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  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  Next

Comments 71551 to 71600:

  1. Bad, Badder, BEST
    11, Tom Curtis, Agreed. Lunatics need to be identified as such, not merely politely tolerated. And it is, in fact, lunacy. I dearly hope to live long enough to see history pass judgment on these clowns. I want to read the high school history texts that discuss this period in modern history, and I am very hopeful that some key names and faces will get prominent exposure in those texts. Some advice for them:
    It's always easy to believe in what you are doing. The harder challenge is in believing in what you have done.
  2. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Dennis @9, WUWT can realistically draw attention to issue of ad hominens when they stop publishing Viscount "that is a fascist point of view, Zeig Heil, and on we go" Monckton. The simple fact is that many of the climate change deniers, including explicitly Monckton are conspiracy theorists of the tin hat variety. Monckton personal view is that global warming is a conspiracy by the UN to establish a "global, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship" to achieve world government which will "... not, I repeat not be democratic government". This is not an ad hominen, except to the extent that describing Monckton's views in print since 2009 (at least) is ad hominen. What is absurd is that this tin hat conspiracy theorist is lauded by the press, and taken seriously by the majority of climate change deniers. I do not share the delusion that we should maintain the illusion of Monckton (and other deniers) rationality by carefully keeping concealed the absurdity of their purported beliefs out of some misplaced sense of politeness.
  3. Bad, Badder, BEST
    "Or how about the idea that when you're working in a broad coalition you save your ammunition for firing at the opposing side?" Ah, that is surely why septics provide such a large range of theories, which are often mutually exclusive, as alternative to the GHG theory without breaking into a fight amongst themselves. Please pick your pet theory as long as it isn't GHG's.
  4. Bad, Badder, BEST
    I think Peter Sinclair's video is excellent, except I agree he should have left off the "Junior Woodchucks" and similar comments. It simply gives places like WUWT a reason to deflect their response (if they do respond) away from the science -- where they are getting increasingly incomprehensible and contradictory -- towards complaints about ad hominen attacks from the "warmists."
  5. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Dave123 - 3 It maybe Pogo, but some other dude has another take on it: Ya gotta smile from time-to-time.
  6. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie: "What happened back in 1915-1925?" I'm only guessing here, but the second figure on this page might contain a clue. Look at 60N from 1900-1920.
  7. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Yep, calling people "Junior Woodchucks" - that's 'no holds barred' and will drag us all down to a 'base level of reality'. And fails to 'maintain standards of integrity'. Sure. Is there anything that Sinclair does that actually could hope to meet these exalted standards? Heck 'Climate Crocks' as a name, that's really disrespectful, isn't it? It's amazing how popular the series is, though, don't you think? Perhaps because it's both punchy and funny? There's this thing we call 'satire'... Are you familiar with injunctions not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good? Or how about the idea that when you're working in a broad coalition you save your ammunition for firing at the opposing side?
  8. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Dave123 you are so wrong. Accuracy and keeping to the subject at hand without name calling has a long term and moral advantage. It depends on the situation and context. Peter Sinclair IMO is looking at the subject from an American political context, where the polarisation is significant and integrity has been dragged down into the gutter. The environment that you live can taint the language you use. If you are confronted by TV and Radio with poor news coverage but with a lot of opinion that invokes antagonism then it is difficult to not join in I guess. The question is, does simply doing what you want with no holds barred result in more and more people being dragged down to a base level of behaviour? Or is it possible to maintain standards of integrity, it probably depends a lot on individuals personality.
  9. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    cjshaker, no you didn't misread that... but it says "little-ice-age", while you said "ice age". These are not the same thing. The 'little ice age' was a brief comparatively minor cooling period centered around north western Europe. Technically, the term 'ice age' refers to any period where portions of the Earth are covered with ice caps... making the past several million years part of an ice age. However, the term 'ice age' is also often used to refer to glaciations (i.e. periods when the ice caps expand significantly)... which the quote you provided suggested could next occur in 20,000 years. Thus, reading your prediction of an 'ice age in the near future' as referring to a glaciation would be consistent with common usage of the terms. I have never before seen the term 'ice age' treated as synonymous with the 'little ice age'. One is a term used for two different types of global cycles that play out over hundreds of thousands to millions of years... the other was a localized phenomenon that lasted a couple hundred. That said, I wouldn't generally call 300 to 800 years from now the "near future" either. In any case, the topic of this post is global 'ice age' / glaciation. A return to 'little ice age' conditions would be a problem for Europe, but a non-event for most of the planet.
    Response:

    [DB] CBD, a technical note.  We are currently within an interglacial phase of an ice age, wherein ice age is defined as a period of time where continental ice sheets are existent upon the globe.  That being said, everything you say is still true.  Absent CO2 forcing, the globe had already started the long, slow return to glaciated conditions.  However, evidence suggests that the next glacial phase has already been skipped.

  10. Bad, Badder, BEST
    If you need a little light relief, the list of skeptic responses on Peter's next post is also worth a read: Deniers Eat Their Own in BEST Feeding Frenzy.
    Stephen (“not a scientist, not my real name”) Goddard: "Newsweek from 1975 refutes you, you, you... bad graph maker man..."
    I'm sorry, normal science will be resumed as soon as possible.
  11. Climate's changed before
    @DB #233 - great DB - thanks - hopefully he will be interested and I look forward to a possible future article on SS :)
  12. Bert from Eltham at 19:00 PM on 26 October 2011
    Bad, Badder, BEST
    We were misquoted! It was D'OH! Bert
  13. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    KeenOn350 20 years. No - but I wanted to concentrate on the effects of permafrost degradation rather than the magnitude and effects of CH4 emission. Wakening the Kraken (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Wakening_the_Kraken.html) warns of that danger and I have another essay (may be published soon) which looks at the likely role of CH4 in bringing about Abrupt Climate Change.
  14. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 234), Now you're at least asking some good questions. It's late though and I need to call it night. I'll respond tomorrow.
    Response:

    [DB] "Now you're at least asking some good questions."

    Actually, all parties have presented you with good questions.  If you are going to participate in the dialogue here, it is incumbent upon you to formulate good answers to those questions.

  15. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, you really are talking gibberish now. And my question was not off-topic in relation to the feedback from clouds, as palaeoclimatic variations include feedback from clouds (as I said in #221), thus constraining their magnitude. Is the total feedback demonstrated by palaeoclimate positive or negative? And remember we live on an Earth with some hefty ice sheets, sea ice and winter snowcover right now. All ready and willing to chip in on positive albedo feedback, right now. A large portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet lies below the glacier equilibrium line. Its mass balance is presently negative and accelerating negative. Do you think that all that ice is going to remain safe at high altitude under these conditions? Speaking of altitude, what was the average altitude of the Laurentide, Scandinavian or British ice sheets? Did altitude help them survive, too? I like your definition of positive feedback in #227. With a very slight alteration in wording I might use it myself... It really does totally invalidate your argument though! If your last sentence in #233 is correct, where's the cooling? #222 mc - I see, the D-K is strong with this one.
  16. Clouds provide negative feedback
    233, RW1, Nice try, but no. It has been very clearly calculated that the insolation and albedo changes alone are insufficient to produce the temperature swings seen between glacials and interglacials. CO2 changes are measured, and in fact are computed to account quite well for the difference when other positive feedbacks (water vapor, etc.) are added in. This would not be the case if there were a net negative cloud feedback. Goodness, you really, really want CO2 to be a non-factor, don't you? But even if your scenario were true -- why doesn't your strong net-negative cloud feedback counter the changes in insolation and ice albedo? If cloud feedbacks are driven by temperature changes, and temperatures rise, shouldn't there be more clouds, and a higher albedo -- keeping the earth covered in ice?
  17. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 229), "What "things"? How is this any different from today? Why can it appear to cause more change in those cases, but not now?" For starters, the positive feedback effect of melting ice from that of leaving maximum ice cannot be equated to that of minimum ice where the climate is now (and is during every interglacial period). There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of it is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out of the year with way below freezing temperatures. A lot of the ice is thousands of feet above sea level too where the air is significantly colder. Unless you wait a few 10s of millions of years for plate tectonics to move Antarctica and Greenland to lower latitudes (if they are even moving in that direction), no significant amount of ice is going to melt from just a few degrees rise in global average temperature. Furthermore, the high ‘sensitivity’ from glacial to interglacial is largely driven by the change in the orbit relative to the Sun, which changes the distribution of incident solar energy into the system quite dramatically (more energy is distributed to the higher latitudes in the NH summer, in particular). This combined with positive feedback effect of melting surface ice is enough to overcome the net negative feedback and cause the 5-6 C rise. The roughly +7 W/m^2 or so increase from the Sun is a minor contributor to the whole thing. We are also relatively close to the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbital component has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling.
    Response:

    [DB] Now you post gibberish.  It has become etremely evident that you are here simply to be argumentative, and that you simply do not have a background sufficient to realize that most of what you write above is, to put it delicately, "crap".

    Please make a considered effort to ensure what you write is consistent with the known physics of climate change; your persistence in forcing physics to contort to your electronics-based interpretation of things is admirable, but misguided.

    Shorter admonition:  less posting, more studying.

    A general note to the lay reader:  RW1 has a long history here of having these exact type of interactions on many previous threads.  He promulgates the same basic arguments which are promptly shown to have the same basic misunderstandings.  Not liking the answers, he has even taken the propositions to other websites like Real Climate, where he was given the same answers, to which he expressed similar reluctance in believing.  Let the reader beware.

  18. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, I second KR's suggestion. There is a wealth of information out there to be learned. Fill in the gaps in your understanding and come back with a model which is consistent with all of the facts, not just some. [We want to discuss science here, not magic.]
  19. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Daniel Bailey - Somewhere between Groundhog Day and Whack A Mole... RW1 - I strongly suggest actually doing some reading on radiative physics. You are once again demonstrating the D-K effect.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] End italics tags fixed.
  20. Clouds provide negative feedback
    KR, "You know, that's a perfectly reasonable definition - of positive feedback." I know what you're saying, but this isn't quite what I meant. What I meant is the other things are strong enough to cause more change than the net amount of change that would result from the net negative feedback alone.
  21. Clouds provide negative feedback
    227, RW1, What "things"? How is this any different from today? Why can it appear to cause more change in those cases, but not now?
  22. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1 - "These things appear to be strong enough to overcome the net negative feedback operating on the system and cause significantly more change than just what the change in net incident energy alone would cause." (emphasis added) You know, that's a perfectly reasonable definition - of positive feedback. You have just invalidated your last N+ posts claiming negative feedback, RW1.
    Response:

    [DB] RW1 is clearly trolling now.  His comments will be treated as such until he can offer up substantive dialogue supported by more than mere opinion and hand-waving.  This has become tiresome.

  23. CO2 has been higher in the past
    'It is very easy to get the impression that climate scientists don't want anyone questioning their assumptions, beliefs, code, data, nor science' And its very easy to get the impression that you dont want discuss the answers to the questions you make. Why not make ONE post of question that interest you, then discuss the answers properly, (only one part of the blog to look at), and then move onto the next question. What possible point could the be to posted questions that you dont listen to answer for?
  24. Clouds provide negative feedback
    225, RW1, Clear evasion. And gibberish.
  25. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 221), "The questions you must answer are: With a net negative feedback, how do you account for the broad fluctuations in climate that have been identified throughout recorded history (through proxy studies)? With a net negative feedback, how do you account for the dramatic and historically unique warming of the past 30 years? Why has your powerful net negative feedback not succeeded in constraining temperatures for the past thirty years?" I'm sorry, but I still don't think you understand entirely what is meant by net negative feedback. The warming we've experienced in the last 30 years is entirely possible with net negative feedback operating on the system. I'm not sure what else to say in regards to this. As to the more 'broad fluctuations' in the climate that have occurred (whatever that means exactly), no doubt there are numerous reasons why. The main ones appear to be changes in energy distribution within the system (from Milankovitch orbital cycles) and the positive feedback effect of melting surface ice (like from glacial to interglacial) or growing surface ice (like from interglacial to glacial).
  26. Clouds provide negative feedback
    skywatcher (RE: 220), I can answer those questions, but they are off topic and not really relevant to what's being discussed at present. I'm primarily talking about the planet's current energy balance and whether or not net negative feedback is required to maintain this balance. The claim here seems to be that net negative feedback is not required, though I don't see this could be the case.
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, skywatcher's questions to you are both germane and on-topic.  You are clearly being evasive and avoiding answering questions for which you have no substantive answer.

  27. Clouds provide negative feedback
    It's like Groundhog Day...all over again.
  28. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Why? Because we're human and it's a can't win. If we don't show a little passion and humanity they lable us "spocks" and out of touch with ordinary people. If we descend to their level, we get the "you're scientists, you need to be professional" remarks. It's mostly a can't win. Besides, Jr. Woodchunks (I go back to Pogo) is sooo much fun.
  29. Clouds provide negative feedback
    sky#220: Not to worry; we're coming up on the one year anniversary of the net negative feedback gambit.
  30. Clouds provide negative feedback
    219, RW1, I don't think you understand what positive feedback means. It does not mean that only long-term changes can occur. It means the response to changes in 'forcing' or energy imbalance will be in the same direction or enhance those changes rather than reduce or negate them. Now that we're done with the absolute silliness, it had been left that you had your question answered quite clearly and succinctly. Indeed, I allowed you to provide the answer to the question yourself. Now you need, in order to carry the conversation forward, to answer the questions that have been asked of you, without evasion. These questions have now been asked multiple times and you have failed to provide answers. The discerning viewer will begin to come to the conclusion that you either do not have the answers, or you are chagrined at where those answers logically lead. The questions you must answer are: With a net negative feedback, how do you account for the broad fluctuations in climate that have been identified throughout recorded history (through proxy studies)? With a net negative feedback, how do you account for the dramatic and historically unique warming of the past 30 years? Why has your powerful net negative feedback not succeeded in constraining temperatures for the past thirty years? If it has not done so in that time frame, how can you imagine that it will do so in the future, as we continue to raise CO2 levels to dramatic extremes?
  31. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, I see you continue to ignore my question to you, put in #197 and #210. How do you explain palaeoclimate variations with a net negative feedback? The initial orbital forcings were much smaller than the resulting climate changes. Palaeoclimate variations, being real-world climate changes with real causes and real effects, already include the cloud feedbacks. I take your non-answer to mean that you, like Lindzen, Spencer and Pielke, do not have an answer to that question...
  32. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Not bad. But, why resort to name calling (Junior Woodchucks, climate cranks, etc...). If what you're saying is sound - you really don't need to do that.
  33. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Agnostic Typo in the para just below figure 2 ? "showing coastal erosion over the 30 years 1986-2005"... presumably either 20 yrs, or 1976? Nice post - but I wonder if there is enough clear emphasis on the frighteningly high GHG effect of CH4 before it oxidizes.. DaveW
  34. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 217), I don't think you understand what net negative feedback means. It does not mean that no long-term change can occur (or even short-term change). It means the response to changes in 'forcing' or energy imbalance will be to oppose or diminish those changes rather than re-enforce or amplify them.
    Response:

    [DB] Sphaerica quite well understands both positive and negative feedbacks, including those "net" ones.

  35. Bad, Badder, BEST
    'Well Duh!' indeed! More great work from Mr Sinclair. In a more sane and just world he'd be the one attracting the billionaires' funding...
  36. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    In the interglacial before this one, the Eemian, temperatures in Northern lattitudes reached temperatures higher than they have so far. I would expect considerable amounts of permafrost to have melted and released methane. Since the temperature change was slower than what we are experiencing I would expect methane might have been oxidized quickly enought to prevent any major spikes in its concentration. Still knowledge of what happened then should give us some idea of what is required before methane release reaches a tipping point. I would think that any tipping point depends not just on the temperature reached but on how quickly it is reached. I was not reached in the Eemian. What contraints does this put on the requirements for a tipping point now?
  37. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    dorlomin Data gathered 2003-08. See Shakhova et al 2010. Methane has a global warming potential of ~70 over 10-15 year period during which time it normally oxidises in the atmosphere.
  38. CO2 has been higher in the past
    55, cjshaker, At the top of the page you will find a link labeled "Comments". If you click it it will take you to a search page of all of the comments posted, in reverse chronological order. Most people will include your name or handle in a direct reply to you. Hence, it is easy enough to use a browser search on that page to find any comments directed at you. If you take a while between visits, you may also have to scan the 2nd or 3rd page of comments, but it really only takes a moment. I do it all the time. I also tend to keep track (in my head) of the threads where I have left comments and expect answers. I also have to second Albatross' analysis of your most recent comment. It's another drive by shooting, popping off unsubstantiated allegations and showing a gross misunderstanding of how things work ("supposed to shut up and let climate modellers..." -- where does that come from?).
    I am a computer scientist, not a climate scientist.
    This suggests to me that you have a lot to learn about climate, then, and would be far better served reading and learning than randomly posting. It seems that for you communication is a one way street.
    It is very easy to get the impression that climate scientists don't want anyone questioning their assumptions, beliefs, code, data, nor science.
    That's utterly absurd. If you read the comment threads here, instead of simply posting and running, you'll find a lot of healthy, engaged and high level debate. No one is remotely close to demonstrating the behavior you describe (although you'll find that people who do actively work to derail discussions and troll threads tend to complain a lot when they get properly moderated). You sound like someone who made up their mind before you got here.
    I've had one person call me a 'link bomber' before...
    Perhaps you should stop to think about this. Look through the comments both here and on other sites, and see how many people have posting behaviors that mirror your own, and how their comments are received. This site exists first and foremost to provide information to laymen about climate science. That John Cook provides comment sections for intelligent discussion is his choice, not a requirement imposed on him by society or "Internet law." It is also moderated to keep that discussion intelligent and focused, which is also his choice. This site is neither an open forum for anything anyone wants to say, nor run by climate scientists to promote an agenda. It is about science, but a certain decorum, engagement and behavior is expected from everyone to make any interactions both informative and worthwhile.
  39. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Hi Chris @55, "It is very easy to get the impression that climate scientists don't want anyone questioning their assumptions, beliefs, code, data, nor science." " it is very easy for the layman to get the idea that he or she is not to ask questions about climate science. We're just supposed to shut up and let climate modelers tell us how we should live our lives." I'm sorry that is your impression. It is, however, the incorrect impression. I'm also pretty sure that no matter how open and transparent we scientists are it will not be enough in your opinion. If you want access to the code and data, here is a good place to start, and while you are make queries, perhaps you could ask Spencer and Christy to release their latest version of their code for the satellite data. For the record, no climate modeller that I am aware of is telling us to "shut up" or telling us "how we should live our lives". That is an inaccurate and unfair characterization, it is also off topic. And climate science does not involve a "belief" system, but a synergy of chemistry, physics, mathematics etc., in addition to data. Such rhetoric that you are engaging in is not helpful, not constructive and not conducive to encouraging people to assist you. Regardless, you seem to be ignoring the fact that people have been politely answering your questions here, but that you seem to be ignoring their answers. Your question @51 seems to pertain to the carbon cycle and weathering of rocks, and Dikran @52 explained as much, s/he even provided a couple of helpful links. I do not understand how then you managed to arrive at your assertions quoted above. All the best, Albatross
  40. 9 Months After McLean
    So McLean's website states that he's a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer", but no matter. He is a "climate realist" after all, and published with Bob Carter another "nail in the coffin of manmade global warming" or what not. His arguments deserve scrutiny. His website has lots of cute blurbs, some of them highly ironic. "The science simply does not add up, predictions do not match observations and the whole issue is loaded with a huge number of unproven assumptions, distortions of facts and outright lies." McLean on global warming Predictions...or...projection?
  41. CO2 has been higher in the past
    So a graph showing the trend of declining CO2 over the past 160 million years is not applicable to 'CO2 has been higher in the past'? And asking why the CO2 declines over time is not a question I should ask? It appears that Geologic processes bind the CO2 into rock, if I understand the previous answer correctly. Is there some way to subscribe to updates to only the questions that I have posted questions or links on? I do not have time to wade through emails of all updates to all questions on this website, but I am interested in updates to the questions in which I have posted. Given attitudes like this, it is very easy for the layman to get the idea that he or she is not to ask questions about climate science. We're just supposed to shut up and let climate modelers tell us how we should live our lives. I am a computer scientist, not a climate scientist. It is very easy to get the impression that climate scientists don't want anyone questioning their assumptions, beliefs, code, data, nor science. Thank you, Chris Shaker
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Let us start off on the right foot, then?

    Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

    I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

    Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

    Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

    "Is there some way to subscribe to updates to only the questions that I have posted questions or links on?"

    My suggestion, if you cannot come back here often, is to bookmark your comment by right-clicking on the time stamp (sorry, not a Mac user) and selecting the "bookmark this link" option. I would also put those bookmarked links into their own folder, such as "SkS Saved Bookmarked Questions" or somesuch.

    "We're just supposed to shut up and let climate modelers tell us how we should live our lives."

    At SkS we try to focus on the science and leave tone and suppositions (and projecting of suppositions) out of the dialogue.

    "It is very easy to get the impression that climate scientists don't want anyone questioning their assumptions, beliefs, code, data, nor science."

    If climate scientists didn't want anyone questioning their work, code (all freely available, mind you), etc, then why would they donate their time to write up blog posts for this website and then spend many hours interacting here and answering questions? Furthermore, every single climate scientist I have ever reached out to and contacted for help has literally bent over backwards in their efforts to be of service. Without exception.

    To get the most out of your Skeptical Science experience, follow the advice given above and by Sphaerica and Albatross below, and thank you for plying the SkS airwaves.

  42. steve from virginia at 09:01 AM on 26 October 2011
    9 Months After McLean
    Yikes! That's embarrassingly wrong. Arguing with your wife wrong. Beat your dog 'til it howls wrong. Mustache on the Mona Lisa wrong ... He must have been looking at last year's BP stock chart ...
  43. CO2 has been higher in the past
    53, cjshaker, If I may, this is not your blog. The sort of comments you are posting are the things someone might do on twitter or their own blog. To simply use SkS as a conduit for making your own drive by posts is not commenting, it's spamming. You also do ask questions. What is the point of questions if you never look for or pursue the answers? The appearance is that you want to give the illusion of engaging in discussion without actually doing so. That lends to the idea that you are using the popularity of SkS to push your own message without contributing in any way to the dialogue of the site. Which, again, is equivalent to spamming.
  44. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    In response to Dikran Marsupial: It seems that asking questions and then thinking about the replies is a problem? Chris Shaker
  45. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    In response to CBDunkerson, did I misread 'Extrapolation of the solar-output model shows a return to little-ice-age conditions by A.D. 2400–2900', ie - a couple of hundred years from now? Chris Shaker
  46. CO2 has been higher in the past
    I posted articles that I found while discussing climate issues with my friends on Facebook. I don't have time to read this website every day, and posted the sources and questions that seemed like they would be interesting to others. I've had one person call me a 'link bomber' before, and he also falsely accused me of not having time to read all of the articles I posted. I read them before, and argued about some of them before, on Facebook Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Chris, it's not the posting of links and questions that is at issue.  It's the not bothering to respond to the answers you get which is the real issue in play.

  47. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    Albatross#6: Not to mention a clear case of missing-the-point entirely. The cartoon contrasts a three year science-based study vs. sitting on the couch and speculating. That's clearly not about Dr. Pielke, but it does hit close to home for some of the usual suspects. But I like the irony in the fact that the source is a website about understanding science!
  48. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    Hi muoncounter @5, Actually, I think that we have just been given a very good demonstration of how some people will choose to perceive something in a particular way if they think that doing so will benefit them, or if they think they can get some mileage out of it or if they think it will detract from their failings. Here is the link to the page the cartoon was sourced from, it is titled "Beware of false balance: Are the views of the scientific community accurately portrayed?" The case being made in John's Weekly Digest is very clear, and the problem being highlighted is obvious to anyone following this sad "debate" about AGW in the media.
  49. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    In Figure 2, the reduction in "area with near-surface permafrost North of N45" is about 2 million sq km between 1915 to 1925 decade. That is about the same loss from the entire 1925 to 2000 period. What happened back in 1915-1925 to cause the rapid loss of 2 million sq km?
    Response:

    [DB] Figure 2 is derived from this study.

  50. Climate's changed before
    GCRs do not prompt emotive reactions. People who claim GCRs are the solution to all their climate change problems, without the benefit of legitimate analysis, prompt emotive reactions.

Prev  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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