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  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  Next

Comments 73751 to 73800:

  1. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    is the sea level supposed to be static?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No. If you have a point to make, please do so directly, rather than asking rhetorical questions.

    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.

  2. Understanding climate denial
    Personally, I use the terms 'denier' and 'denial' in their scientific and legal senses. A person is in (psychological) denial if they hold on to a belief despite having their attention drawn to a preponderance of cogent ( i.e. credible and relevant ) evidence. Since a denier does not or cannot accept scientific evidence if it runs counter to their belief system, it follows that they cannot or will not accept any cogent evidence that 'denier' is in any way a scientific term. One way a denier will deny being in denial is to assert that the term applies to Holocaust deniers. Yes, it does - but not exclusively. And a Holocaust denier by the way may be a person who is completely unable to accept the cogency of the evidence which proves that some humans can be exceedingly evil. Not every Holocaust denier is an ideologue. When I was a small child the Astronomer Royal said that space flight was bunk. That was in spite of all of the then recent advances in rocket science. He was a denier of the evidence from the science of ballistics. Shortly afterwards, the USSR launched Sputnik 1. In 1768 a meteor fell at Luce in France. A commission from the French Academy of Science took the testimony of many eye witnesses. That evidence was tampered with and the commission concluded that the stone had been struck by lightning. In 1790 a shower of meteorites fell in France. Despite the physical evidence and about 300 eye-witness accounts sent to scientific journals and organisations, the establishment conclusion was that stones do not fall. The most extreme form of denial is demonstrated when a person is so incapable of accepting a fact that they fabricate evidence in support of whatever idea makes them feel comfortable. For example: it is widely reported in medicine that a stroke victim may deny that an affected limb is their own limb. It seems to me to be key to denial that people will most deny facts if those facts carry implications that they are not in control of their own lives and destinies, or implications that some people have no regard for human life. Speaking entirely hypothetically: if there is cogent evidence that bogus findings about a social harm are being produced for money on behalf of powerful but asocial people, then it is a virtual certainty that many people will take that evidence as a personal attack on the integrity of the producers of the bogus reports and will reinforce their denial thereby.
  3. Understanding climate denial
    KR, your example of 'minimization' effectively comes down to an example of 'projection'. If climate sensitivity for CO2 increase be low, then GW must be caused by, well, leprechauns. Right, a bit more on topic. Many denialists believe humanity cannot possibly be so powerful as to achieve feats normally ascribed to Mother Nature. I often ask whether they believe humanity can pollute the oceans. This question seems to be too simple to merit answers and well, I never get an answer. Pity as I always like to explain how an air density equal to seawater would reduce the entire atmosphere to a pool just 10 metres deep - as opposed to the oceans which would cover the earth by like 3300 metres...
  4. Understanding climate denial
    Would like to correct a statement in #34 - "they will have to show that increase of CO2 is in fact much larger than conventional AGW-theory implies... " should read ... they will have to show that temperature increase by increasing CO2 is in fact much larger than conventional AGW-theory implies...
  5. Understanding climate denial
    #32, but, Dikran Marsupial, the CO2 induced warming is not limited. Its magnitude conforms perfectly to AGW-theory. If denialists want feedback while fully acknowledging the effect of CO2, they will have to show that increase of CO2 is in fact much larger than conventional AGW-theory implies... And again, if they think GW is caused by something other than CO2-increase they effectively think CO2 is no or negligibly a GHG OR that there exists, separately, a cooling effect leading to the grand total of +1 K since 1900 (so: 'other warming effect' + CO2-increase + 'cooling effect' = 1 K + 1 K - 1 K = 1).
  6. Understanding climate denial
    Will the Climate Denial Spin Machine come to Lomborg’s resuce? Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and bête noire of climate change activists around the world, has been told that the incoming Danish government will cut off his £1m a year funding. Source: “World's leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast,” The Independent (UK), Sep 28, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
  7. Dikran Marsupial at 00:41 AM on 29 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen Sorry, you are not paying sufficient attention to the argument being presented. Denialists agree with the mainstream on the direct GHG effect of CO2, so they do not "vastly understate the GHG-characteristic of CO2". It is also not correct that they have to find a major cooling that is not due to feedback from a CO2 increase. IIRC Spencer claims that cloud feedback will limit the CO2 induced warming.
  8. Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen - Denial has several forms, all of which are problematic when something needs to be dealt with. I feel it's important to be clear on these distinctions, as not all denial has the same pattern. * Simple denial - Deny an unpleasant fact entirely. I think this is often seen by those claiming the temperature records are incorrect, that the greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, the whole collection of "It's not happening" statements. While almost impossible to discuss matters with, I don't believe this group represents the majority of the skeptics. * Minimization - Admit the fact, but rationalize that it's not serious. People clinging to any shred of evidence whatsoever to claim that Climate sensitivity is low fall into this category, and it seems to include a number of those skeptics with some scientific credentials. * Projection - It's happening, it's serious, but it's not us! It's a natural cycle, it's the sun, or it's cosmic rays! I'm always surprised more of these folks aren't claiming that it's leprechauns. Motivations are a rather separate topic - but one of the big motivators for the rather intense funding of climate denial is economic interests who don't want to see their market dry up. And that pulls in a great many folks who feel a deep need for denial - a basic human defense mechanism. To quote from the Big Chill, rationalization is more important than sex.
  9. Understanding climate denial
    John Hartz, the spin machine is less important in my opinion than biases of individual polarized persons. I don't think we have top down manipultions by the likes of the Koch Brothers so much as a bottom up movement of people seeking to believe what is comfortable for them to believe. The people that you think of as manipulators are I think themselves captive of this movement. They are in an echo chamber that they have sought out, just like the rank and file denialists. I think they are reinforcers rather than originators of denialism.
  10. Understanding climate denial
    Riccardo #23, ""So at least HE believes CO2 is a GHG, just a very minor one." Proves my argument in major fashion." - said I in #22. Quantification provided. But to paraphrase exactly: the moon and sun exert a gravitational force on the seas BUT the tides are, of course, caused by anything EXCEPT the moon and sun. That is your typical denialist argument. #24 Dikran Marsupial: "so they have to find ways in which the climate is self-stabilising to minimise the actual warming that occurs as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect - e.g. clouds" - Correct. To be precise: global warming occurs and according to denialists its cause is anything BUT the increase of a certain GHG. That means denialists will either have to vastly understate the GHG-characteristic of CO2 (that is: effectively deny that CO2 is a GHG!) AND provide a different explanation of GW. OR they will concede to CO2 as a greenhouse gas THEREFORE they will have to provide some major cooling effect that is not a feedback from CO2-increase and leaves a total warming of close to 1 K since 1901 (which, by the way, is just about the increase you would expect from 35% more CO2 in the air). Interestingly this would put them in the camp of AGW realists...
  11. Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 29 September 2011
    Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Hi Albatross, the secrecy about the journal is interesting, I hope it isn't Remote Sensing, a third dodgy climate paper would be too much for any new journal! ;o)
  12. Understanding climate denial
    John Hartz, ideologues cannot understand how someone with integrity could disagree with them. As a result they believe their opponents to be lacking in integrity and dismiss anything uncomfortable that they say. As well there is an element of supporting sides in politics rather than looking at issues. Denialists cannot bear the thought that political opponents might be right on something. I have too many friends that are denialists and it is exasperating. I've seen what's behind the denialism in their off the cuff remarks.
  13. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    Dikran, see the following explanation. http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Cheers, much appreciated! Link activated.

    Having read the link, I suspect the overall salinity of the ice (with the brine inclusions) is still much lower than the sea water. What proportion of the ice sheet is made up of brine inclusions? I suspect it is fairly low. AFAICS there is nothing there to suggest that this is substantially alters the argument presented in this article, even for newly formed ice, unless there is some quantitative information available.
  14. Understanding climate denial
    @John Cook: You state, "Certain defence mechanisms are tell-tale signs of denial." Isn't denial itself one the basic defense mechanisms of the human race?
  15. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Hi Dikran, That is weird, only yesterday I was wondering about the Salby paper. I thought that it should be coming out this week or next week.
  16. Understanding climate denial
    On a macro-level, the "climate denial process" has been orchestrated by what I affectionately call the "Climate Denial Spin Machine." This real-world version of the Borg was created and financed by the likes of the Big Oil, Big Coal, and political ideologues such as the Koch brothers, Ruppert Murdoch, etc. Many of the people who post diatribes against climate science and climate scientists on comments threads are nothing more than drones of this sophisticated and well-funded propaganda machine. They have essentially been assimilated.
  17. Understanding climate denial
    Political and religious ideologies compel the vast majority of people who rail against climate science and climate scientists on comments threads to do so. It is virtually impossible to reason with an ideologue.
  18. Dikran Marsupial at 00:07 AM on 29 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    cRR Kampen Most of those in denial of AGW fully accept that CO2 is a GHG, but assert that negative feedback means that the effects of the CO2 will be inconsequential (e.g. Spencer). Thus they are in no way in denial that CO2 is a GHG, nor do they dispute the direct effect of the radiative forcing from CO2, they just deny that this will cause temperatures to rise. The reason for this is that the fact that CO2 is a GHG and its direct effect on climate are now so strongly established as to be undeniable, even by those in denial (so they have to find ways in which the climate is self-stabilising to minimise the actual warming that occurs as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect - e.g. clouds).
  19. Understanding climate denial
    The tide is caused by the gravitational pull of the moon than the sun has no gravitational effect on the earth. Sorry cRR Kampen but your logic is faulty, you seem to know just "yes" or "no" and are unable to quantify an effect.
  20. Understanding climate denial
    #19 Dale, "Just because a person in denial says, "the sun caused modern warming" does not exclude a belief that CO2 is a GHG." Yes, it does. If you say the sun caused global warming, then you say the increasing concentration of a certain gas did not cause global warming, thus either denying that gas is a GHG or omitting reference to a cooling effect that must exist somewhere to offset the increase of that GHG. There simply is no cake here that can be both had and eaten. "So at least HE believes CO2 is a GHG, just a very minor one." Proves my argument in major fashion. #18, I sometimes use that word too. Revisionist. Those deniers that associate the verb 'to deny' with Shoa denial begged for it, happy to oblige. All, as matter of fact CO2 is major greenhouse gas. Belief or no belief. Also, global warming is not some kind of mystery! It has a cause even if deniers try to put us up with some kind of magical process.
  21. Understanding climate denial
    *ozone is a greenhouse gas, but it reacts with UV instead of IR. So, scratch my previous statement. Back on topic, I think that when it comes to "denier" v. "??", we ought to not let people put words in our mouth. That has two aspects: - Don't let them falsely equate a sometimes-used connotation with a word that otherwise perfectly describes the behavior of who is being labeled as such (e.g. "holocaust" onto "denier"); - Don't let them force an unjustified name for themselves onto us (e.g. "skeptics"). If "skeptics" want to be known as real skeptics then they ought to do exactly what a real skeptics does, which is look at the entire body of evidence. Otherwise they are (as Tamino has been putting to good use) "fake skeptics," or "deniers" as so often the shoe fits. Back even more on topic, Since it is actually *not* the case that SkS and the overwhelming majority of pro-AGW blogs and scientists ever use "denier" to equate to holocaust denial, the campaign against "denier" is misplaced. Dragging in people who have not ever implied such a connotation and demanding that they follow a guideline based on a false moral equivalency is (as was said) stark concern trolling and diversionary. The real issue is the science, and what actions would be prudent on our part to take in light of the science.
  22. Understanding climate denial
    >>>The very phrase 'GHG' implies a non-negligible effect. No, it does not. A GHG is one that reacts vibrationally with IR, there is no requirement for how negligible or not the effect is nor any sort of implication there must be. A whole slew of greenhouse gases have been discovered and quantified: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html You are adding an unjustified qualifier. While there indeed is a large portion of people that deny that CO2 is a greenhouse effect (or, like to cling to "studies" demonstrating the effect doesn't even exist), that is not the only form of denial.
  23. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob Painting @ 48 Well perhaps you could start by identifying what is incorrect and why.
  24. Understanding climate denial
    cRR, Just because a person in denial says, "the sun caused modern warming" does not exclude a belief that CO2 is a GHG. Similarly, for a person in denial to focus on clouds being a negative (ie: they reflect more than they keep in) does not exclude a belief that CO2 is a GHG. Basically, you're completely wrong to state that if they don't think CO2 caused the increased warming that they don't believe CO2 is a GHG. Lindzen for example states in his papers that other factors are primarily responsible for 20thC warming, AND that CO2 was responsible for a very small amount. So at least HE believes CO2 is a GHG, just a very minor one.
  25. Understanding climate denial
    Perhaps instead of calling them "deniers" they'd be happier if we called them "revisionists" -- that's what they are trying to do, to revise the science to make it say what they'd like it to say.
  26. Understanding climate denial
    Riccardo #14, "claiming that the effect on earth's climate is negligible or small will suffice." Contradiction in terms, like water is wet but moist nor damp. The very phrase 'GHG' implies a non-negligible effect. "All of them [climate populists, cRR] agree on the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2 to within 10% of the IPCC value." said Kevin C. This means CO2 is virtually no GHG, its effect is estimated to be negligible. Proves my point for at least 90%. Refer to my last paragraph in #13 for the rest.
  27. Understanding climate denial
    This might be a bit off-topic for this thread, but Eugenie Scott, director of the US' NCSE has a talk up on YouTube describing similar characteristics between denialism in evolution and AGW that she did in Glasgow.
  28. Understanding climate denial
    To illustrate Riccardo's point, Spencer says this:
    So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.
    Lindzen says this:
    For reference purposes, the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 is about 3.5 watts per square meter.
    Monckton says this:
    From the anthropogenic-era forcings summarized in Table 1, we obtain the first of the three factors – ΔF2x≈ 3.405 W m–2
    All of them agree on the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2 to within 10% of the IPCC value.
  29. Understanding climate denial
    CRR Kampen AGW deniers don't need to deny the greenhouse effect or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, claiming that the effect on earth's climate is negligible or small will suffice. This is what prominent skeptic scientists like Spencer, Lindzen, etc., say.
  30. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    While this experiment works for multi-year sea ice, it will not for recently frozen sea water. It takes time (several years) for trapped brine to drain throught the ice. After several years (decades) of increasing sea ice, much of the brine has drained into the ocean, leaving a largely ice-free sheet of ice. As this has melted in recent years, it has contirbuted to sea level rise. The freshly frozen sea ice has a rather large concentration of brine. Roughly 75% of the sea ice melts and re-freezes each year. The melting of this ice will not inflence sea levels. Only melting of multi-year ice will have an effect.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please supply a verifiable reference to support that argument. As I understand it, the salts are never incorporated into the ice as the ice accumulates molecule by molecule on the underside/edges of the ice sheet, excluding the salts as it goes (as they don't fit well into the crystal structure).
  31. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, There's a basic point that keeps slipping through the cracks here. Look back at the original post: from the floods in Queensland, Colombia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to the droughts in Texas, Australia, China and the Amazon, and record-setting high temperatures in countries that cover approximately one-fifth of the Earth's surface. Wildfires, snowstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes have also made the headlines in a number of countries. -- emphasis added Look at the PDSI map you posted for July 2011. Deep green (very wet) and Deep Purple (very dry) appear on the same land mass. Compare that to the map you linked for 1934: very dry only. No one has said that there wasn't a drought in 1980 (nor 1934). But this combination of opposite extremes - it's hard to find precedent for that; its downright weird. Note: there is a thread for 1934 was the hottest year. Also note: Deep Purple.
  32. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    I should perhaps add that it was the Times' '15% Greenland ice loss' mistake that lead to my originally posting the comment. So I wasn't just referring to sea ice when I made the comment and I wasn't making -- what I thought at the time to be -- the very elementary mistake that melting sea ice raises sea level. Thanks for the comments so far and I look forward to any additions.
  33. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    >>>warming which will then be at a rate 80 times faster than we're experiencing today. I do not think that is necessarily true, as the ocean is not a perfectly thermally mixed medium, and also because not all of the heat that is transferred to the Arctic goes only toward melting sea ice. It would be very surprising and unrealistic if Arctic temperatures warmed at such a fast rate, we're talking about 0.3-0.4˚C/dec (at a minimum now) to 2-3˚C/year or more? I don't think so.
  34. Understanding climate denial
    "For most of them, where the denial comes in is in accepting that it can result in catastrophic climate change." Well, 'catastrophic' is one word I used to not use, though in view of some special incidents like the tornado season, the Pakistani floods, and processes like ice melting everywhere faster than models would've had it, I reconsider. Anyway, your remark - denying that increasing concentrations of CO2 cause climate change - effectively comes down to denying that CO2 is a GHG. I am not oversimplifying at all. I am pointing out the logical fallacy of denialists - which, as you see, is a very simple thing to do. If denialists point to some other factor causing global warming, they deny CO2 is a GHG. If in this stage they don't, they are left with the burden of finding some cooling effect that entirely obliterates the effect of increasing CO2 as well. Regress indefinitely...
  35. Understanding climate denial
    @cRR Kampen. Methinks you over-simplify. Only the most uninformed of those in denial deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The more advanced accept that CO2 is a GHG. Some even accept that humans are adding to GHGs. For most of them, where the denial comes in is in accepting that it can result in catastrophic climate change. The most dangerous of those in denial are perhaps those that think we'll be able to adapt. The few scientists that are considered to be in denial probably fall into this last camp. The biggest problem we have is that those in denial are so lacking in scepticism that they don't disagree with one another, even when they use favourite denial memes that contradict.
  36. Understanding climate denial
    "Most of the prominent climate "skeptics" readily concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas." No, they don't. Because that is logically what you do if you deny the 'A' in AGW. If deniers concede the existence of global warming but deny increasing concentration of CO2 is the culprit, then they deny CO2 is a GHG. It is really as simple as that.
  37. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    I've been posting the following comment -- or variations thereon -- on several sites over the last week. I've not received much in the way of criticism (it seems to silence most people in denial). I'd be grateful for any constructive comments; and, in the light of MartinS' post, whether I should add any anything further.
    There's a point that those who just look at the rate of melting ice and say, "sea level rise is very slow, so why are we worrying?", fail to recognise. It requires a lot of energy to change the state of ice to water. That change, with no rise in temperature between the point at which water is solid, and then water is liquid, uses 80 times more energy than it does to raise the temperature of water between, say, two degrees and three degrees, or three degrees and four. Thus, currently, melting ice provides huge attenuation to the warming we experience. To melt, ice literally sucks heat out of the sea and thence the atmosphere and the land; delaying the worst effects of our actions. This is high school physics -- clearly way beyond the level of C.Booker, J. Delingpole and Co. Check it up. [Link provided to basic physics site]. As a consequence, as the ice disappears, the massive amount of energy currently being used to melt ice becomes suddenly available to warm the ocean and the atmosphere -- warming which will then be at a rate 80 times faster than we're experiencing today. So the rate of melt accelerates the less ice remains. That's why extrapolating sea level rise from the current rate of melt is likely to produce a false sense of security. This is why scientists are so concerned. They understand this. Polar ice is the shock absorber on the suspension; the buffers on the carriages; the pendulum on the clock. And it's also the canary in the coal mine.
    Thanks.
    Response:

    [DB] For all the reasons you mention, I refer to the Arctic Ocean sea ice cap as the Northern Hemisphere's refrigeration system.  That ice cap is being lost at record rates; once it is gone the thermostat will get ratcheted up.

    As for the rates of oceanic warming sans ice...that picture is complicated by issues with turbidity, mixing layers and changing currents all now relatively constrained by the ice cap.  We'll all be taking that journey together, so we'll see.

  38. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    DB @87 I can't take credit for this hypothesis, it comes from this article and is based upon some empirical evidence. Others may have questioned it as reported in article links above but the author of this still believes it has a noticeable effect on temperature. DTR after 9/11.
  39. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    Actually Monckton didn't just say he was a Lord (he is entitled to do that- no pun intended!), he implied to the US Congress, and has said on a number of occasions that he is a member of the House of Lords. That is, he has falsely claimed to be a member of the British government. Hence the letter from the British Parliament politely telling him to STOP DOING IT.
  40. Understanding climate denial
    Dale #5, what the deniers deny is essentially the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no more to it.
    Response: [John Cook] SkS has been building a database of climate myths for years now and the argument that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is not one of the more popular arguments. Most of the prominent climate "skeptics" readily concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
  41. Understanding climate denial
    John Russell #6, merely facts (which are taboo) are red rags. I decided to employ 'denier' or e.g. 'liar' where facts are denied or people lie. This in realms like WUWT where arguments play no role. Keeping your cool means getting the bulls in a rage pronto, gets them to show their worthless cards. And this, sir, is setting the battle on enemy ground.
  42. Understanding climate denial
    @5 (response) Thanks for the reply John. I will read the articles with that in mind.
  43. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    DB #77 The 0.01 watts/meter of contrails is its effect on the entire globe (the contrail coverage of the globe is small) but in localized areas that may have a high degree of contrail formation (based upon upper atmpospheric conditions) the effect can influence the local region (still a small part of the globe) to a greater degree. Would be similar to a thick cloudy night in a local region. It will keep the temps much warmer in that region but will have little effect on the global temp.
    Response:

    [DB] We are left with this:  In this absence of actual research or performing the radiative equations (line by line is best) to demonstrate the feasability of your hypothesis, you present unsupported conjecture.

    In like fashion, I could be the recipient of a large grant from a Nigerian bank (as I get those email notifications daily), but it remains conjecture until I supply them with necessary bank account details for them to process the deposits (and subsequent withdrawals).

  44. Understanding climate denial
    @Dale. If people follow my advice regarding 'those in denial', the issue you raise does not arise.
  45. Understanding climate denial
    @yocta: I'd give up on Youtube. Every good soldier knows that wherever possible you need to choose the battlefield where you'll confront the enemy. Regarding the word 'denier'. As this is a red rag to a bull, I avoid it; preferring instead to use the phrases like 'those in denial'. There always a way to rephrase your response to avoid using the 'd' word. The other point to make is that when addressing a particular individual in a comment thread, it's not that person you're trying to influence -- most of the vociferous are usually beyond hope -- it's the 'don't knows' and genuine sceptics looking on that are important. How you conduct the 'argument' -- remaining calm, considered and consistent -- is critical to being influential. You're the one that has to come across as the voice of reason. You must attempt to make your opponent in denial to come across as being unreasonable. So never become too involved in him (isn't he's almost always male?) and instead imagine the undecided onlooker standing over your shoulder as you write. Last: never lose your cool. He who stays in control of his emotions, wins.
  46. Understanding climate denial
    John, Don't you find the phrase "climate change denier" a tad ridiculous? I challenge you to find anyone older than primary school who denies that climate changes (natural or otherwise). Wouldn't "man-made global warming denier" be a more accurate phrase? Except that's not entirely accurate either in all cases. What do you call a person who agrees with man-made global warming principles but disagrees with one component of it? For example, wouldn't it be more accurate to call Dr Spencer a "high climate sensitivity denier"? Or astronomers, shouldn't they be "increasing atmospheric IR deniers"? For geologists it is probably prudent to call them "fast short-term global warming deniers" (since they believe the climate changes catastrophically over long periods). The problem is, there is no clear-cut "do you believe or not". There are many 'shades of grey' (even within the peer-reviewed science those 'shades of grey' shine through). You even see those 'shades of grey' in comments and articles on this site. IMO, instead of trying to define "them" (deniers, sceptics, whatevers) isn't it more important to define who you are first?
    Response: [John Cook] The point of my article is that this is not about labels, it's about understanding the process of denial. The process of denial is bringing to the fore supporting, comfortable arguments while suppressing or denying counter evidence. Examples of this process are cherry picking, or changing the subject, when presented with uncomfortable evidence. Conversely, genuine skepticism is about considering the full body of evidence.
  47. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    Within this closed system (Jar) the salinity of the water in the Jar would increase as the ice formed due to the salt leaching out of the ice. When the Ice melts it lowers the salinity of the water back to where it was in the first place. Bringing us back to square one. One needs an ever decreasing sea ice volume as in the real world for the example to work. With very little sea ice left in the Northern Hemisphere its addition to the rise in sea level is ever diminishing to 0.
  48. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, you probably already know this, but unlike the GAT indexes, records (and the ratio shown in post 85) are not corrected for local site effects and UHIE. In one case, National airport in DC, the extent of gravel has grown: http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq51/palmer2/national-asos.jpg and the low temperatures are routinely higher than dozens of nearby weatherbug stations (higher than all other stations on radiational cooling mornings). I am quite sure there was no effect on record highs, but there seems to be a warming effect on lows on clear, calm mornings. I don't know if it affected record high minimums in this particular case.
  49. Understanding climate denial
    Great and timely article! I'm battling my own troll now over on a youtube clip on artic ice who is so full of contradictions I don't know where to start. It feels like hitting a brick wall. You tube "climate skeptics" are the worst of all. They just keep popping up everywhere. Should I continue feeding him or just live by the old DNFTT maxim?
  50. The Climate Show #19: A Tale of Two Poles
    Lloyd Flack @ comment 1. The case for pirates being fewer in number in the more recent climatological record relies on a seriously outmoded definition of "pirate." While the incidence of pirates in their traditional littoral waters has fallen dramatically (Somalia and the Indian Ocean notwithstanding) current pirates have undergone a spatial relocation to well organized operations at the worlds financial institutions. (i.e. AIG, CitiBank, along with a slew of Brit, German, and other banks and financial institutions worldwide. And who can listen to Oztralia's own Rupert Murdoch and NOT think "If he only had an eye patch and a parrot. Arrrrrrr matey!") I suggest that the number of pirates has increased in a manner even more alarming than global temperatures, and that the two are positively, and often causally, related. (As to the Climate Show, that was really good, and informative, and I'll be looking for the next one. John Cook is as lucid, mellow and informed on video as he is in his writing on his blog. But the best part of that show for me is that I think I can now tell the difference between an Ozzie, who would be the geest, and the Kiwi host, who has geusts on his show ;)

Prev  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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