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  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  1352  1353  Next

Comments 67251 to 67300:

  1. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    dawsonjg - noone is disputing that the original Mann paper has flaws and has been improved but the cross-proxy method that the paper pioneered is the norm now. What modern reconstruction is there that eliminates the hockey stick?
  2. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    So Mann became an internationally acclaimed hero for producing a hockey stick graph for the 2001 IPCC report that eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and showed an unprecedented 20th century rise in temperature; then McIntyre claimed at climate denial conferences that Mann was wrong to eliminate the MWP and LIA, which amounted to industry funded defamation. But McIntyre and the denialists who paid his travel expenses didn't know what they were talking about. Have I got it now? But hang on a minute - hasn't the MWP and LIA reappeared in subsequent IPCC reports?
    Moderator Response: The Medieval Warm Period is discussed in the Skeptical Science argument "Medieval Warm Period was warmer." The Little Ice Age is discussed in "We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age." Please read both of those posts to learn, before you comment more. And consider that perhaps your comments are more relevant to those threads than this one.
  3. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    It appears our friends at Republicans for Environmental Protection don't have much clout in the Republican-led House of Representatives. How bad was 2011 for America’s wildlife, air, water, land and public health? After taking 191 anti-conservation votes, even the House of Representatives’ own members called it ”the most anti-environment House in the history of Congress.” Non US readers may have heard that the Democratic Party controls the US Senate. Indeed, there is a slight Democratic majority; however, the peculiar rules of that august body require 60 votes out of 100 (rather than a simple majority) to get just about anything done. Since most Republican Senators vote 'nyet' as a bloc, nothing gets done. It may not be a good system, but its the only one we've got. Nah, its not a good system.
  4. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    pirate#16, Let us not forget that Jeff Masters names 2011 "The Year of the Tornado". For slight trends, I'll see your 'slight downward trend' with this slight upwards trend: -- source Masters, above As far as "humans have adapted to better survive these extreme weather events," if you call better building codes adaptation, I suppose so. An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. Building codes? That's a form of government regulation. Can't have that.
  5. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Tom Curtis at 11:34 AM on 31 December, 2011 caerbannog @12, would you please write that comment up as an article that can be posted on SkS. Ideally you should have two versions. Got a bit of a full plate right now, but will get started on putting together an article when I find some free time (hopefully within the next couple of weeks or so).
    Moderator Response: It might be better as a modification of the existing "Hockey stick is broken." A mention in the Basic version, an expansion in the Intermediate section, and the full expansion in the Advanced version. (Only the Basic version exists right now, so other authors could pitch in to add the material other than yours for the two new versions.)
  6. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    peacetracker - proxies that are records of local temperature have to be treated as just that. Getting a worldwide temperature has to involve multiple proxies rather like trying to construct GISS from an extremely limited no. of stations. There are some global indicators however - eg oxygen isotopes from seawater organisms reflect the amount of global ice. However time resolution isnt much good for small wiggles like MCA,LIA. However, there are non-quantitative proxies (like glacial advance or retreat) that help indicate whether a proxy is likely to valid for a large region. The importance of paleoclimate is to constrain and test models. If the models are correctly reflecting real physics then estimated forcings acting at the time (which often have to be determined from another kind of proxy) should be compatiable with temperature proxies at the same time.
  7. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    A Rocha is active in NZ with a no-nonsense approach to climate change as this. Backed by evangelical luminaries like John Stott and Eugene Peterson.
  8. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    A massive tornado outbreak between April 25 and 28 of this year (2011) spanned five states in the southeastern United States. The deadliest day was on April 27, when 122 tornadoes killed 316 people across parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia. Fifteen of the reported tornadoes were deemed “violent,” meaning they ranked 4 or 5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. This outbreak is the third deadliest in U.S. history, and it contributed to 2011 being tied as the second deadliest tornado year on record. In addition to the death toll, more than 2,400 people were injured and the area experienced more than $4.2 billion in property loss. Source: “NOAA's National Weather Service completes assessment of historic tornado outbreak - 2011 tied as second deadliest tornado year in U.S. history”, NOAA News Release, Dec 20, 2011 To access the complete NOAA news release, click here.
  9. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Pirate - So according to the second graph (US tornado deaths) and your reasoning, US citizens in the early 1990's were more advanced, had increased knowledge and better construction techniques than the 'noughties?' Do you have links to any studies that support your claim? I don't doubt that it is partially right, but intuition is hardly science. As for rating of tornado strength. Peer-reviewed studies have looked at the record and found it pretty unreliable. Can you inform us how tornadoes have been categorized over time?
  10. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    What makes dealing with climate change so difficult (for Americans)? "Nobody wants to feel bad about the future. Everybody wants to be hopeful." The nation was settled by "insanely hopeful immigrants," Otto said, and Americans still have a strong sense of opportunity, including the idea that hard work pays off and that people get what they deserve. "It doesn't mean that we're bad or stupid. It just means that it's just hard. It's hard to get our minds around and embrace, because it means maybe we've screwed up somehow and nobody wants to feel that way. But the great thing about Americans is that because of that hopefulness, once we get through this painful process of self-reflection ... then we really kick it in and we can solve problems like nobody else." -- Shawn Lawrence Otto Source: Book* examines America's turn from science, warns of danger for democracy,” McLatchy Newspapers, Dec 27, 2011 * "Fool me twice: Fighting the assault on science in America" by Shawn Lawrence Otto.
  11. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    This short but compelling video is an excellent retrospective of how a great and passionate climate science communicator lived his live – not afraid to take the hard issues head on. I remember well his close encounter with a TV studio full of climate “skeptics”, and their myths. The video also shows the comparatively level-headed approach Stephen Schneider took to the issue of greenhouse gas forced climate change. This is encapsulated in his own words: “The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes”. But he had no doubts about the urgency and depth of response required because things are only relative; the end of our world would be having our day-to-day support systems severely disrupted, and that’s what a few degrees increase in global temperatures would do. You can be absolutely certain a rapidly warming world will not be good for us, or the earth’s relatively stable ecosystems. Thanks Stephen, and may your life’s work progress apace.
  12. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Dawsonjg, You are incorrect when you claim "McIntyre's work that discredited the hockey stick". Mann's work has been reproduced and validated by numerous independent groups. Mann himself has updated the original graph several times. McIntyre's work is the material that has not stood the test of time (see 27 in this thread).
  13. apiratelooksat50 at 08:09 AM on 1 January 2012
    2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    The first few paragraphs were plainly written to garner an emotional response. While there is a possibility that one day these weather events in 2011 and other years may be conclusively linked to climate change (whether anthropogenic or not), articles like this reek of alarmism. Sure, the tornado season was extremely active and "tore apart towns", but that is what tornados do. I live in the South and personally have seen the devastation that these forces of natures create. Certainly, 2011 was a record year, but that record year will not alter the slight downward trend of "Strong to Violent" tornados since 1950 as shown in this graph from NOAA. Also, as human populations grow, and towns therefor grow, it becomes more probable that tornados are going to hit "something that matters". But, thanks to the advancement of technology, increased knowledge and improved construction, humans have adapted to better survive these extreme weather events as shown in the graph below. An active extreme event year in weather related disaster no more indicates AGW than a year with few weather related disasters indicates the opposite.
  14. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    ydijkstra, Are you saying that warming temps don't cause thermal expansion and melting Greenland and Glacier ice do not add to sea level? Or are you suggesting that these things are not happening? I do not know the relative volumes for all that flooding compared to how it should effect sea level, but it seems at least plausible to me that it could cause a short term decrease in global sea level. I assume that it would impact the areas around the flooding the most but I wonder if anyone here has more info.
    Moderator Response: [JH] Contrary to popular opnion, sea level rise is not spread uniformly throughout the world's ocean system. See SkS post, “Thinning on top and bulging at the waist: symptoms of an ailing planet.”
  15. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    The Wikipedia entry on the Hockey Stick controversy is worth reading. Hockey Stick There were TWO congressional investigations, one at the request of Congressman Sherwood Boehlert(R) of the Science Committee. It was chaired by Professor Gerald North of Texas A&M. The report was critical of some of the methods used by Mann and his colleagues, but in the main supported the conclusions. However, this report seems to have been deemed insufficiently critical in some quarters. A second Congressman, Joe Barton (R) of the Energy Committee requested another report, chaired by a group under Professor Edwward Wegman of George Mason University. The subsequent history of the Wegman Report is well known - the part of it published in Computational Statistics was subsequently withdrawn for plagiarism. Opinion is that it is a thinly-disguised rehash of McIntyre and McKittrick's earlier papers, leavened with material taken from Wikipedia (among other sources). The Wegman Report went ahead over the objections of Congressman Boehlert who wrote to Barton that the second investigation was "misguided and illegitimate". Subsequently, Boehlert retired - after the Republican victory in 2010, the Science Committee of Congress was amalmagated with the Energy Committee under Congressman Barton. Joe Barton is notorious for apologising to BP for the obloquy the company received over the Gulf Oil spill. How Congressional staffers, the Wall Street Journal, and Wegman collaborated to disseminate MacIntyre's ideas and morph him into a "science superstar" (to whom?) can be found on several blogs. Here is a good start: Climate Science Watch
  16. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    @ fydijkstra #13: Context is everything. Here's the entire paragraph about sea level rise. "Satellite measurements of sea level show a rise of +3.2 mm/year, an acceleration of about 90% from last century's average (Church & White, 2006). Last year NASA reported a 'pothole on the road to higher seas', where it rained so hard that the seas fell. This couldn't continue forever (Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Colombia surely didn't want it to last any longer), and as the oceans have warmed, floodwater has filtered back to the oceans and ice has continued to melt in 2011, sea levels rose once again." Nice try, but no cigar!
  17. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Your link "suggest moving the capital" second paragraph repeats the link"record-breaking snowmelt" in the 1st paragraph. You may have wanted this one: suggest moving the capital" Noel
  18. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Church and White ar very outdated as far as the supposed acceleration of the sea level rise is considered. Unbiased examination of the Colorado data shows, that - contrary to popular belief - the rate of rise of the sea level has decreased. Of course it is possible to draw a straight line with a positive slope for the period 1992-2011. But with a more sophisticated analysis it can be shown, that - despite the high noise in the data - there has been a significant decrease in the rate of rise: 2001-2005: average rise 4.22 mm/year, standard deviation 4.87, 179 data points, 2006-2010: average rise 1.84 mm/year, standard deviation 5.522, 179 data points. A simple statistic test shows that this difference is significant. This is still a very elementary approach. Non-linear trend analysis (for instance with help of the LOESS-function) confirms this conclusion, and shows that there is a continuous decrease of the rate of sea level rise, having reached a complete standstill in the last 2 years. There is no accelaration of the sea level rise at all. Denying this fact is the real climate change denial!
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] Check out:Sea level fell in 2010. This is your problem:

    Given that 2011 was still in the grip of La Nina, and therefore a lot more rainfall occurring over the major land basins, the "pothole"is hardly surprising.

    And note the latest from AVISO:

    Since the huge El Nino of 1997-98 saw a massive surge in sea level rise of 20mm, it's not unreasonable to expect things will be back on track with the next El Nino. So please no more ironic comments about denial.
  19. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Rob, (#4) Glad to hear that. I've seen some critiques of that communication that struck me as an abuse of statistics. Yeah, there was the dust bowl in the US in the time period prior to the baseline chosen by Hansen, but I don't know how extreme the actual heat wave was or how many other events around the world happened in close proximity chronologically. I'm guessing some of these are being addressed already, but just in case, and if there is time for it, I'd be eager to see something succinct on them. A bit of laziness or my part perhaps, but I don't see any need to reinvent the wheel, and as I've gotten older, I've learned that carpenters are generally better at carpentry than I am.
  20. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    If the MWP is thought to be regional then I assume the data must just be specific to certain regions and therefore not truly representative of global temperature. Is this the case only with The MWP or does this apply throughout the temperature record as regards the proxy data? Just wondering.
  21. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    OK, I've posted a response on Real Climate. In looking at the 'Box et al 2009' paper I notice that the Western side of Greenland (which, surprise, surprise, is where Nuuk is situated) has experienced regular volcanic-related cooling episodes; which appears to be the attraction for Mr Goddard. I also came across this recent 'ice update' which I guess people will probably have already seen.
  22. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    Rather than speculate on what motivates many Christian Fundamentalists in the US to reject what the scientific community is telling us about manmade climate change, why not read what they have to say in their own words. The best place to start this learning process is the website of the Cornwall Alliance In their own words: “The Cornwell Alliance is a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. The Cornwall Alliance fully supports the principles espoused in the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, and is seeking to promote those principles in the discussion of various public policy issues including population and poverty, food, energy, water, endangered species, habitat, and other related topics.” The Cornwell Alliance’s “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” is particularly telling. Do organizations like the Cornwell Alliance exist in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, elsewhere?
  23. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    John Russell: see this prior Greenland thread, where the very same cherrypick was made by the very same cherrypicker.
  24. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    Thanks, Tom. Actually the cherry-picking of just Nuuk was one of the points I was originally going to make but then decided, for the sake of simplicity, to concentrate on the fact he started his cherry pick in 1930 when there was already 50 years of (warming) data by that date. Anyway now to compose a response while you have a well-earned rest.
  25. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    ("access" should be "axis". Sorry, these things happen at 3:40 AM.)
  26. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    John Russel @35, I refer you to my previous discussion of this topic. A key point is why is Goddard using a purely local temperature as representative of the whole island of Greenland. He knows that there have been two peer reviewed reconstructions of Greenland average temperatures (of which the most recent is Box et (2009), and knows also that if he used a different station it would show a different pattern: Indeed, of the stations in Greenland with long records, Nuuk shows one of the lowest overall trends, and I'm sure he knows that too. Even more telling, why is he using just one station to represent global temperatures in a comparison of the effects of CO2 on global warming. One station is not a global average, and it is global average temperatures that rise with increasing CO2. Individual stations can be dominated by local or regional factors and show all sorts of trends. Indeed, according to the BEST project, one third of all stations show a negative trend, in a data set for which the global land area average shows as strong a trend as GISS. Frankly I am getting sick of the smoke and mirrors game of the fake skeptics. I am told by a wise person never to attribute to dishonesty what can be attributed to stupidity, but frankly, the fake skeptics are not that stupid. Anyway, for more station data, go to this page and click on the map of Greenland to bring up a list of the nearest geographical sites (not all in Greenland). If you click on a particular site, in the lower left corner you have the option of text data which is where Goddard gets his station data. The CO2 data is probably Mauna Loa plus an Antarctic Ice Core. The real question is again, not where he got that data, but why won't he show the equivalent plot for global data: (Note, the vertical access shows CO2 increase above the preindustrial average) Oh, that's right. Because he's not that stupid.
  27. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Longer term trend in UK, at least, seems flat to getting cooler, however, but remains above long term average. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/
  28. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    "rdr95 @47 as absurd as some trends in post modernism are, they are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is a fundamentalist brand of Christianity that is very common in the United States.." Perhaps, but I suspect that the increase in such fundamentalist beliefs would correlate with the rise in postmodernist philosphy. The ability to dismiss facts underpins fundamentalism; postmodernism supplies that. It also underpins the beliefs of many of the Republican elites, who are not religious fundamentalists at all (but have no problem using fundamentalists for their own ends). Postmodernism is the foundation upon which modern 'conservatism' is based. Fundamentalism is just a handy tool used by these 'conservatives'.
  29. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    Having read a post about Greenland temperatures on the 'Real Science' website, I responded, based on graphs from the NASA GISS website. Steve Goddard has now made a post out of my response called 'A Glimpse Inside the Alarmist Mind' with a graph that appears to show that Nuuk temperatures have been steadily going down while CO2 has been rising. I have no idea where he gets his data (he doesn't say) which seem to contradict data from other websites. I'd be interested in any thoughts which might help my response.
  30. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    John Hartz @31, he may well have, but I have no evidence of it. Further, it would not justify the sort of accusation that dawsonjg wrongly thinks Mann is making.
  31. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Tom Curtis & dasownjg: McIntyre may very well have received stipends and travel expenses for speaking at climate denial conferences.
  32. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    dawsonjg @29 McIntyre's work was part of an intensive campaign, and that campaign has been funded by industry, but Mann does not say that McIntyre himself, or his website have been funded by industry. The fact is that McIntyre has cooperated with scientists who are both active in the campaign against climate science, and are known to have been funded by fossil fuel companies for activities undertaken in that regard. He has also attended and spoken at conferences organized by think tanks again known to be funded by fossil fuel interests. That makes him part of the industry funded campaign even though he is not paid by industry in that capacity. (He was paid by a fossil fuel company in a professional capacity up until 2003, but I know of no evidence to suggest he has been paid for his "work" at Climate Audit.) What is more, McIntyre's claims have certainly been taken up and echoed around by industry funded individuals and organizations. That is all that is needed for Mann's specific claim to be true. His claim is, ergo, not defamatory for it is true. If you think it reflects poorly on McIntyre, well you are certainly welcome to that opinion.
  33. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Thank you Barry for taking the time to adress my question, but I can't have made it clear. Mann and the above article imply that McIntyre's work that discredited the hockey stick was part of “an intense campaign of defamation, essentially financed by industry”, i.e. that McIntyre was being funded to come up with a way of defaming Mann et al. That is quite a (defaming) accusation. I just want to know what it is based on. We know who was paying Mann to do his work, can anyone tell me which industry vested interest was paying McIntyre to do his?
  34. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    UK experiences 2nd warmest year on record:- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/december-and-annual-statistics
  35. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    tonyabalone@7 The article from "The Australian" newspaper titled "Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth" is online.
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] No more comments about Plimer here thanks. Try the Plimer vs Plimer thread.
  36. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    tonyabalone @7 no such luck. The Australian published a similarly devastating review of "Heaven and Earth", but that has not stopped them from publishing his articles in opinion pages, and citing him as an expert in their news articles. Therefore I expect no change in their editorial policy or practice.
  37. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Here in Australia the only national newspaper,"The Australian" has published a devastating article in today's edition (31 December)titled "Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth". The article by Mike Sanford, professor of geology at University of Melbourne takes Ian Plimmer apart and shows Plimmer's errors and misinformation such as Plimmer claiming that volcanoes contribute much more carbon dioxide than human activity or his recent declaration that Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels were higher in 1900 (330 ppm) than Mauna Lau Hawaiian measurements in 1960 (260 ppm). The Australian is a Murdoch paper that,in the main, has run a global warming skepticism/denial campaign and it has given far too much paper space to deniers such as Monckton, Carter and Plimmer. Hopefully the publishing of today's article is an indication that the editorial staff are starting to get the message that misinformation by the likes of Plimmer will not be tolerated.
  38. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    it seems that there are some things overlooked at the US-Rep's homepage (to put it clear: I am NOT a Republican, I am from Europe and quite in opposition to the standpoint of the US-Reps, however: Justice must be!) therefore: another piece of evidence ... :) http://www.rep.org/opinions/weblog.html here they analyse the World War II start of infrared investigation - very interesting - politically...
  39. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    Communicating Climate change: http://vimeo.com/33298236 at this years AGU-Fallmeeting Susan Hassol showed a way of doing ... quite interesting... and with BEST it seems there are things crumbling ...
  40. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    @25, that's a fair question. For me it's largely interesting because I want to understand why AGW-deniers find it so compelling. Why are they putting so many of their eggs into this basket? In addition, because of their focus on it, it's always topical. Whether it's Cuccinelli or AFP, the media plays as though some kind of trump card over the science could be found by someone digging through email. People who know anything about science know there is no such card. But when I talk to someone skeptical of science, and they refer vaguely to any number of supposed scandals involving Mann, I would like to know better than they do the history of the complaints they're trying to echo. I would go look at McIntyre's website for a history, but there's a lot of chaff to separate and, besides,as @8 suggests, McIntyre's story has changed and he might not be reliable even at summarizing his own claims against Mann et al (both personal and statistical).
  41. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    #26 would you then agree that M&M did make a consequential error by only including two principle components in their reanalysis of the MBH data? Absolutely. M&M failed to apply Mann's singular-value selection algorithm properly to the full-centered data. The fact that they blindly stuck with two principal components with the full-centered approach indicates that they didn't know what they were doing. Even a quick "eyball analysis" of the "full-centered" singular values would tell you (actually *scream* at you) to include more principal components. There are lots of people out there who may be whizzes at crunching data with mathematical tools like matlab/scilab/R/etc., but that doesn't mean that they know how to interpret the results they get.
  42. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    caerbannog @25, given that the red crosses show the full centered SVD, as used by M&M, and given that there is significant information out to at least the fifth Principle Component as shown on your graph, would you then agree that M&M did make a consequential error by only including two principle components in their reanalysis of the MBH data?
  43. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    I do not understand why we continue to discuss the details of Mann 98 and 99 anyway. These papers have been superceded by many other papers that have corrected any supposed mistakes and shown that Mann 98 was correct. The main conclusion is Mann 98 is an example of great work that advanced the science.
  44. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    Regarding religion ... I think the most relevant bit is the problem of acceptance of Evolution. When we find the recipe for allowing Evolution to be taught in science classes without inclusion of religious apologetics and pseudo-scientific 'balance', that will be very informative for getting climate science accepted in the religious right worldview. Both are resisted not because of their facts, but because of the implications linked to those facts. Climate science may have an advantage relative to Evolution in that regard, since the challenge of the implications is a bit less direct. But I fear there are some who are working hellish hours trying to forge those links very strongly in the mindset of the religious right population. A less relevant but maybe more interesting observation about religion is the success of evangelical protestantism. I've never studied this stuff with any rigour, but a friend explained to me that it's quite 'capitalistic'. Nobody has been granted superior access to God (there's no Pope). Instead there are multiple interpretations (competitive market), and the interpretation that sells best (superior product for price) should be the one that receives more investment (belief). That is, the market of ideas is controlled by consumer choice. A belief in this system must be associated with a distrust of marketing, or at least a belief that marketing is a poor determinant of which ideas succeed. Most important is the match of a product with what feels right in the heart. Think about what this means for climate science! How we market science (facts, education, expert knowledge [high priests in ivory towers], abstraction from implications) is not going to work. What works for these people is gut-feeling, participatory empowerment, and .... I'm not sure what else. What else?! In any case, every time we hear the twin complaints: "there is no consensus; science isn't about consensus" lines, I suspect they have deeper meaning than a scientist at first would sense. Both are losing arguments in communication of the science with the evangelical right; what's needed is an appeal to something that satisfies them spiritually or brings them some form of happiness. Otherwise they ain't buyin'.
  45. UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 2 - Of Cherries and Volcanoes
    “Wow – Christy’s Global Warming Skepticism is Evolving,” by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg contains a graph by John Abraham showing an upward trend in John Christy‘s published conclusions about the rate of climate change in the troposphere.
  46. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Clarification: Out of a bit of sloppiness, I used "singular values" and "eigenvalues" interchangeably in my above post. As far as Mann's application of the SVD procedure is concerned, they represent basically the same thing (eigenvalues are just singular-values squared).
  47. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    caerbannog, are the red crosses the singular values for McIntyre and McKittrik's own principle component analysis of the data from MBH 98 and 99? The red crosses represent singular values when the data time-series are fully centered to zero-mean. The blue circles are the singular values generated via Mann's "short-centered" SVD implementation. Mann's "short centering" (as opposed to full centering) prior to the SVD calculation was indeed a mistake -- but an inconsequential one. The singular-value thresholding procedure (i.e. the algorithm that Mann used to decide which principal components to retain) ensures that the final results will be the same no matter which centering convention is used. See Mann et al. (or realclimate.org) for details. Apply Mann's thresholding procedure to "short-centered" SVD outputs and it will give you the proper answer as to how many principal components to retain. Apply the same thresholding procedure to "full-centered" SVD outputs, and it will still give you the proper answer as to how many principal components to retain. The bottom line is, no matter which centering convention you use, there is a *huge* (as in night vs. day) difference in the singular-value patterns for tree-ring data vs. random-noise data. Anyone who claims otherwise simply does not know what he/she is talking about. But folks don't need to take my word for it -- there's lots of free software out there that allows you to "roll your own" random-noise hockey-sticks. Do that, compare your full-centered and short-centered random-noise singular values with Mann's tree-ring eigenvalues (both full- and short-centered), and you will see that it is slam-dunk easy to tell the difference between tree-ring data and random-noise data *simply by looking at the singular values*. An excellent software package that has everything you need to do this is SciLab (www.scilab.org). It runs on Linux, OS-X, and Windows platforms. Easy to install, easy to run, not that hard to learn how to write your own script files.
  48. A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
    @52 -- awesome! I hadn't looked there before. That webpage, with the Reagan quote in the top corner, needs to be slipped in to many more blog discussions.
  49. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    There is a new review of Plimer's latest in The Australian by geologist Mike Sandiford. He also has picked up on the many contradictions in Plimer's works, and a few fundamental errors. Well worth the read.
  50. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    dawsonjg, Many of the think tanks that publish anti-climate change screed are financed by big oil and are staffed by people also on the boards of oil companies. Exxon-Mobil is a clear example. You can follow the trail from the think tanks E/M funds/has funded to blog sites like Junkscience.com (via the Cato Institute). Steve Milloy at that blog site and in his column in The Weekly Standardhas smeared plenty of climate scientists, including Michael Mann. ...Just checked in there, and there is a picture of a hockey stick right at the top with some a bumper sticker blurb on the parlous state of intellectual integrity in climate science. A quick search finds such gems as http://junkscience.com/2011/12/06/steven-hayward-responds-to-mann/
    ....I refer to Michael “hockey stick” Mann as the Fredo of the climate mafia, because of his endless bluster and the obvious embarrassment he brings to his fellow scientists.... At this point it is difficult to tell if Mann is simply delusional, or a deliberate liar.
    But it's very easy to find links/details/evidence to this and many other examples with some ordinary search terms on google. So I wonder dawsonjg if your question was argumentative rather than genuine?

Prev  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  1352  1353  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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