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  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  Next

Comments 70051 to 70100:

  1. Philippe Chantreau at 12:32 PM on 16 November 2011
    World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    I'm not sure I see how any of those links support your argument. The first link's introduction goes like this: "The paper also argues that the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/2008 spike." That amounts to saying that speculation by financial operators on commodity markets is a far worse influence than the push for biofuels. Nothing new there. I haven't read the whole thing, but it looks interesting and certainly not very supportive of your original assertion. The 2nd link expands at length on how oil prices have a far less severe effect on economies than generally thought, even oil importing economies: From the concluding paragraphs: "Our recent research indicates that oil prices tend to be surprisingly closely associated with good times for the global economy. Indeed, we find that the US has been somewhat of an outlier in the way that it has been negatively affected by oil price increases. Across the world, oil price shock episodes have generally not been associated with a contemporaneous decline in output but, rather, with increases in both imports and exports. There is evidence of lagged negative effects on output, particularly for OECD economies, but the magnitude has typically been small." Once again, quite interesting and not very supportive of your argument. One can easily infer from these 2 links that the world economy can quite safely absorb both more development of biofuels (as long as the financial industry's crooks are kept away from these markets) and higher oil prices.
  2. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Eric (skeptic) @13, figure 3 is certainly worth attention, as is this similar figure (which I have presented because it indicates energy use in familiar units rather than in kg oe, ie, kilograms of oil equivalent): The simplest interpretation of this graph is that per capita energy use is a limiting factor of HDI. That is, you need a certain amount of energy use per capita to achieve a given level of HDI, but using that amount of energy in no way guarantees achieving the HDI gain. Further, and very clearly, HDI gains for increased energy use above 4,000 kWhours are very limited for very large gains in energy. I suspect that there is still some gain, however. Further, changes in technology will no doubt shift the point beyond which gains are minimal with increased energy use. As to your question, I think it is the wrong question. If energy use sets a limit on HDI, that limit exists regardless of education standards in a country. Education, however, is probably a significant player in how closely a nation approaches the limit of a restricted HDI index based on life expectancy and GDP alone. (Educational standards represent 1/3rd of the potential scoring of HDI, so it is trivial, and uninteresting that education and HDI are correlated.)
  3. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Not sure about your other question Eric, though angles from an orbiting satellite can be deceptive - you're seeing a relatively tiny fraction of the Earth's surface, but the eye is fooled by the circular horizon into thinking you're seeing a whole hemisphere. My guess is that it is not windows (the orange colour is often telltale of low pressure sodium and its twin bright orange emission lines), and that it is an effect of looking hundreds of miles sideways through the atmosphere? The camera view doesn't otherwise look very 'fisheye' to me too.
  4. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Philippe : For biofuel and food crisis, see for example the p.11 of this document from World Bank, for the impact (less than announced in 2008 by WB, but real, debate among specialist) and expose the concern for future (in AIE 450 scenario, we must double the production of biofuel). http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/07/21/000158349_20100721110120/Rendered/PDF/WPS5371.pdf For oil price and recession, this document shows the sensitivity of national economies to oil volatility 1970-2010. Surprisingly, most countries GDP are not affected (either they export or they have tax-regulating system like France)… but it is not the case for USA. So I suppose the third shock of 2005-2008 (fivefold increase up to 145$ !) had a role in the economic recession. http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6905 Of course, I’m skeptic of economic models (much more than of climate models !). Shadow banking, financialisation, ideology-based deregulation, runaway private and public debts play the central role for the crisis of 2007-2008 and 2011. But it’s hard to imagine that intensive and importer economies are insensitive to energy and commodity price trends in the last decade. I think that our poor economic models (as you say) also tend to underestimate the physical (energetic and material) basis of wealth, so the limits of this planet. Thereafter, two analysis of these trends and the 'new paradigm' (second link). http://www.steeldistributors.org/portals/0/NewsAndViews/Q32011/credit-suisse.pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/53865070 Eric : yes, beyond approx. 110GJ/hab/y (mean), you do not observe any correlation between energy and HDI (or specific data like infant mortality, woman mortality, food availibility, etc.). As far I as know, USA overconsumption do not translate in overperformance in these indicators of the quality of life. But for the majority of countries under 50GJ/hab/y, the problem is clearly inverse. And as climate is a global challenge, so is energy.
  5. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Bern and skywatcher, thanks for the info (skywatcher now I know where your name comes from). I am lucky enough to live in a dark county in Virginia. Another question, looking the time lapse there seemed to brightness at an angle (although lights got brighter as they got closer). Are we seeing lights from windows at that angle? I suppose it could also be a fish eye lens effect and we are mostly looking straight down.
  6. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    #9 Eric, you might find a lot of information at the International Dark Sky Association. They specifically do not advocate against lighting for safety. Most of the light you see in images like the ones above come directly from the lighting source. That is, it is light from fixtures designed to light the ground (the street, parking lot, whatever), but that have a significant proportion of their energy uselessly pointing sideways or upwards. You can effectively put a lower wattage bulb in each light if you have a simple shield to prevent light being wasted upwards, and that shield reflects the extra light downwards to where it is wanted, not sideways or upwards. The IDA suggest that 8% of US energy use is in outdoor lighting, so the saving may be measurable in numbers of power stations. Obviously as an astronomer that would have really good consequences, but the saving in energy is also considerable, with no loss in safety.
  7. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Eric(skeptic): no, most of that light is coming directly from the lights themselves - comparatively little bounces off the ground, especially roads & parking lots that are (usually) almost-black asphalt. Different light fittings, that direct the light a bit better, can actually result in higher illumination levels on the ground, while also significantly reducing the amount of light going upwards. The same applies to many buildings & dwellings - many, many light fittings are very poorly designed, and actually result in most of the emitted light not ending up where it's needed. But they're oh-so-fashionable... (I was astounded, in the time I lived in the US, to find a room in my apartment with no less than three 200-watt light globes, which nevertheless appeared dimly lit to my eyes, compared to what I achieve with a single 60w globe here in Australia)
  8. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    13, Eric (skeptic),
    ...does more energy use per capita lead to more education, or does more education lead to more energy use?
    Or do they feed off of each other, leading to a death spiral, a runaway energy-education effect, if you will... :)
  9. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Are there alternatives to street lights and parking lots lights for safety? (assuming that most of that light is bouncing off the ground)
  10. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr, that is an interesting fig. 3 in your reference and is worth examining further. It suggests that per capita energy use can be cut significantly here in the USA without lowering the HDI. Also does more energy use per capita lead to more education, or does more education lead to more energy use?
  11. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Tom @36, "If a philosophy graduate can recognize that so easily, then a PhD in science who must at least know the meaning of statistical significance cannot be taken in by such sophistry. There, therefore, can be no excuse for their promulgation of anti-science." I agree. Kudos to you Tom, I had always assumed that you were a publishing scientist from your fact-filled and thoughtful and reasoned posts. Pielke and Curry could learn a thing or two from you ;) I am dumbfounded that the AGU and others continue to stand behind Pielke Senior after years of him misinforming. In my opinion, Pielke Senior is bringing the AGU (and CIRES his current affiliation) into disrepute and they should not stand for it. My dad was a professional engineer, he had to abide by certain principles and a code of ethics. Had he behaved as Pielke Senior has been in the public domain he would have no doubt had his professional status and privileges rescinded, or at the very least been hauled before a committee to explain himself. It is galling that these guys continue get away with this scot-free.
  12. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    "Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus." And there we have the nub of issue. We have a large enough segment of the population who would rather believe in fairies than confront an uncomfortable reality, and are blocking effective action. Sadly, there is no way to ensure that the negative effects of inaction fall only on the stupid and their children.
  13. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Concerning energy correlate, this document for example : http://www.undp.org/energy/docs/WEAOU_part_II.pdf As you can see in Figure 3 , p. 27, per capita energy consumption is linked to Human Development Index (which includes literacy and education). For more precise estimations, you can also read Vaclav Smill ‘Energy in Nature and Society’(MIT Press 2008, pp346-347 and references), or use Gapminder (wealth and health of nations in comparison of CO2 emission). Of course, people’s life in poorest countries can be improved by many ways including political and juridical reform without energy cost. Also, a 60-110 GJ/hab/y seems to be a very sufficient for numerous needs, and the extreme consumption of richest countries (especially USA !) is by no way a model. If energy is useful for human development and welfare, it doesn’t mean necessarily carbon-based energy. But the problem is far from simple : for example, Iceland gets 80% of its primary energy from renewable (geothermia and hydro), but nevertheless, its per capita emission of CO2 are greater than France or Germany. Even with very low-cost and abundant renewable (rare conditions that Iceland meets), it’s difficult to avoid oil use (and in this case coal for alu plants). And more broadly, I’m also attached to many humanitarian concern other than climate, because when people die or suffer or starve, you have no moral foundation for sacrifying them to future generations. I cannot blame South Africa for using coal as we did one century ago, but of course I would prefer CCS coal-plants if the technology is available. I strongly agree that we need an energy transition for this century (for different reasons including climate, but also fossil depletion, sustainable development, etc.) as well as a true evaluation / compensation of social and environmental cost of carbon. So AIE report is welcome. My concern is more the realistic pace of the transition and the sincerity / clarity of its discussion in public debate. The denial of climate change risks or coal/oil/gas externalities shouldn’t be answered by a denial of energy change risks or insufficient energy externalities. PS : For ‘modern world’, sorry, it must be a gallicism.
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 10:44 AM on 16 November 2011
    World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept.fr, I would like to see the following statements of yours substantiated: "2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels" "economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities" If this latter one refers to the recent economic recession, it was brought almost exclusively by poorly regulated banking practices and deeply flawed economic models used in the financial industry. I note that nobody (absolutely nobody) in the so-called skeptic camp had voiced doubts on the validity of these models before they crashed the world economy and skeptics are also eerily silent about them since, despite their proven track record of failure. And this is really a failure that cost trillions, verifiable, obvious for all to see, unlike the fictitious or hypothetical ones that skeptics always cry about when "debating" climate mitigating economic policies.
  15. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Albatross @33, the galling thing with Pielke (and Curry) is that while Watts may literally not know what is wrong with projecting short term trends, Curry and Pielke certainly do. When I first encountered similar arguments regarding the temperature record, and my knowledge of statistics could have been written on a business card, I just looked at the temperature record and saw very similar "pauses" in the temperature record in the past. Obviously, if the argument was any good now, it was equally good during those pauses, and therefore that if the short term trends post 1998 refuted global warming, then so did the short term trends post 1980 and post 1988. I proceeded on the assumption that climate scientists are not complete fools, that they were not promulgating a theory that had been refuted by obvious data 25 years ago. Ergo from short term trends must be bad. If a philosophy graduate can recognize that so easily, then a PhD in science who must at least know the meaning of statistical significance cannot be taken in by such sophistry. There, therefore, can be no excuse for their promulgation of anti-science.
  16. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Tom @34, Thanks for your post. Why am I still shocked by the blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations of the deniers?
  17. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    The IEA factsheets and key graphs links in the article point to the 2010 Outlook. 2011 Factsheets here http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf and key graphs http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf Cheers Jeff
    Moderator Response: [AS]Thanks! I corrected the links.
  18. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Albatross @30, thankyou for the links. In particular John Kehr's breathtaking effort at WUWT says:
    "One fact is certain. A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern. In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years. Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely."
    gives perspective to pirate's claims @4 and Arkadiusz's claims @21. You will have noted that in defending denier honour they have only denied that deniers have taken the most extreme stance, ie, that 2010 was the start of a long term negative trend. Perhaps, but denier's have clearly drawn long term conclusions about probable trends from 2010. That leaves aside Kehr's persistent misrepresentation of the IPCC as predicting 1 meter of sea rise by 2100. In fact they predict only 0.425 meters of sea level rise (the mean of the worst case prediction, 95% confidence interval of 0.26 to 0.59). Such flagrant misrepresentation must be why Roger Pielke Snr has such a high opinion of WUWT as a science site [/sarcasm]. Even more breathtaking are the claims at the site to which Arkadiusz links. Note the carefully placed qualifiers (underlined) in his claim that no denier "...says that: warming has no effect on sea level rise, or that the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend." Perhaps not, but deniers are certainly glad to say warming has little effect, and more importantly that the decline in sea level gives significant reason to expect low long term trends. From Arkadiusz chosen site we see short term trends projected out to 90 years with the claim that:
    "empirical evidence is suggesting a far less worrisome, non-catastrophic increase in sea levels than what the taxpayer funded alarmist "experts" have predicted. Based on this real world data, it's highly unlikely that major coastal regions will be impacted by the wildly speculative higher sea levels."
    (My emphasis) "Highly unlikely" based on a short term trend from a satellite data set in significant disagreement with four other satellite data sets, and with the tidal gauge record. Nothing uncautious about that [/sarcasm]. And that is the example Arkadiusz gives of the reasonable projections made by deniers from short term trends.
  19. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Hi Skywatcher @32, I know, annoying is it not? Pielke et al. just keep repeating the same old cherry picking and BS (bad science). They have a good recipe going: 1) Make a demonstrably false and/or misleading assertion, 2) Rarely, if ever, concede error or correct errors, 3) Repeat. Unbelievable that Pielke Senior is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, in other words he does know better, yet insists on embarking on misinformation campaigns. But I draw the line at him misleading impressionable students as shown here. I wonder in what capacity Pielke senior is engaging in this latest bout of misinformation? Was his Q&A part of CIRES outreach initiative or something else? Maybe the AGU should revisit their decision...
  20. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    #30 Albatross, I had a rather strong case of deja vu reading your link to Tim Lambert there...
  21. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    There's quite a few more of these kinds of time-lapse movies from the ISS at a NASA page here. Lovely!
  22. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr "Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity..." Education?? You also distort the use of the word modern. Modern does not equate to anything you have stated. All 'modern' means is that it refers to today as opposed to the past. Hence by definition a modern world can be anything that people want. So 'the very base' of a modern world could for all intents and purposes anything. What you have done is imposed what you think it should be and assume there is no negotiation.
  23. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept.fr @2: Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. I fully agree, which is the reason that I lamented the fact (in the first paragraph, above) that this report is not freely available. And, as you say, the costs and risks of changing our energy infrastructure do need to be better defined. However much we find things to criticize the IEA for, I think we should be grateful that the organization is directing a lot of its resources to helping resolve the climate crisis. The original mandate for the IEA was to coordinate a response to the oil supply crisis in the 1970's. Given that start, it could easily have evolved into an organization devoted to maintaining the energy status quo, rather than, as it now does, proposing constructive pathways to a sustainable future.
  24. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept@2:
    Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc.
    Is that necessarily the case? This was a predicate of mid-20thC US economics, but I don't think that it is consistent with recent data. See for example this report.
  25. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    This fantastic video shows just how much of our energy we are wasting! All the pretty lights, especially noticable in places like California, are just what astronomers call light polution. Think of how much energy AND money could be saved if we only lit up things to the extent we actually need!
  26. steve from virginia at 08:33 AM on 16 November 2011
    Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Hmmmm .... Atmosphere, mighty skimpy. Better take care of it. Looks like a long way to other dots up there ...
  27. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr @2, discovery of new conventional oil reserves are starting to fall behind production. What is more, world reserves of Oil and Gas constitute significantly less than a century's supply at current consumption rates. That means we are going to see an energy transition over the next 30 years regardless. Any risk involved in that transition will be there, whether we convert from conventional fossil fuels to unconventional fossil fuels such as the Athabasca tar sands, or opt instead for clean energy. I will note, on the side, that the adverse effects of coal on health are so large that even a Fukushima accident every 5 years (which is very unlikely) would still not match the harm done by coal.
  28. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr. Bickmore @35, Oh I am pretty sure that was the case, at least going by my wife's feedback :) She was astounded by the shenanigans that serial misinformers like Monckton have been up to.
  29. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Albatross @32, I certainly hope so!
  30. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    I think it was Lonnie Thompson who said climate change impacts will be split between mitigation, adaption, and suffering. The longer we wait to mitigate, the more we'll have to adapt and suffer. That's the main message from this report.
  31. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr Bickmore, Excellent presentation, but for myself I thought the missing slide/graph really hurt. If there's any way that you could update the presentation (maybe give it again at another locale) I would recommend doing so.
  32. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept, There is no guarantee that that if we limit carbon we will all live in paradise. It may be the case that we are too late already. The evidence indicates that more carbon dioxide is bad. If we limit CO2 pollution we will be better off than if we emit more CO2. There remains the possibility of problems, both ones we know about and ones we have not anticipated. If we do nothing the carbon will run out anyway (WUWT had an article yesterday suggesting carbon emissions would peak in 2030) and then we will have no carbon and a ruined ecosystem. Wouldn't it be better to try to preserve soemmthing? If you are in the bottom of a hole the first step to getting out again is to stop digging.
  33. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr Bickmore: A very well-done presentation indeed. I found it quite enjoyable and elucidating.
  34. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    We must reduce our energy consumption, rise the price of fossil fuel, accept biofuels and nuclear… on one hand, these choices limit climate risks, and everybody agrees with that, but on the other hand, are they totally risk-free ? Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc. so it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario which can change in one generation this secular energy basis and guarantee there is zero probability of adverse effects, for 7 billions humans today and 8 billions in 2030 (not just the rich club of OECD). Because we do have examples of such adverse effects in reality, not models : Fukushima 2011 for nuclear, 2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels, economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities, etc. As a French citizen, I’m personally ‘habituated’ to a nuclear-based electricity, a highly taxed gazoline, a state control, etc. so a little more or less would not be a revolution (as it may be, say, for a Texan conservative owning 2 pick-up and 3 SUV). But I think a too manichean discourse (either climate hell or carbon-free paradise) will be hardly convincing. Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. We know the benefices (climate stabilization) but what are the costs and hazards?
  35. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Hi Dr. Bickmore, Thanks. I assume that they were gasping and laughing at the inanity of the tricks and tactics of the "skeptics" that you were speaking to?
  36. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Albatross @29, I don't know what people think, but one of the people at the university where I gave the presentation said the students around him were either gasping or laughing the whole time. We live in a very conservative area, so odds are that many of those students were conservative, like me. That was about the reaction I was shooting for.
  37. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    its funny how noone ever knows any skeptics
  38. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr. Bickmore, Very well said! I note that the expectation that the average individual can become a self-taught 'expert' - or think they should be able to 'verify' mainstream science in their kitchen - is part of this problem. We have a large part of the population that is told 'you can't trust scientists' and yet they still drive cars over bridges, fly in airplanes and take medications; their electricity works (most of the time) as do their cell phones and computers. If they felt that had to 'verify' any of those disciplines before applying them, their lives would come screeching to a halt.
  39. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr. Bickmore, Excellent presentation! But what do people think who are not involved in this "debate"? My wife (a scientist too) actually happened on your talk while I still had it up for view on the computer and she started watching it (she went back to the beginning). She said that she got 'sucked in'. She found it great to watch and your arguments very compelling. She normally doesn't get overly animated about this sort of stuff, but she and I ended up talking about your presentation for a long time. So your talk really connected with someone who has very little understanding of climate science, but who understands good science. So again, thank you for this!
  40. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    In response to those "skeptics" here claiming that "the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend." You missed the posts at Goddard's web site then, and posts like this at the misinformer site WUWT. And this is not the first time "skeptics" have tried this trick with sea level. For example, this effort to mislead by Pielke Senior from mid 2009 was exposed by Tim Lambert and RealClimate.
  41. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Pirate, My qualifications for doing the presentation are as follows. 1) I am a former climate change "skeptic", so I am uniquely qualified to talk about why I changed my mind. 2) I have a PhD in geochemistry, which is very related to a lot of climate science, so when I started looking into the matter it was a lot easier for me than most people. 3) I have actually gone to all the trouble of deconstructing claims by the likes of Monckton and Roy Spencer, and climate experts have told me I did a good job. 4) I am a science educator, so it's my job to explain things that go beyond my immediate expertise. That's all. And since I didn't say anything about the science that the vast majority of experts wouldn't agree with, what's the problem? I was merely explaining the current state of the science, like any good science educator would. If, on the other hand, I had inflated my credentials, or if I were a non-expert challenging the vast majority of experts, those would be valid things to point out. We can moan and groan all we want about how "science is about evidence, not consensus," and demand that everyone examine all the evidence themselves, and avoid coming to any conclusions before then. But the fact is that consensus does play a part in science (as does evidence,) and people don't have the time or inclination to become experts in every field that affects their lives. Since that is the case, we rely very heavily on expert testimony, so "consensus" would be important for the PUBLIC debate, even if it were not important for the scientific debate.
  42. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Monckton has actually repeated Nils-Axel Morner's absurd claims that sea level hasn't risen in 50 years.
  43. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    @apiratelooksat50 #4 "I don't know of any skeptics making a claim that sea level rise has ended." I know of one. Lord Christopher Monckton was on my local airwaves claiming that sea level rise has reversed. I'm not sure if he has any credibility in your books, but I was quite angry that he was contributing to the scientific illiteracy of that radio station's listeners.
  44. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    We sure use a lot of energy lighting up space don’t we? Fantastic clip, thank you John.
  45. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Andy S: Kudos on an excellent and timely post. The findings of the IEA study are getting world-wide attention in the business sector. Perhaps this exposure will cause business leaders throughout the world to stand up and pay attention to what the scientific community is telling us about climate change.
  46. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    John Nielsen-Gammon has an interesting comment up on RC11 Paul
  47. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    The youtube blurb states they used a low light camera and did some processing on images.
  48. It's waste heat
    Tom C: "Given my very low opinion of people who resort to such tactics (-snip-), unless your next response is a clear and direct statement of your theory . . ." Unless, of course, jmorpuss decides to begin asking questions (on the appropriate threads) about AGW or criticisms of the "radio wave hot spot" proposition, and those questions are asked with the intention to learn and engage rather than to make accusations and protect his/her existing assumptions. If not, I agree: any engagement with jmorpuss is a waste of time.
  49. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Tom @22, Great post. Thank you, it makes the efforts to obfuscate and misinform @21 look rather pathetic.
  50. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Monkeyorchid @64, I do not think any reasoned and grounded individual should care or pay attention to what an ideologically (and anger) driven Montford and his followers might think/believe. He is just feeding them fodder to keep them all worked up and angry. Pretty sad that this is what they have to resort to in lieu of science. But thanks for the notification.

Prev  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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