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  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  Next

Comments 66951 to 67000:

  1. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    What a great video! Will be a wonderful resource when 'debating' with those who confuse one for the other.
  2. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 7 January 2012
    Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    "policymakers, and the general critical thinker who can recognize fallacy and fluff when they see it." If that's your target audience, I'm afraid you may find it to be stunningly scarce these days. Look at Watts rounding up enough of a crowd to declare his thing a science blog. Fallacy and fluff eh?
  3. stephenthomson at 03:22 AM on 7 January 2012
    Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    @ sphaerica 46 and rob 47, re: the c02 ad, it's true that that ad is uncomfortable. that might be why I included it, particularly after SS says "[people and politicians] are capable of [figuring it out], but they rarely do it." The ad is not entirely untrue. Although I find it laughably non-sequitur and frustratingly slick, it is true in both cases that branding C02 as a pollutant probably WOULD cost jobs (the kind we dont want to keep around anyway - I'm reminded of Bill Maher's "F%#$ your jobs!" - while creating new jobs in a better sector) and that C02 is not a pollutant anyway, in the traditional sense. It's not as easy as saying 'C02 is good or bad' - as we know, it's a matter of balance on a macro scale, not of a molecule's inherent goodness or badness. The ad is a culminating example of a flawed public dialogue. it's gold (for me). The difference of opinion we share about showing this ad illustrates the fact that you, the SKS community, are directing your work towards denialists - whom you see as having to be kept on a strict diet of information - while I'm directing my work towards you: scientific community, media journalism, policymakers, and the general critical thinker who can recognize fallacy and fluff when they see it. As to the wisdom of posting it here on this site, I leave that to you to judge, as you know best your clientele. I do thank you once again, though, for the exposure. @citizenschallenge 48, great idea!
  4. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    With regards to the #1 climate B[ad]S[cience] award winner (the Republican presidential hopefuls), I really don't see much chance of either their presidential hopefuls or their congressional representatives altering their positions on climate science unless and until there are similar shifts in: (1) The hard-core "Tea Party" GOP electoral base (I have read elsewhere surveys suggesting that large proportions, perhaps even majorities, of GOP voters have saner views on climate change and the necessity of increasing renewable/carbon-free energy sources - however they do not appear to be vocal enough, or as committed to electoral victory to attenuate the extremist factions) (2) The agencies which are the primary donors to GOP electoral campaigns And I don't see either of those happening soon.
  5. It's the sun
    I'm a bit confused... isn't this, kind of, the whole point of the Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal paper? Separation of the GHG .v. other factors? And, for those who still don't get figure 3... a little video
  6. Models are unreliable
    The section in AR4 that Tristan seems to feel is a problem is here.
  7. Models are unreliable
    Tristan#459: "The AR4 is doing the forecasting. Not me. " Wasn't this you in #465?: "We won't get there at the current warming rate." Sounds like a forecast to me. Again, so what? Especially now that we see you're talking about the average of models, not any specific model.
  8. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    DB, we are not responding to Mace on the "It's the sun" thread because he has still not properly responded on The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards thread.
    Response:

    [DB] Thank you for your guidance, and your efforts.  Mace has found compliance with the SkS Comments Policy too onerous & has recused himself from further participation.

  9. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Again, you must finish up what you initiated on the It's the sun thread before you can initiate something on another.  What you are doing is trolling.  If you persist in this behaviour your posting privileges will be reconsidered.

  10. Eric (skeptic) at 22:37 PM on 6 January 2012
    Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    citizenschallenge, thanks for posting that transcript; I have very limited access to video.
  11. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Can I suggest linking to this superb visual metaphor in the article. I'm sure there are other posts where it could also be used effectively.
  12. Dikran Marsupial at 21:43 PM on 6 January 2012
    Models are unreliable
    Tristan Sorry, I see you did give the quote. However, the quote gives the range of model ensemble means under different scenarios. However this doesn't mean that we would expect the observations to lie within that range, but instead would be within the spread of the multi-model ensemble, which would be very much broader. By saying that the multi-model mean is consistent with current observations, they would mean that they lie within the spread of the ensemble (which they undoubteldy do).
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 21:36 PM on 6 January 2012
    Models are unreliable
    Tristan wrote "F&R2011 removed a lot of that noise to reveal a fairly constant 0.16/decade trend." You are missing the point. A model that had a slight upward (or indeed downward) curvature would fit the observations almost as well (e.g. in terms of the log likelihood) as the "best estimate" given in F&R2011. That is because there is enough signal in the noise to get a reasonable estimate of the basic trend, but not enough to get a reliable indication of any curvature. "The 4AR predicts that 2011-30 will be +0.64-0.69C vs 1980-99." page reference please. "We won't get there at the current warming rate. Therefore either the warming rate must increase or the projections were too high. Which is it, do we know?" That is impossible to answer without knowing *exactly* what was claimed in AR4.
  14. Models are unreliable
    Tristan I understand the discrepancy you highlight. Are you able to sift through the relevant segments of the IPCC and report back? I find it takes too damn long reading through IPCC reports to find the nugget one is after. So I'm not volunteering.
  15. shakyiamounts101 at 19:52 PM on 6 January 2012
    Antarctica is gaining ice
    Well, obviously, Antartica is losing ice due to the fact that our planet is warming up. Just because of the floods, dosent mean thats going to make it gain ice. And even if it gains ice, it will lose that ice anyway. Agreements?
  16. Models are unreliable
    Tristan, it looks like you used the multi-model mean forecast for global temperatures as if it were an exact prediction. Model ensembles don't work that way. If the multi-model mean was projected to be 0.64-0.69, what was the spread of the individual models around that? Some will be lower, some will be higher. How does the current rising trend in global temperature (on the assumption it remains at its recent trend) interact with the ensemble spread? Before you claim incorrectness, you need to know this.
  17. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    There is no cherry picking involved in the "Significant Events in Climate for Nov and Autumn 2011" report. Further, picking just one seasons data from just one country, a common tactic of those in denial, is clearly cherry picking. The appropriate data set is global temperatures, and the effect of global trends can clearly be seen in the recent paper by Hansen et al, 2011: However, those points have been adequately covered above. What I really want to point out is that the chosen data set of those in denial also shows warming. This can clearly be seen by looking at the area between the smoothed line (black dashes) and the 1971-2000 average. Clearly the area above the 1971-2000 average is much greater in more recent years than they where in the early 20th century, indicating an overall positive trend. Indeed, I digitized the data to confirm that. Overall the data shows a positive trend of 0.03 degrees C per decade; and a positive trend of 0.33 degrees C per decade since 1970. It is well known that it is only since 1970 that a clear global warming signal has emerged due to the restricted growth of anthropogenic aerosols since then. Mean Temperature: [Source] So, even a data set especially cherry picked to show no warming in fact clearly shows the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could more aptly demonstrate the intellectual poverty of climate change denialism.
  18. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Anthony Watt is busy hustling up votes to get the 'Best Science Blog' victory ... again. It's stunning to think that he could only place 5th in the BS Award, given his target-focus, persistence, and buzz that would make a cottage mosquito green with envy.
  19. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @Phila - in some disciplines, notably medical research, retractions are not uncommon at all. Retraction Watch is dedicated to the theme. Nature has not only engaged in retractions, but noted the increase and dedicated an article to the theme: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a/box/2.html The ironic part about the attention drawn to the area of climate science is that the most notorious retractions are the Remote Sensing scam of 2011, and the Soon/Baliunis rewrap of 'The Petition' document: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/resignations-retractions-and-the-process-of-science
  20. citizenschallenge at 16:12 PM on 6 January 2012
    Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    I fully agree with Rob Honeycutt: “Not only is this an excellently produced video but it is a wonderful and balanced encapsulation of the reality of the climate situation and public debate.” I myself was so impressed with what Dr. Schneider said that I’ve decide to transcribe the audio of this video (including time signatures). I do this for my own edification since the process allows me to truly digest the message and I'm posting it because I hope it might be of use to some others. http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/01/stephen-schneider-unauthorized.html
  21. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    Also, I'm sure I've said this before, but people who make unsubstantiated claims about things like "the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them" really shouldn't be allowed to post any further comments until they support their accusations with hard evidence. If they can't do that, they really shouldn't be allowed to post further comments until they acknowledge being mistaken. If they won't do that, they really shouldn't be allowed to post any further comments, period. I know moderators have their hands full, but this situation where people like James Wilson can indulge in this kind of basically irresponsible behavior, ignore corrections and then move blithely on to the next bit of misinformation is intolerable and really needs to stop. This behavior's at least as socially disruptive as name-calling or political ranting, and far more destructive to the actual purpose of this site. That's what I think, anyway.
  22. Models are unreliable
    (-Snip-) Do I need to state that I don't dispute any of the mechanics of climate change before people here actually read my posts properly? The AR4 is doing the forecasting. Not me. Based on the current rate of warming given by F&R2011 atmospheric temperatures will not reach the 2011-30 mean projected by the AR4. Either the warming must increase or the prediction must fall. My completely unscientific guess is that both of these will be the case. I presume that someone with a lot more knowledge than me can give me more information about this disparity. We are not on track for a mean 2011-30 anomaly of +0.64C versus 1980-99 without a very visible acceleration in warming.
    Response:

    [DB] Improper ideological categorizations snipped.

  23. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    James Wilson: Trying to calculate the number of joules retained by the earth is by definition an almost impossible job. The numerical methods to do it might be logically sound but if you understand the math behind it it is similar to multiplying both sides of the equation by zero. The nice things about mathematical arguments like this one is that they can be presented in mathematical terms and then checked for accuracy. In other words, please show your work.
  24. Models are unreliable
    Tristan#465: You're forecasting using the average rate rather than the current rate? Based on this average of all five adjusted data sets, the warming trend has not slowed significantly in recent years (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade from 2000 through 2010). Either way, what's your point? The thread here is model reliability, not model infallibility. Does pointing out a supposed flaw in an IPCC document somehow nullify AGW?
  25. Models are unreliable
    Muon A) The average of the 5 records is .163C/decade, not 0.18C. B) 2030 may be +0.6C compared to 80-99. However, the 4AR states warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C. If the anomaly is currently +0.26 and it reaches +0.6 by 2030, the average will be a lot less than +0.64.
  26. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    CBDunkerson@#10 "being visible [i.e. white] is important for aircraft and birds to be able to avoid them" The evidence is that purple is the best color: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320763/Why-painting-wind-turbines-purple-protect-birds-bats.html and DrTsk@#11: "German windmills are sometimes painted dark green at the bottom to blend into the forest" I don't want aircraft to be endangered, but I think white windmills are as much an eyesore as white houses, and wonder if that particular part of their anatomy should be rethought. Thanks for your responses. I don't want to hog this thread with a triviality, however.
  27. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Doug H wrote: "Can we hope that more evangelical arm-waving anti-science candidates founder quickly?" The press will continue pretending otherwise for a couple more months, but Mitt Romney has essentially wrapped up the GOP nomination at this point. While Santorum got nearly as many votes in the Iowa caucuses that was largely due to a 'last evangelical extremist standing' effect... all the other fervently anti-science candidates had already enjoyed their moment in the spotlight, and had some of their many many flaws exposed thereby. Santorum is getting his turn now, and frankly he's the worst of the lot. He'll be abandoned within a week or two. Perry is already looking for a graceful way to bow out and the other briefly popular candidates likely aren't far behind. As for Romney, he has sung the GOP denial line while chasing the nomination, but in the past he made reasonably sane statements about AGW. He might be a halfway decent president if the congress were controlled by the Democrats. The real danger zone is congress. If the GOP continues to accumulate power there, the U.S. won't do anything worthwhile about global warming (or various other important issues) for many years to come regardless of who wins the presidency. So yeah, the worst of the GOP anti-science brigade are going down... though largely due to other issues. Unsurprisingly, they're irrational and alarming on many other topics as well.
  28. Models are unreliable
    Tristan#461: Here is a map of GISS temperature anomaly for the year 2011, using 1980-1999 as a base period: --source You should note the average anomaly of 0.26C shown in the upper right corner. Using FR2011's linear trend of 0.18C per decade, by 2030 (two decades hence), we could easily see an anomaly (relative to 1980-99) in excess of 0.6C.
  29. Models are unreliable
    what is left to explain? The gap between 0.16 and 0.20.
  30. Models are unreliable
    Tristan, Thank you for the cite. Since it says "and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades." and the recent Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) paper claims the rate of warming is unchanging, what is left to explain?
  31. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    More BS, this time from Newt Gingrich and his man-behind-the-curtain: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has canceled the climate change chapter in his upcoming book of environmental essays after Rush Limbaugh and other commentators targeted its author, atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Dr. Hayhoe is a Texas Tech University atmospheric scientist with impeccable science credentials and a Christian faith-based outlook on climate change issues. Apparently even she was too much of a radical. And then came the harassment: Following the December 8 L.A. Times article identifying Hayhoe as a contributor to Gingrich’s book, Marc Morano, former spokesman for Senator Inhofe, spent the past month attacking her on his blog, Climate Depot. Morano also encouraged his readers to contact Hayhoe directly by repeatedly posting her email address. Chris Horner’s American Tradition Institute also filed a request with Hayhoe’s employer, Texas Tech University, requesting any emails she sent or received about the book.
  32. Models are unreliable
    I'd advise a little caution in making such strong statements, Michael. WG1 Ch10.ES Mean Temperature There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C). Thus, this warming rate is affected little by different scenario assumptions or different model sensitivities, and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades.
  33. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    @ Pluvial. *If* I was shown evidence that Fast Breeders could provide *safe*, almost zero-waste energy at low cost, then I might be prepared to accept it (contrary to popular belief, I'm not one of those dyed-in-the-wool anti-nuclear types). Yet all I see being built around the world are Generation III nuclear reactors-which are just your stock-standard light-water reactors. Now that suggests that the Fast-Breeders are either (a) technically or (b) economically non-feasible. Quite frankly, I see no point in going down the nuclear route-not when we've barely touched our vast solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro & biomass energy reserves-not to mention the biggest "energy source", "Negawatts" ;-).
  34. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    Treehugger just did a piece on Republicans who are pushing for their party to recognize climate change,along with a video piece by Mother Jones: http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/endangered-gop-climate-hawks-captured-video.html
    Behold: I present to you irrefutable, 100% verified videographic evidence that Republicans who understand the threat posed by climate change – and want public policy to address it – do indeed exist.
  35. Models are unreliable
    Tristan, I find it impossible to believe that the 4AR would make such a narrow projection. Can you provide a cite to the page where this projection was made? If you cannot provide a cite, please withdraw the question. The uncertainty in aerosol pollution alone is enough to account for the difference you note.
  36. Models are unreliable
    DM F&R2011 removed a lot of that noise to reveal a fairly constant 0.16/decade trend. The 4AR predicts that 2011-30 will be +0.64-0.69C vs 1980-99. We won't get there at the current warming rate. Therefore either the warming rate must increase or the projections were too high. Which is it, do we know? RP I meant "There seems to be little indication of increased atmospheric warming."
  37. Doug Hutcheson at 12:32 PM on 6 January 2012
    The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    The B.S.* Awards make a light relief from the serious business of studying and publicising AGW. As a non-scientist, I spend some of my time at Australian fora like ABC's The Drum and News Corp's The Punch, correcting AGW myths by posting rebuttals with links to SkS debunking articles. It is boring work and never-ending, but it is all a foot soldier like myself can do and it does give me the dubious pleasure of attracting hilarious incoming fire from the worst bigots. Good to see that Michele (CO2 is plant food) Bachmann has dropped out of the Republican race for the White House, although not for AGW-related reasons. Can we hope that more evangelical arm-waving anti-science candidates founder quickly? Any reason at all will do: I don't mind if the worst of the worst fail because of mundane incompetence.
  38. actually thoughtful at 11:42 AM on 6 January 2012
    The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    I think the media should be first. While Fox leads the way, every single article which presents the "other side" as if it were intellectually equivalent, as if this is a matter of opinion, rather than science, feeds this whole monster. Every single article in the main stream press seeks to achieve "balance" - but whereas the balance should be "is it better to institute a carbon tax, or a trading scheme?" - we get "global warming is not without controversy, climate researcher Steve McIntyre says peanuts will bloom in the new deserts (or whatever" This is one of the root causes of the idiocy we are seeing in policy, in public opinion, in the actions of society as a whole.
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] All caps edited. No more please. Use bold tags.
  39. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    dana1981 and mace, moderator Rob P stated at #1 that nino has ocean cooling tendencies and nina has ocean warming tendencies. It seems that many ninas can lead to the earth system heat gains manifesting themselves in the water rather than in the air. So if you only look at air temperatures, globally it may appear to go down during a nina. I think mace's implication was that a local shuffling of (air) temps, as nino/nina might involve, should affect regions but the globals should not be affected. As Rob P might suggest, that observation ignores the oceans. If we look at air+ocean temps, then nino/nina may not have much or any global trends all by themselves.
  40. Doug Hutcheson at 10:45 AM on 6 January 2012
    Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    This paper makes me even more frustrated with my lack of training in physics and stats. Wish I could take my 60-year-old brain back to my 12-year-old body and really try to understand more of what I was taught in school. As it is, I have to stand on the shoulders of others in order to gain an understanding of the topic. My thanks to those who take the time to explain the steps in calculating the stats. It really helps an interested outsider like me.
  41. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    Simplified I know BUT No need to argue the graphs. If you can accept that Earth has an atmosphere that allows for life. If you can accept the 19thC science that CO2 & water vapour are the principle agents in sustaining a temperate atmosphere that allows life to flourish. distinguishing Earth from our neighbours Mars or Venus you can work the rest out for yourself. Coal & Oil are stores of Carbon laid down over geological time that human creativity has found a way to use for productive work. Basically we burn both coal & oil to transform the stored Carbon into energy we control. Next time you jump in the SUV to go to work think stored energy in the tank gets burnt in the engine to produce energy to move the vehicle plus exhaust gases out the back. Every other vehicle you see on the Freeway is also pumping exhaust gases out the back and have been doing since before Henry Ford. What's in those gases and where do they go. Principally CO2, water vapour and nitrous oxides ( another known greenhouse gas). The measurement of atmospheric CO2 done at Mona Kea shows a continuing rise in recorded levels of CO2 which would suggest a good portion of exhaust gases stay in the atmosphere. Measurements of CO2 in oceans shows a similar rise suggesting that another portion is taken up by the worlds oceans. We know from the 19thC that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere and decreasing CO2 cools the atmosphere. With increasing levels of CO2 unsurprisingly we have a warming atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere evaporates more water increasing atmospheric water moisture . My pond loses more water in summer than winter. More water vapour in the atmosphere also produces more warming. Put a pan of water on a stove and add a little heat and the water starts to gently circulate as it warms. Same with the atmosphere,in simple terms that's where we get wind and weather from. Add heat to the water in the pan and the water circulates faster, the atmosphere is no different. There's the problem, more exhaust gases more atmospheric heat, more atmospheric water, ever increasing temperatures and atmospheric circulation. American science has just told us that the volume of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere last year showed an increase of approx. 6 % . Now with money a 6% rate of interest compounded doubles your money in 12 years. If you don't like a single years figures then the average increase over 10 years comes in at 3% which gives us a doubling in 24 years. How much additional heat, water vapour and atmospheric turbulence will these numbers generate. Your call. Johnb
  42. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    Mace -"so you'd imagine that El Nino and La Nina events would have a more dramatic effect on the tropical ranges and a less dramatic effect on the rest of the planet based on the info you've supplied" Really? Here's the current La Nina. What do you think should happen to the distribution of global temperatures? And what peer-reviewed paper supports this?
  43. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @Stephen Baines. Thanks. That's a logical answer which appears to match the data. The NASA GISS website produces graphs for northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and tropical ranges, so you'd imagine that El Nino and La Nina events would have a more dramatic effect on the tropical ranges and a less dramatic effect on the rest of the planet based on the info you've supplied. The ENSO events are mapped against the tropical and global data in the "seasonal mean temperature change" graph at the bottom of this link. Nasa GISS data
  44. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Another blog about the Republican Presidential candidates worth checking out: “Still Searching for Republicans with Climate Concerns” by Andrew Revkin, DOT Earth, New York Times, Jan 5, 2012 To access this timely and informative article, click“here. Note: Revkin cites Gleick’s Climate BS awards in his post.
  45. Stephen Baines at 09:31 AM on 6 January 2012
    A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @mace. ENSO is largely an equatorial phenomenon. That said, I don't think your concern about the hemispherical distribution of heat has much relevance in a thread about global patterns and the big picture. @JamesWilson Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of what your saying regarding uncertainty, partly because it is completely unconstrained by the actual calcuylations in the paper being referenced. I'd read Church et al, and make sure to understand it before heaving such wild criticisms about. Also, a very very small percentage of papers in the scientific literature actually get retracted, so I don't understand your point there either.
  46. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    Be careful of predictions of the future source of power. It will be determined by political policy and cost. Neither force is going to be unilateral. For example Coal at 5 cents a ton is by far the cheapest form of power. But outside China and India it is unlikely to increase much in usage. Jimmy Carter thought liquified natural gas was going to power cars and poured billions of dollars into it. As we plainly know he was wrong. So much for the politicians deciding. Somewhere in the middle we will find a power source. However we are going to need a lot less power. The consumption of consumer devices has dropped drastically in the last 20 years and that will continue. The next big step is dropping our heating and cooling energy needs. Personally I think breeder reactors are unlikely. There is too much fear mongering against new nuclear reactors to allow such a thing to be built. If the fear is justified or not is not relevant. Political pressure has basically collapsed the industry.
  47. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson wrote: "I like I think the majority of people on both sides believe the peer review process is inherently broken. Why? Because of the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them." I can't think of a single paper on global warming which has been retracted because it overstated the AGW case. Yes, there have been several which disputed the AGW consensus which were complete nonsense... but in every case they were published in relatively obscure journals that were ill equipped or unwilling to perform proper peer review. Thus, I think that most informed people understand that the peer review process is just fine. The occasional instances of unscientific nonsense slipping through the cracks are invariably identified and dealt with in short order. Unless you can cite evidence to the contrary (i.e. examples of papers being retracted for incorrect promotion, rather than denial, of AGW) this just looks like more of your, 'I want to believe something, so I will first believe many false things to build up a 'case' for it'. The claims of massive error margins are equally baseless. Cite an example and back it up. The papers cited as the basis for the graphs in the article above explain how they arrived at those numbers and why the error margins are constrained. You simply assume otherwise with no apparent basis at all.
  48. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson: Let's say you start doing the following: (a) learning enough about what you are arguing against instead of arguing from what appears to be ignorance (e.g. "How do you measure the joules the earth loses every day? How do you measure the incoming energy? What is the error margin on both?" - have you even bothered to follow the links provided in the OP to the literature describing how climatologists calculate these things?); (b) coming up with specific examples instead of vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "Because of the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them" or, even better "I think the majority of people on both sides believe the peer review process is inherently broken."). You can say what you like about this or that graph being "meaningless scientifically" but if that's all you do (e.g. no reference, maths, or physics to back it up) you're not going to get very far here, I'm sorry to say.
  49. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson - the ocean heat content represents the most up-to-date estimates. Armwaving because you don't like the results is unconvincing. Many fake-skeptics have trumpeted the ocean heat measurements down to 700 mtrs when they thought it showed cooling. But now that measurements going deeper (2000 mtrs) show massive ocean warming, it's suddenly meaningless. You strain credulity.
  50. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @Rob Painting, Ok, I can see that if we measure ocean temperature close to the surface, and a La Nina causes upwelling from deep, this would have a cooling effect. Would we not see a stronger cooling effect in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere, however? I'm assuming here that the cooling effect of the La Nina doesn't dissipate around the whole globe rapidly.

Prev  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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