretend that Huang's borehole data supports a cooler contemporary temperature than during the MWP even though Huang makes it very clear that the borehole data presented doesn't extend past the 19th century. When Huang presents a later full borehole data set that extends into the mid-late 20th century, the data indicates contemporary temperatures are warmer than during the MWP. (iii) Monckton cherry-picks one piece of Keigwin's sea temperature reconstruction, when assessment of all of Kiegwin's data gives zero evidence for a warmer MWP than now. (iv) Monckton misrepresents the work of Schonwiese, Esper and Schweingruber since the analyses of all of these scientists indicates that in their study context late 20th temperatures are warmer than during the MWP. ..you support all of those appalling and blatant misrepresentations...
  28. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    In one episode of Fawlty Towers a guest, who is a psychiatrist, turns to his wife and says of Basil Fawlty: "There's enough material there for a whole week-end conference." I can imagine a real-life psychiatrist saying much the same of Monckton. Watching him in various videos, not all of them concerning climate change, I am of the opinion that he has a deep psychological need to be the centre of attention. He compounds this with symptoms of a superiority complex. What I can’t decide is whether he has an inferiority complex presenting as a superiority complex, which is not uncommon, or that he genuinely has a superiority complex. I hope for his sake it is the latter, as it will give him a defence. If it is the former, then all it explains is his motive for what would have to be described as deliberate acts of deception on an issue that threatens a great many human lives. I think is he is on borrowed time. When the next El Nino comes along, it will blow all the “It has stopped!” nonsense out of the window. Extreme weather events are not to be wished for as always there are people who suffer, but they do have a silver lining in that they lend weight to the fact that climate change is a danger and that if we carry on as the likes of Monckton would have us do, then it can only get more dangerous, and probably extremely so. I don’t know if we are actually there yet, but if we aren’t, we are not far off the time when Monckton and his ilk should be investigated in relation to a charge of committing a crime against humanity. Unless, of course, trying to hinder, and if possible stop, the action that we need to take in order to save large numbers of human lives is not a crime against humanity. It would make sense if any lawyers reading this could explore this matter and advise us accordingly. One thing I do know is that any jury would not consider only 3% of climate scientists supporting their case a ‘reasonable doubt’ when deliberating their verdict, especially when it can be shown that the work of this 3% has been debunked and when it is their own children and grandchildren that are destined to be victims of the crimes of those whose verdicts they will be deliberating. I sometimes wonder if Monckton, and those of a similar persuasion, think this is all a game and that there are no consequences for their behaviour. It is about time they were not only disabused of that notion, but also made aware of just how punitive those consequences are likely to be. Perhaps their only salvation is to get on board and help us fight climate change together instead of taking up our time in fighting them instead of it. A big step. And one that will soon be too late for them to make. It will not be long until such a move would be seen as purely cynical. Future historians will no doubt look back at this period and be aghast at just how clear the science was regarding the danger and also how urgent the need for action. They will also see just how powerful was the lobby refuting it. I imagine they will be dumbfounded when they see that many members of this lobby were doing so purely for commercial reasons, even in the knowledge that it clearly meant that their own children and grandchildren would suffer. I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of such behaviour. At least Basil Fawlty makes me laugh. Monckton does just the opposite.
  29. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Adding to Alex C @25, we also wrote to Monckton requesting that he clarify certain points, and he declined to reply. People who have read Monckton's various responses to Abraham and to "John Cook" (sic) will have noticed that he makes a point of saying that his critics need only to have written to him for clarification for detailed citations, and clarification of various arguments. As it turns out, when put to the test that is an empty offer made solely for rhetorical effect.
  30. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam - “Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?” KR might I once again remind you that I gave you a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments and you have completely ignored it. PopTech's list of papers is not relevant to this discussion. I asked you to point out a single climate claim of Monckton's, contrary to the consensus on climate science, that is supportable. You have not. I'm of the opinion that you cannot. Instead - you repeat Gish Gallops, introduce red herrings such as the PopTech list, and (IMO) basically troll. The only science you have discussed (so far as I recall) is the MWP - where the evidence shows warm periods were not synchronous across the globe, and hence the temperature of the overall climate was not as warm as present. And in the process you somehow ignore the multiple documented instances of Monckton misrepresenting scientists works, misquoting, and overall presenting a misleading view of the the science.
  31. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    dhogaza, 60 “It's obvious you've not taken a look, because the list includes many things that aren't peer reviewed papers in any scholarly sense (poptech has his own definition).” Every single paper on the list is peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Dhogaza, 61 “Once again, Adam makes a strawman claim that was not made by AIT ("next 100 years" "near future"). How often does he get to repeat this falsehood? “ You are again completely missing the point. I accept that AIT never gave an exact timeframe (and I have acknowledged this in this discussion) But the very fact that Al Gore showed these expensive computerised images of all these major cities being published Strongly implied that it was going to happen in the near future. People watching it would not think that the ice sheets were going to collapse in hundreds or thousands of years, they would think that it was going to happen in the near future. Yes, Al Gore didn't give an exact date for it, but it was very misleading the way it was presented in AIT KR, 61 “Monckton is the one making extraordinary claims (that all of climate science is incorrect)” Please point out where Monckton has ever claimed the whole of climatre science is incorrect? “Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?” KR might I once again remind you that I gave you a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments and you have completely ignored it. Paulhtremblay, 63 “None of the articles presented by Poptech refute global warming. .... Instead of actually addressing that issue, you link to yet another rebuttal by poptech,” Did I claim that the articles presented by Poptech refute GW? I'm not sure how you can claim that “I'm not addressing the issue” since I never made that claim anyway. I was simply pointing out that this website had not responded to Poptech on his rebuttal. “Let me give you another challenge to bring up one article from poptech that actually bolsters your claim that the peer reviewed science supports Mockton. Specifically, show a peer reviewed article that undermines a specific claim made by the IPCC in a significant way.” Well, obviously you have not read any of the papers on the list, but as an example there is Douglass et al, 2007, which supports Moncktons claiims about troposheric temperature trends. Scaddenp, 64 “However, to substance, he refuses to remove papers that the authors themselves are wrongly on the list, includes letter, reviews etc. that are not peer-reviewed and journals (esp E&E) that are not peer-reviewed in the sense normally understood by that. “ The list clearly states: Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary. The author's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is the actual scientific data that is presented in their papers that are relevant. And E&E is a peer reviewed journal Correcting Misinformation about the Journal Energy and Environment Paulhtremblay, 65 “First, the MWP was not global” in your opinion “so it would not give any information on climate sensitivity. Accounting for its local variations and the overall Global temperature does not contradict any of the models of climate sensitivity.” I'm sorry but that's not a valid argument. It was claimed on this thread that if the MWP was warmer it would mean that climate sensitivity to co2 would he high. But now you're saying that it doesn't matter that (in your opinion) MWP wasn't warmer. That climate sensitivity would still be high. Look, either the MWP does tell us about climate sensitivity or it doesn't you can't have it both ways. I personally think that it is entirely plausible that the MWP temps were higher/the same as today and climate sensitivity is still low. I do not believe the claim that strong MWP means high climate sensitivity, is supported by convincing evidence. Skywatcher, 67 “perhaps a clarification required, as using the climate of the past 750 years (admittedly not right through the MWP), Hegerl et al 2006 show climate sensitivity comparable to IPCC projections.” I was unable to find a PDF of that paper, so I only had the abstract. As you point out they only analyse climate of the past 750 years. I personally think that this is too short a time span. They may have got significantly different results if they had analysed say, the past 1500 years. Also, in their abstract they don't even mention what the implication would be for climate-sensitivity if the MWP was warmer. So it doesn't really do that much to support your argument. There have also been some references in the literature that the modelling data they used may have been unreliable. eg. Scafetta, 2009 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf “Some authors(North etal.,2004;Hegerletal.,2006,2007) use typical EBMs.The adoption of EBMs is particularly useful if the interest focuses on local temperature records,but becomesless useful if the interest is in the global average temperature.” funglestrumpet, 68 I'm not sure how anybody can claim that somebody should be locked up, simply because their views on an issue differ from your own. Do you not believe that people have the right to freedom of speech? Tom Curtis, 71 “1) The other graphs shown by Monckton all appear to be local, not global temperatures, and therefore cannot show a global event;” Monckton never claimed that his graphs represented global temperatures. The warmist argument is that MWP was a regional phenomenon located mainly in the UK and Greenaland. All Monckton was simply trying to show is that there is indeed evidence of a MWP outside of those areas. “Those graphs differ from each other about the timing of peak warming, with some graphs showing significant cooling where others show peak warming.” Well, you would expect there to be some difference in the timings of the warming and cooling periods in the graph, since they are all from entirely different independent studies. “One of the proxies (Esper and Schweingruber) shows not temperatures but altitudes of the tree line. “ Monckton has never denied this he clearly mentions it in his reply “the conclusion in their graph that in the medieval warm period treelines in the polar Urals were considerably higher than they are today, suggesting that the weather was considerably warmer and wetter than today?” “I note that you persist in misrepresenting Al Gore as claiming that sea levels would rise by six meters in a century. Would you kindly point out where in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that? (Hint: He doesn't)” Once again read my previous comments, as well as the paragraph above on AIT. I don't deny that AIT never gave a timeframe. I never stated that Al Gore gave an exact timeframe. What I was saying is that because of the very expensive images he showed of modern cities getting flooded, it was heavily implied that it would happen in the next century. That's what anybody watching his film would come to the conclusion to. Tom Curtis, 73 Now, you have obviously done a lot of research on that claim. And you make a good point. A lot of people don’t check things for themselves, when they should do so. Now, I’d just like you to know that I never agreed with Monckton’s argument about Al Gore’s mansion. I thought that it was a poor argument and should not have been included in his presentation. But that really was just a very minor point in his presentation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science. Tom Curtis, you can’t just write long rebuttals to just a single very minor point, and act like you have shown everything Monckton has said to be completely wrong. Now, you obviously believe that Monckton was deliberately lying about Al Gore’s mansion. I know that what you pointed out about one argument, does look pretty bad, but think about it. Monckton included the reference to Gore’s mansion in his personal letter to Abraham. If Monckton really was deliberately lying, why would he have written it in a personal private letter to a professor whose views strongly opposed his own. I personally think it was simply a display of ignorance on Monckton’s part. I know you’re probably going to accuse me of being a “denier” and “defending my idol”, but I really do think you’re making too much of a big deal out of such a minor point. The Gore’s mansion argument was not a scientific argument, nor was it made out to be one. It has nothing to do with the science. It’s funny how people can spend a lot of time checking the actual science behind different issues, yet don’t bother to check very minor and unscientific points, simply because it’s not that important. I do believe this is what happened with Monckton. He was careless on an issue, and it has made him appear in a bad light. Tom Curtis I’m not saying that skeptics are right about everything. There are some arguments by skeptics I don’t agree with. Skeptics don’t have a single unified view. There is always going to be misinformation on both sides of a debate. But people need to learn the difference between a genuine error and deliberate disinformation. I think that people here’s personal feelings (hatred) for Monckton are clouding their judgement into thinking that everything he does is “evil”. But Monckton is human. Humans make mistakes. It happens. Simply stressing minor points, like you did above is irrelevant to the actual scientific debate. I really would be better if could just stick to the science. Tonydunc, 79 Sorry Tony, but your very cursory dismissals of each point are not every convincing. Tonydunc Abraham listed those brief phrases, which he claimed summed up Monckton's arguments. I don't think you understand. Abraham is trying to make Monckton look like an average stereotypical “denier” whose arguments are weak and simplistic. What Monckton was trying to show is that his arguments were actually more complex than Abraham made them out to be, so therefore he was misrepresenting his position. I'm sorry, but I don't really have the time or energy to respond to every single one of the points you listed. Chris, 81 I do not believe that Monckton was cherry picking. Dr Keigwin's own paper clearly showed that MWP was indeed warmer in that area than the present. There are always papers showing different interpretations of climate change data. Proxy data is a very complex issue. But there was nothing which directly refuted the conclusions made by their 1996 paper. Look, we're getting nowhere on this thread. I seem to have upset a lot of people who clearly have very strong personal beliefs regarding Monckton. How about we just agree to disagree. You have all made up your own minds on this issue. We are never going to come to a satisfactory conclusion. So, if any of you can provide me any reason otherwise, this will be my last comment on this thread.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Further discussion of 'things Al Gore may or may not have said' is off topic for this thread, as is any further reference to whatever Poptech may or may not say on his blog.

    Long rambling replies to multiple commenters tend to be very difficult to follow.

  32. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    pirate: "Before anyone anyone makes a claim that the science curriculum being developed is "anti-science",..." Review whatever you like. But read the motivation for the curriculum, which was confirmed as genuine by Dr. Wojick: Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn't alarmist or overtly political. ... Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. And you expect that whatever materials that follow will not be 'overtly political'? How can anything that is built on that preamble not be anti-science? If you need a refresher on what anti-science can sound like, look here. "When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment ..." Like it or not, this is partly a political struggle. Before condemning Gleick, be sure you've condemned those who profited from sensationalizing hacked emails.
  33. Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
    You cite Hansen & Sato 2011 for the 1.2 degC for 'direct' 2xCO2 warming. Okay it's good and recent, but what's wrong with the more authoritative 1.2 deg C (+/-10%) IPCC AR4 2007. For myself, when I hear somebody saying the figure is 'somewhere near 1 degC,' I find it almost always is followed by a bunch of obvious denialist statements.
  34. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    You are clutching at straws here comparing CO2 with arsenic. For instance,CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide. CO2 is less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere. Telling people to reduce CO2 is like sayiing we should reduce oxygen!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is off-topic, please take it to a more appropriate thread, such as CO2 is a trace gas. Any further posts on this subject on this thread will be deleted.
  35. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    For all of 14 years, it has been hot. For trend, El Ninos dominance in first half and La Nina in second half has an influence. However, all of this is quantified in F&R and no amount of hand-waving by you can change that. The numbers speak for themselves.
  36. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    apirate - profoundly disappointed. The means matter, and I think Gleick's actions were dishonest, not justified and profoundly damaging for improving public understanding of climate science.
  37. Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
    Typo in your first sentence, Forbes article is Feb. 2012, not 2011.
  38. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    The question of what effect increased cloud cover will have on climate change remains. In that respect, can anyone tell me why Venus which has complete unbroken cloud cover is so hot at the surface. One would make a wild, first approximation guess that despite her nearness to the sun, the cloud would reflect 90% of the incoming solar radiation. What is happening here and is there any relevance to cloud cover on earth. Has it anything to do with the composition of her clouds which, I believe, are sulphuric acid.
  39. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    I suspect that the Heartland Institute purposely concocted a faux strategy document and mailed it to Gleick in hopes that he would make it public. What they did not anticipate is that he would surreptitiously acquire internal email documents from them. What ensued is a "sting operation" gone awry.
  40. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    Having rather more than "basic" knowledge of physics, geology and mathematics, I have no problem in dismissing it out of hand.
  41. New research from last week 7/2012
    Ridley 2012 appears to be using yet another definition of 'tipping point' which is radically different than my understanding of the intended usage. They conclude that there is no tipping point in Arctic sea ice extent because if CO2 returned to pre-industrial levels 1000+ years from now the sea ice would recover. Thus, this Ridley paper seems to be defining 'tipping point' as a change which can never be recovered from... and therefor finding no 'tipping point' for Arctic ice extent. However, my understanding has always been that the suggestions of a 'tipping point' for Arctic ice extent have referred to a point where the anthropogenic forcing had progressed far enough that natural feedbacks would result in the eventual disappearance of all the sea ice, even if the anthropogenic forcing stabilized.
  42. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    tmac57 @23: Monckton's article that he posted to WUWT stated that he requested us to publish his post, and we did receive such a request. It wasn't 24 hours later that he published on WUWT, and as I understand it we were not able to make any sort of communication with him in that time frame to take advantage of that courtesy. If one can even call it a "courtesy," of course - we were requested to publish, not to review and vet.
  43. apiratelooksat50 at 04:23 AM on 22 February 2012
    Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    DSL at 242 The edition I am cut/pasting from is 2004. You can access it through www.nexuslearning.net. I have the 2008 edition in my room and the climate change/global warming section in it is expanded and has taken on a more definitive tone. Unfortunately, most school districts (that I know of) are still using the 2004 editions due to budget issues. And, that is the real travesty. Supplemental resources that are fair and balanced would be welcomed by most teachers.
  44. Climate sensitivity is low
    Sphaerica and Tom Curtis, Thank you for your replies. I have not heard of a response to this issue before. I will have to read it carefully and repeatedly to understand it all. If I have further questions I will ask. I appreciate your time.
  45. apiratelooksat50 at 04:13 AM on 22 February 2012
    Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    TC at 238 The direct link to AP College Board website is here. If you go to the main site and poke around. There is a fair amount of climate change material on different pages. Another excerpt from the workshop materials: "The process of changing from one equilibrium temperature to a higher one is the phenomenon referred to as global warming, and the gases that contribute to this process are called greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, but water vapor, methane, and other trace gases also can contribute to enhanced infrared radiation. The physical basis of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and the effects of increasing infrared active gases can be calculated with a fair degree of certainty. Most future environmental scenarios are based on an assumption of doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and using computer models to predict a new equilibrium temperature. These models are based on firm theory and can be calibrated by using historical data. But most such models suffer from a need to estimate unknown factors such as the effect of clouds or temporal increases in water vapor. Accordingly, environmental implications and specific regional climate predictions resulting from such models are more uncertain than global warming itself." I am okay with that. And, I bet you are, too.
  46. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    What edition of Environmental Science are you reading from, pirate?
  47. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    apiratelooksat50 - "Before anyone anyone makes a claim that the science curriculum being developed is "anti-science", perhaps they should review that curriculum." From the Heartland fundraising document: "Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”). Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on." (emphasis added) If you were to claim that those goals were not anti-science, I would have to say you haven't been following the science at all. And I would direct you to the 2007 IPCC report, and to the current literature.
  48. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    Note that the AP Workshop material posted by pirate is only from one section of the workshop, and the paragraph in question seems to ignore the defining presence of prior paragraphs. The key item for that workshop section, though, is that it is based on material published no later than 1999 (excepting one 2006 publication). It is not informed by AR4 and later model advancements and a decade's worth of data.
  49. Philippe Chantreau at 03:05 AM on 22 February 2012
    Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    It's almost comical how Monckton twists and distorts Garnaut's words. Garnaut says in essence that a rational person thinking about the issue in a rational fashion and weighing the probability that scientific maisntream has it righ would come to the conclusion it most likely has it right. This is obviously the description of a careful, well thought out reflexion. In Monckton bizarro world, it becomes "accept authority without question." It is appalling that ther are so many people who do not see the irony but in fact agree with him. The Moncktons of this world are extremely dangerous. They believe in their own nonsense. Whenever they manage to gather a following, they get intoxicated with that success and believe even more in it. Then they get crowds excited to the point of inciting them to actually carry on actions. Funny how Monckton projects and at the same time renders the accusation of acting exactly the way he describes moot, just because he used it first. I think Rove inaugurated this method with great success based on Luntz' ideas during the Bush campaign. The virulence and toxicity of the mind manipulators in the US has spilled over and reached concerning proportions.
  50. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Gee,I hope you submitted this article to Monckton before posting it.You know how he insists that all criticisms of him must be vetted by him personally before the are made public (although I doubt that he extends the same courtesy to the targets of his nasty attacks)

Prev  1256  1257  1258  1259  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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