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  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  Next

Comments 69701 to 69750:

  1. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    As part of my job, I help people prepare to lead or participate in public meetings or in press interviews. One of the things we talk about with them is "splenetics" -- in our definition these are people who, no matter what you say, will disagree and try to stop you or block you from having an honest debate or rally others to prevent consensus. We always demonstrate to them that how you deal with a "splenetic" person has a heavy influence on the fence-sitters or middle-of-the-road people. Ask a person to get out or have one of your staff pull them to a side bar and the crowd becomes suspicious and supportive of them. Absorb their wild opinions, personal insults or distorted facts while deflecting their hostility to you back to the facts of the situation, and eventually the group will police them up for you. (This is sort of what Mr. Gore was hinting at when he said to handle climate deniers as you would a racist person, by deflecting their hatred back to facts/reality/consensus, but that attempt to communicate backfired for him as it was sent through the media filter. Whoever advised him to inject racism into a talking point should be given office coffee pot duty for a year.) I don't know if this would help in the AGW communication efforts, but it is a great techique for group discussions or panels when someone attempts to wrench the works.
  2. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    pirate: "saying they are anti-science is the same. It is all politics which should never be confused with science." No one here is confused. Look here for choice examples of anti-science positions.
  3. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Figure 2 y-axis seems incorrectly labeled -- anomalies are not in the 10M sq km range.
    Response:

    [dana1981] You're right, that should say "extent", not "anomaly".  I'll correct that tonight.

  4. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    @skept.fr #47: Thank you for the link to Sven Teske's paper, "Energy [R]evolution vs. IEA World Energy Outlook scenario 2011." To provide context for others following this discussion, Sven Teske is the senior energy expert Greenpeace International. Greenpeace, the German Space Agency (DLR), and the European Renewable Energy Council joined forces in 2007 to produce global, regional, and national “Energy [R]evolution scenarios”. Each dives deep into an entity’s current energy demand and supply structure and develops a renewable energy strategy, unfolding in 10 year steps up to 2050. As documented in the paper cited above, Teske has been highly critical of the World Energy Outlook scenarios generated in recent years by the IEA. In addition, as evidenced by the following quote, Teske is highly critical of the IEA. “IEA has been driven by political agendas to keep a prominent role of nuclear power and CO2-capturing coal power plants in its scenarios, despite their obvious failure to deliver against false expectations. Although since past four or five years, each new WEO edition somewhat increases its projections for renewables and downscales its projections for “false hope technologies” such as CCS and nuclear, it still plays the tune of unrealistic nuclear growth scenarios and unjustified horror scenarios of increased costs and greenhouse gas emissions in the case of a nuclear phaseouts”, says Sven Teske, senior energy expert Greenpeace International.
  5. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    apirate claims:
    "saying [Republican politicians] are anti-science is [disingenuous and inaccurate]."
    Actually it's factually accurate, as we have demonstrated repeatedly (see the above post and the links therein). Would you care to defend your false assertion that they are not anti-science, considering that for example, they voted to deny that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for public health and welfare"?
  6. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    pirate @40: 1) The wording of the act prevents any volume limit being placed on how much tomato paste or puree must be included before a meal can be considered a vegetable meal. Include a drop of tomato paste in your hotdog recipe, and hey presto!, the hotdog counts as a vegetable meal. The act is obviously absurd on that basis. 2) The whole act is obviously a compromise between many competing interests. The question, then, is not how voted for the overall compromise package (in committee stage or in Congress) but who put the amendment into the bill in the committee stage? Was it Democrats or Republicans who insisted that they would not pass key legislation unless pizza was counted as a vegetable meal and federal money was used to feed school children excessively salty chips. If the answer to that question is not a Democrat, then all your defense of a shabby deed is revealed as so much squidding (the production of clouds of ink for concealment).
    Response:

    [DB] And let that stand as the final say on tomato sauce on this memorable thread.  Anyone else is interested, they will have to submit a guest post on the topic.  The tomato sauce/pizza-is-a-vegetable goalpost shift diversion is now OT.

  7. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    GENEVA — Global warming gases have hit record levels in the world’s atmosphere, with concentrations of carbon dioxide up 39 percent since the start of the industrial era in 1750, the U.N. weather agency said Monday. The new figures for 2010 from the World Meteorological Organization show that CO2 levels are now at 389 parts per million, up from about 280 parts per million a quarter-millenium ago. The levels are significant because the gases trap heat in the atmosphere. WMO Deputy Secretary-General Jeremiah Lengoasa said CO2 emissions are to blame for about four-fifths of the rise. But he noted the lag between what gets pumped into the atmosphere and its effect on climate. Source: “UN: Global concentrations of carbon dioxide at record level, exceed worst-case projections” Washington Post, Nov 21, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
  8. apiratelooksat50 at 03:13 AM on 22 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Dana @ 37 No matter how you word it, you still can't get around the fact that Democrats did not attend the briefing, either. Trying to do so is nothing more than a double standard. Congress actually did not vote pizza to be a vegetable. These links here and here provide a pretty good explanation of what happened. The bill was part of a larger budget cutting measure that both Republicans and Democrats participated in. The actual language in the bill that somehow got transformed into pizza is a vegetable was "(1) requires crediting of tomato paste and puree based on volume;". The link to the actual bill is here. Between the Senate and the House there were 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats on the Committees that approved the language in the Bill before it was submitted for voting. I don't disagree that pizza loaded with salty, fatty meats and cheeses can be unhealthy. But, tomato based products are generally healthy. The articles I linked to do a good job of explaining the reasoning behind the decision. I see daily what horrible diets our schoolkids have, but what they eat here is generally better than what they get at home. We do what we can with limited budgets and provide breakfast and lunch with healthy alternatives, but the kids shy away from them. Regardless, saying that Republicans voted pizza a vegetable is disingenuous and inaccurate. Just as saying they are anti-science is the same. It is all politics which should never be confused with science. What any politician votes for can be very different from what they believe/know. It is all about getting the vote, which is why you see several of the Republicans have changed their public stance on AGW.
    Response:

    [DB] "No matter how you word it, you still can't get around the fact that Democrats did not attend the briefing, either."

    No matter how you word it, the inescapable fact is that an infinitely higher percentage of Democrats attended the briefing vs. Republicans (0).  But that is sophistry, like your rhetoric about tomato sauce.

    "It is all about getting the vote, which is why you see several of the Republicans have changed their public stance on AGW."

    Like Romney's flip-flopping to "curry" backing, perhaps?

    Enough with the sauce; please focus on substantive issues directly related to the OP.

  9. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    John : here it is (pdf), not a "scientific" link (but Teske is a scientist of course, and lead author of IPCC SREN 2001). For the quote, Teske wrote in this document (p. 1) : "Both, the 550ppm and the 450ppm [IEA] scenario end in 2035 – for long term climate impacts the projection must go to 2050 at least." I agree with Teske on that, also on other arguments like the quite unrealistic (or very unlikely) case for CCS in IEA Scenario.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] CCS=carbon capture and storage
  10. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    This is a great series. I'm looking forward to the manual at the end of it. It's amazing how the internet allows for interaction and development of ideas among people that would never otherwise meet. The SkS team and website are a great example of that.
  11. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Hartz #44 : unfortunately, Sumaila paper on fisheries is not for free. It would have been an interesting example for a discussion on following questions : what are the (present and future) costs of AGW on fisheries? How does it compare (and potentialize) with overfishing, pollution, habitat degradation costs? What do we know about tipping points that could change a decreasing slope of productivity to an eventual disrupting one? What are the results for scenarios with different options for mitigation and adaptation (or for that purpose different levels of GW/preindustrial, 1,5 K, 2 K, 2,5 K, 3 K)? What are the options for global level of fisheries production projected in the future? Which energy sources can support a given level of production and with which realistic intensity at a given year in the future? We agree it's time for action, but that does not mean every action is wise nor every objective reachable. Grossly put, we can imagine reforms that rapidly (one or two decades) decrease CO2 emission by 20% or something like that. But the real difficulty is probably to maintain the slope, and to decrease further by 40%, 60%... Sven Teske (scientific coordinator of the scenario [r]Evolution) has criticized the IEA scenario on this point : 2030-2035 is a too short projection, we need to know if at least the scenario has realistic options for 2050 (on billion human more), and after that for long term stabilization at 450 ppm (or even decrease to 350 ppm as some researchers think it would be necessary).
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Please provide a a citation/link to Teske's analysis.
  12. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Look, Most scientists and Engineers are lousy teachers because they cannot connect easily with the public. That has always been a problem with all campaigns to inform the public. We need sites like this to help us find a common, simple to understand language. Who of us roll our eyes in disgust when we try to read a legal document (e.g. a contract). People can easily turn against something they do not understand (science). We are on to something here... Keep inquiring. Keep up the good work. - Peace and prosperity
  13. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    TIS wrote: "I am not all that impressed by Spencer's cloud theory, but I am also not impressed with Mann's tree ring work." Why? Spencer's cloud 'theory' (note: it is not a scientific theory) is contradicted by numerous studies and predicated on demonstrably false assumptions. Mann's 'tree ring work' has been confirmed by multiple studies using many different methods. So we've got two things which both still have some uncertainties, but one is contradicted by all available evidence while the other is confirmed by it... yet you are equating the two. That is not a balanced fact based position. Ditto your claims that 'SkS and Watts are both nasty'. These are false equivalencies. In reality there is no comparison. That you see these things as being equal can only mean that you've got your thumb resting very heavily on one side of the scales.
  14. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    @The Inconvenient Skeptic I do value the conversations we've had over recent months and that we share a common interest. To the untrained eye you come across as having a reasonable argument, however to the trained eye it is obvious that you are bending over backwards to ignore a massive body of evidence that we are having a negative impact through the combustion of fossil fuels. That makes you a tad disingenuous. If I thought the people behind SkS were anything other than sincere in portraying an honest and balanced view of the science then I wouldn't be here. I think I can safely state that everyone at SkS would be absolutely thrilled and relieved if a bunch of skeptics could formulate a convincing, coherent and evidenced based rebuttal to AGW. We'd all rather be spending the rest of our lives doing somehting more constructive than playing whack-a-mole in a faux debate.
  15. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    I have a little extra time this week. I will see if I can help out Tom and Muoncounter. Please read their comments. Norman: You say "Unless you believe that the overall summer temps are much more variable in South Dakota than Texas, then the temp above average will indicate the standard deviations past the mean". With this comment you claim that Hansen has done the calculation wrong. You must provide data to support your wild claim that Hansen calculated the standard deviation wrong. Since Hansen has provided all his data on line, the procedure for making the calculation, and no-one else has claimed he has done the calculation wrong, I presume he did the calculation correctly. Hansen has posted his entire data set on the web at GISS. You say "I do not have enough time to generate 100 graphs to determine the summer standard deviations for Texas and South Dakota." If you are incapable of doing the calculations required to support your argument (which can be done on an excell spread sheet. If you are good with excell [like Hansen] you could do the entire USA at once.), you need to stop arguing. Your entire argument is that your eyeball is better than Hansens calculations. By my eyeball the very hot area is similar, which is confirmed by calculations. The Extremely Hot areas do not show up on the anomaly graph you are using so it is impossible to eyeball them as you attempt to do. To Tom and Muoncounter I will only add that Texas is much bigger than South Dakota and it is possible for most of the state to have a higher anomaly than SD and still have a lower average. Your claim to provide data on standard deviations by eyeballing anomalies is still absurd, even with state by state data (Hansen used a 250 km radius). I can eat watermellons forever and still not know what an orange tastes like.
  16. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    john, reading this makes me feel like an idiot. KISS indeed. i'm certainly going to change the way i communicate climate science because of this.
  17. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    bit_pattern#5 May I suggest reading "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway, which has been recommended here in the past.
  18. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    TIS...
    There is little difference between the treatment that SkS gives Spencer and Lindzen and the treatment that Mann and Hansen get at Watts.
    Seriously? Here are SkSs 'attacks' on Spencer which, seems to me, are purely regarding the science. Here is a link to something discussing McIntyre & Watts latest attack on Mann. IMHO, not only is this more than a 'little difference' - but, I'd suggest, anyone should want to distance them selves from the latter.
  19. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    TIS - so what examples do have of Mann misrepresenting science outside the published journals? Do you think Spenser, Lindzen and Christy would say what they do to an audience of their peers? If a "skeptic" wants some constructive dialogue then start by publishing some reasonable science - in fact that does go on - it just get refuted in other published papers. However, I cannot see how you can constructive dialog with someone who is willing to misrepresent the truth to a non-technical audience.
  20. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    This video just made Astronomy Picture of the Day for 21st November. APOD's a good place to be stunned by great astonomy images and waste large chunks of your day!
  21. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    TIS: I see you're not actually willing to provide evidence to support your assertions, as requested by Daniel Bailey @23. "I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from the warmist scientific point of view." There, fixed it for you. Funny you should resort to calling names in the same post as complaining about name-calling. That you compare this site to WUWT in terms of content and treatment speaks volumes about your ability to think critically, or discern abuse from scientific criticism. Spencer, Christy and Lindzen have made a great many errors, slip-ups, crocks and presented a good number of illusions too. Some articles here call them on that. 'Constructive dialogue' can only start when these people stop misinforming the public about the science of climate change, using all sorts of tired myths. Nobody has presented a scientific case as to why Mann is wrong, and his work has been repeatedly independently verified - do you condone the unjustified abuse heaped upon him at WUWT and elsewhere? Skeptics perpetually fail to understand the consequences of Mann being wrong: that this would mean climate sensitivity is even higher than previously thought! Oops. By the way, the day that a climate skeptic procides a sound scientific case for any of "CO2 isn't the main driver of global warming", "Warming isn't having negative consequences for food production, severe weather, coastal communities etc", "the oceans are not acidifying or sea level rising", then I will break out the champagne, I'd love to be wrong. But I need a sound science case for it, not all the mutually incompatible and easily-debunked myths that seem to be the best the skeptics can come up with. Despite the fact that the big hydrocarbon producers could easily fund just about any scientific study they liked, from Antarctica to the Marianas Trench, with their loose change, not to mention their logistical capabilities, and thus scientifically demonstrate that their product is not polluting the atmosphere, they haven't managed to do so. Inconvenient?
  22. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 16:21 PM on 21 November 2011
    The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    I have taken great efforts to compliment Steve on a well put together series of articles that do a good job explaining the Eemian to the layperson. Most of what I wrote in #12 was a technical response to the article with a final bit as to why I like the series of articles. It's honest approach to the science is appreciated. Please note that I was complimentary to Steve and the series of articles. Most people are not responding to the technical points I brought up, but the tiny add-on that explains why I like the series of articles. I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from the warmist point of view. As a concept I fully support that purpose. This series of articles is an exemplary example of that type of article. However, having sections of the website named; Lindzen Illusions, Spencer Slip-Ups, Christy Rocks and so forth is name calling. I am not all that impressed by Spencer's cloud theory, but I am also not impressed with Mann's tree ring work. Constructive dialog is not started by articles titled in such a manner. There is little difference between the treatment that SkS gives Spencer and Lindzen and the treatment that Mann and Hansen get at Watts.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please do not try to play the innocent. The response you are now receiving is due to your unwarranted criticism of this site at #18. If you are distressed by name-calling and interested only in constructive dialog, presumably you object to such phrases as 'desperate ploy,' 'really bad science,' 'hurricane stupidity,' 'fear and misinformation,' etc; all from your website.
    Please confine your future commentary to issues of science; unsubstantiated criticism of the people who post on this site will be snipped or deleted wholesale.
  23. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    @dana1981 Your focus on defending Republican efforts to categorize pizza as a vegetable dish - aside from itself being utterly ludicrous - only serves to distract from the anti-science stance of the Republican Party that is the point of this post I disagree. I think it reinforces the point that most GOP'ers care more for the pockets of their benefactors (Big Oil/Big Food/Big Agro/Big Tobacc/Big Pharma..etc) than the lives of their kids and grand kids : * pizza is a vegetable * tobacco is good for you * drill baby drill with no regulations to check for spillage/polution * CO2 is good for you in large quantities * Generics are bad and many many many more examples...
  24. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Doug#3. You seem like a reasonable person to me!! And you say you are not a scientist. Well you do have the capacity to become one, given your logical analysis and understanding that one should first question their own results over and over and over until fully satisfied of their truth. Why would you think I was referring to you?? Unless you are part of the minority group that spreads disinformation and false myths to manipulate the honest truth seeking people that try to make sense of the whole complex thing.
  25. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Arkadiusz #7, you are once again caught trying to misrepresent the data presented in a paper. You're ignoring the assessment of errors and the transfer functions associated with the relevant proxies, and the assessment of the authors of Rundgren et al 2005. They talk of rapid CO2 oscillations of ~40ppm, while you inflate this to 190ppm by using the maximal ends of their error bars (and inflating one ened by 10ppm too). The assessment of Rundgren et al is in fine agreement with the mention of CO2 in this article, being between ~250 and ~300ppm, just as mentioned in the article above. I caught you misrepresenting the CO2 measurements of a paper in this article, so this seems to be a habit of yours. Did you think nobody would read the paper and check your statements?
  26. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Climate change effect on release of CO2 from peat far greater than assumed Drought causes peat to release far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than has previously been realised. Much of the world's peatlands lie in regions predicted to experience increased frequency and severity of drought as a result of climate change- leading to the peat drying out and releasing vast stores of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It's the very wetness of the peat that has kept the air out, locking in centuries of carbon dioxide that would normally be released from the decomposing plant materials in the peat. Now scientists at Bangor University have discovered that the effect of periods of severe drought lasts far beyond the initial drought itself. Writing in Nature Geosciences (doi 10.1038 NGEO1323), Dr Nathalie Fenner and Professor Chris Freeman of Bangor University explain how the drought causes an increase in the rate of release of CO2 for possibly as long as a decade. It was originally assumed that most of the CO2 was released from the dry peat. Now scientists realise that the release of CO2 continues, and may even increase, when the peat is re-wetted with the arrival of rain. The carbon is lost to the atmosphere as CO2 and methane and to the waters that drain peatlands as dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Source: “Climate change effect on release of CO2 from peat far greater than assumed” Eureka Alert, Nov 20, 2011 To access the article in its entirety, click here
  27. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    @ muoncounter Deucedly inconvenient, that. One can hardly go placing accusations of pots being black when one has numerous black kettles of one's own. Shades of specks and planks...
  28. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman - I have also ceased to respond to your postings, as they match a repeated pattern: * Focus on single sites, short time periods, etc. * Lack of any statistical basis. * Decrying actual statistics upon the "strength" of your tiny data focus. * Not understanding, reacting to, or incorporating any of the very good advice you have received from people with much better statistical backgrounds than you have evinced. It is clear to me that you are operating from a state of confirmation bias, dismissing willy-nilly any data contrary to your beliefs, and supporting your position with cherry-picked examples of such tiny extent and duration to be laughably irrelevant. A prime example was your search through the historic records for extreme weather events, not considering the statistics of how frequently these events occur - an entirely worthless argument when the statistics (frequency of occurrence) are what are being discussed. Until you recognize the need for statistics, and for proper consideration of the greater body of data, your postings will continue to be a rather pointless assertion of your beliefs, lacking numeric support. My apologies for the tone of this post - but you have not shown any ability to learn from the information you have been pointed to. And your postings represent errors that might take in those with no statistic backgrounds; perhaps the only relevance on this forum - they need to be properly dismissed.
  29. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    DB#23: A few minutes on TIS' website reveals quite a lot of name-calling, derision, accusations of fraud, etc. In general, the weaker the argument, the more the need to resort to such tactics.
  30. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    A new study led by University of British Columbia researchers reveals how the effect of climate change can further impact the economic viability of current fisheries practices. "Fisheries are already providing fewer fish and making less money than they could if we curbed overfishing," says Rashid Sumaila, principal investigator of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC and lead author of the study. "We could be earning interest, but instead we're fishing away the capital. Climate change is likely to cause more losses unless we choose to act." Partly supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts, National Geographic, the World Bank and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the study is a broad view of the impact of climate change on fisheries and their profitability. It is published online today in the journal Nature Climate Change. Source: “Effects of climate change to further degrade fisheries resources: UBC researchers” Eureka Alert, Nov 20, 2011 To access the article in its entirety, click here
  31. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman#94: Simply taking the area of a state and assuming all of the state is equally hot or extremely hot is a very flawed methodology. For example, Montana varies in elevation from 1800 ft to 12799 ft ASL; do you think that all of that large state's area was 'record warmest'? Is 'record warmest' the same as 'extremely hot'? Again you have demonstrated the same MO: If you cannot duplicate the work of an expert analysis on the back of an envelope, the experts must be wrong. When was the last time you flew in an airplane - do you try to duplicate the blueprints and schematics before boarding? Do you verify the flight plan? What is there about the possibility that Hansen et al are right that is so disturbing to you?
  32. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    @ The Inconvenient Skeptic
    "Whenever a scientist presents evidence (some is good, some is not) that casts any doubt on Global Warming, then they are savaged."
    Please present evidence of this very much unsupported assertion. That would be the scientific thing to do, to actually have evidence to back up assertions. Right?
    "Many articles on this site are simply attack articles that use derision of the opposition as a tactic."
    IBID. More evidence-free assertions.
    "Name calling is NOT how to encourage a constructive dialog. "
    IBID, Part Deux.
    "there is an equally large number of people who believe in global warming and don't understand anything about the science they are choosing to believe. That you had to reduce the technical content to make it readable is evidence of that. "
    You speak to the whole Raison d'être for Skeptical Science: to communicate the literature of climate science to the layperson...and to debunk the myths and dissemblings of the skeptics and fake-skeptics. You also falsely imply that those who "believe" in (the established fact of) global warming therefore do not understand the science that they are believing (thus equivocating it to belief in religion). Or do you a reference for that implication?
    "When Daniel Bailey (#13) makes his comments about fake skeptics (while not sure if he lumps me into that group) and their abandonment of reason and logic, it is derision. "
    Actually, it is my personal opinion. And it is an assessment of the breakdown of reason and logic on the part of the fake-skeptics, based on their statements and writings. Beyond that, I can't be bothered to take anything personally enough anymore to take the time to foment actual derision. Life's too short and my time is too valuable.
  33. Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
    Greetings from Sydney, Australia. Forget about the Science when it comes to Cardinal Pell, it's all about Australian Federal Politics. Cardinal Pell is closely linked to the Leader of the Federal Opposition Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, a former seminarian, (and nothing wrong with that). Tony Abbott, somewhat devoid on the policy front, has adopted a position of NO to all Labour Government intitiatives, including a Price on Carbon. He also has strong links to big business, mining companies, etc. (you get the drift). Other Opposition Members, such as former leader Malcolm Turnbull, were in favour of a Price on Carbon. Tony Abbott vacillates on AGW, depending on who his audience is at a particular time & place. All about Politics, alas, and nothing about the Science.
  34. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    We will only achieve the target of limiting global warming to safe levels if carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall within the next two decades and eventually decrease to zero. That is the stark message from research by an international team of scientists, led by the University of Exeter, published today (20 November) in the journal Nature Climate Change. The research focuses on the scale of carbon emission reduction needed to keep future global warming at no more than two degrees Celsius over average temperatures prior to the Industrial Revolution. This target is now almost universally accepted as a safe limit. The team examined the extent to which carbon emissions should be reduced, how steep this reduction needs to be and how soon we should begin. They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on different assumptions on emissions reduction. They accounted for a likely range of climate sensitivities: the amount of warming for a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The research shows how quickly emissions need to drop in the next few decades. It also highlights how remaining emissions could cause the two-degrees target to be exceeded in the long term, over the next few hundred years. Source: “Limited options for meeting 2°C warming target, warn climate change experts” Eureka Alert, Nov 20, 2011 To access the article in its entirety, click here
  35. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Does anyone else feel that the more organised deniers have already synthesised this information for their own nefarious and polar opposite ends of disseminating misinformation?
  36. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Well said Tom #94, To add to poor eyecrometer use, the maps presented by Norman in '86 are in equirectangular (geographic) projection, which vastly exxagerates far northern areas and is definitely unsuitable for eyeballing. On a side note, I wish Hansen would not use it as it can be misleading to the eyeball (even though he has the correct statistical analysis).
  37. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman @95: 1) The variability in temperature increases with higher latitude, so yes, "verall summer temps are much more variable in South Dakota than Texas" unless something very unusual is going on in either North Dakota or Texas. As Texas is coastal, and North Dakota is not, that is another reason to expect greater variability in North Dakota. Why is it that when you gain a little piece of knowledge that appears, with your limited information, to contradict an expert in the subject, that you automatically assume the expert is wrong. It would be wiser, and considerably less arrogant to assume the expert may know some other relevant fact that you don't. 2) To compare with Hansen's graph, you need to use the anomaly over the "period of climatology", ie, 1951-1980. Comparing to the mean of some other period makes it an apples and oranges comparison.
  38. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    So by #95, you're still failing to distinguish anomalies from extremes, despite claiming to know the difference. Well done Norman. And of course you're diverting attention away from the global analysis by Hansen et al which empirically shows you to be wrong on the increase in extreme events. You haven't produced the statistics to support your assertions about the US, which in this case would need to cover all the US, giving # standard deviations from the mean. That's pretty poor, really.
  39. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman, the area of the US that was Hot in 1936 was 92%, compared to 75% in 2011. The area that was Very Hot was 32% in 21936, compared to 25% in 2011. The area which was Extremely Hot was 8% in 1936, compared to 22% in 2011. That is the information you claim to have contradicted. However, in "contradicting" that evidence you have: a) Consistently focused on the contiguous states of the United States, whereas the Hansen data is stated as being for the United States (and hence including Alaska and Hawaii). b) You have persistently focused on temperature anomaly instead of the standard deviation. Hot is defined as > 0.43 standard deviations, Very hot is > 2 standard deviations, and Extremely Hot is > 3 standard deviations. Because temperature varies more at high latitudes than at low, an equivalent variation in anomaly in more northerly states will result in a lower increase in terms of standard deviations compared to the same variation in more southerly states. As the heatwave was in more northerly states than southerly in 1936, and the reverse in 2011, it follows that a simple comparison of anomalies cannot test Hansen's claim in any way. Indeed, that fact makes it more likely that Hansen's claim is correct. That is, to the extent you are showing anything, you are confirming rather than contradicting Hansen. c) Whatever confirmation exists is minimal, however, because neither an anomaly nor a record is a variation measured as a standard deviation. Absent evidence of the standard deviation of temperatures of the various sites, the anomaly information cannot contradict or confirm Hansen's claim. Finally, d) the maps you have shown have all employed a mercartor projection which exagerates the size of northern states relative to southern states. It is absurd, therefore, to think a simple eyeball comparison can tell you which area is larger if they are at all close. So, although you claim to know the difference between an anomaly and a standard deviation, you act as though you don't. Either you do not understand what you think you know, or you are being deliberately deceitful.
  40. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    michael sweet, I did further research on the temperatures above average. Unless you believe that the overall summer temps are much more variable in South Dakota than Texas, then the temp above average will indicate the standard deviations past the mean. (If I can find a long list of summer temps I can actually calculate the standard deviations for the state...The NOAA graphs above list all the states average temps for a given year but I do not have enough time to generate 100 graphs to determine the summer standard deviations for Texas and South Dakota. Using this source. I am able to determine how much above the avearage 1936 and 2011 were for select states. Average South Dakota (this is where the anomaly for 1936 was greatest) summer temp is 69.9 F. In 1936 the average temp was 76.8 F. The departure from the mean was 6.9 F. Texas average summer temp is 81.1 F. In 2011 summer the temperature was 86.7 the departure from the average is 5.6 F (Oklahoma in 2011 was 7.2 F warmer than average while Nebraska was 6.0 F above normal)
  41. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    tanahano @129, can I write to your employer suggesting that he pays you half your current hourly rate on Tuesdays and Thursdays. According to you, that would not represent a pay cut because your maximum dayly pay for any given week will not have been reduced. Or do you only use the statistically absurd definition of warming in which only the maximum is relevant to the trend when trying to deny global warming?
  42. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    michael sweet @ 88, You may no longer respond to my posts. Your claim: "It has been pointed out to you previously on this thread that anomalies and standard deviations are different. If you cannot read the graph, accept that Hansen did it correctly and in 2011 there was twice as much "expremely hot" as there was in 1936. The hot areas were hotter in 2011 than 1936 (although they were similar in extent), the data proves you are wrong." This may suprise you but I actually do know the difference between anomalies and standard deviation. I have calcualated various standard deviations of data sets. A meausre of variability away from the mean. Data sets with larger ranges will have larger standard deviations. But generally very high temp anomalies will tend to be far from the mean. You state the data proves me worng. You also claim that the hot areas were hotter in 2011 than 1936. source. source. I went found the square area of the states that display record warmest temperatures. (I will assume that record warmest temp should fit the extremely hot criteria...If you want to compare temperatures from 1936 you can go to the source of the graph I posted in 43, many state records are still standing today from 1936), States that were listed as record warmest in 1936 (Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky): Total Area of these states: 492,761 square miles. States that were listed as record warmest in 2011 (New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana): Total Area of these states: 511,908 square miles. This is about a 3.7% difference.
  43. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    John Hartz @ 92 Would that not make SkS an echo chamber? I do supply data for all may posts (graphs, articles). I do read the articles in posts gradually (lots of data). I do learn a lot from the highly knowledgable individuals on this sight. How does backing up my conclusions (even if somewhat different than the OP's conclusions) with data count as trolling? I am never claiming to be right or correct in my conclusions. Most think they are wrong. I think I was banned from SkS for a period of time. If that is the wish of the those running the website, it is their property and I am a guest poster. If my posts are highly offensive in nature (not sure why they would be) then I guess I should be banned. My goal is not to generate highly offensive posts. I do not insult the intelligence of any posters, I try to raise questions and ideas that come to me and it is an evolving process. I react to what other posters have said about an aspect of my posts. I start to do research on their points to see what I can find. It helps me to learn alot. It may frustrate many, sorry.
  44. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Bibliovermis @21, You took the words out of my mouth. Excellent points. TIS can stop insulting us here by embarking on so-called tone trolling and claiming to be a "skeptic" when he is clearly not a true skeptic at all. Instead TIS should debate the science using science and facts. Usually when "skeptics" start taking offense to catchy titles etc., it is an excuse for them to not debate the science, because they do not have a compelling case and/or the science does not support their view/belief.
  45. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Good point Doug. I read a few of the psychology papers associated with John and Steven's handbook and noticed trial lawyers and debaters are kings of simple explanations. They frame an explanation, give you the whole picture, in a simple manner using the key facts. Not that I'm suggesting we become more like lawyers.....
  46. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    TIS (#18), Being anti-science is not a binary property. Compartmentalized belief & willful ignorance in one subject does not have to affect cognitive functioning in other areas of study. The existence of people who "don't understand anything about the science they are choosing to believe" does not disprove the validity of that field of study.
  47. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    @Tom Curtis #90: Banning Norman from posting on SkS will eliminate the problem. If trolling is not prohibited by current SkS Comment Policy, then the policy should be amended to include such a prohibition.
  48. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Pirate, The problem is that the Republicans are trying to steadfastly stick to a policy that is based on a complete lack of understanding of the science. That is unacceptable. They must either understand themselves or accept the position of the experts. One cannot make good policy from a position of ignorance.
  49. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman#86: "I hope you don't believe I do this. I hate to automatically assume anything." Over the course of multiple threads, that is how your responses read. It appears that if you cannot duplicate in a few minutes work the published results, you dismiss them. An alternate reaction would be to consider that your methods and your data sources are not as complete as those of practicing climate scientists. If you took that approach, you might conclude that there is much to be learned. For example, I referred you to tamino's Extreme Heat post. Have you read it? If so, why are you still wed to the idea that if temperatures aren't normally distributed, we cannot identify an extreme event? With that preconceived notion, one could conclude that all is right with the world. Without that bias, one could conclude as tamino does (with the advantage of far greater understanding and abilities in statistics than both you and I), that there is much to be concerned about.
  50. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    18, An Inconvenient Skeptic,
    Many articles on this site are simply attack articles that use derision...
    Would you mind identifying them, and quoting the passages that use derision? [Note that a catchy title does not qualify. Sorry if you don't like the titles, but there's a whole lot more to the debate than that. If you're stuck on titles, you're stuck in ignorance.] Please remember to distinguish between attacks on the person and attacks on the position (which, if false, disingenuous, or down right stupid, are certainly open season for derision as long as a thorough, concise and meaningful argument is presented to demonstrate the untenable nature of the position).

Prev  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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