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  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  Next

Comments 77051 to 77100:

  1. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    I would suggest a division of these into two groups: (a) Skeptics who are merely doing poor science (eg: Roy Spencer, Murray Salby), but who do publish in journals. (b) Spin doctors who have never published in any scientific journal. You may also like to add in links to funding by coal and oil companies, so called "think tanks", and people like the Koch brothers. ps: want to add Willie Soon as well ?
  2. There is no consensus
    What a coincidence, reported today in Texas Climate News: Gov. Rick Perry, just days into his campaign for the presidency, has added a new and harsher element to his rhetoric on climate science – an allegation that many researchers, in order to keep “dollars rolling into their projects,” have “manipulated” the data that underlie concerns about human-caused disruption of the earth’s climate system. Andrew Dessler replies: On the claim that climate science is driven by research funding: This purported incentive – to play games to increase funding – exists in all fields of research. Yet a large-scale conspiracy by an entire scientific field has never occurred in the past – and there’s no evidence that it’s occurring here. A more plausible explanation is that climate scientists are worried because the data are worrying. -- emphasis added I would add that the governor has it exactly backwards. There is [emphasis by Dessler] evidence that climate skeptics are working off a political agenda. See [University of Alabama-Huntsville scientist and climate change skeptic] Roy Spencer’s statement, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” Shoe is on other foot; if it fits, wear it well.
  3. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo - can you tell me how you are supposed to get rich by falsifying data to support AGW? You would get rich by finding an alternative theory - nobel prize country. What you should know is that you get research money for finding out what is unknown, not what is known. Unless the funder is a fossil fuel company, the funder is unlikely to care whether the outcome of your research supports one theory or another. Climate science is a global enterprise, subject to the most intense scrutiny imaginable. I find the idea that the theory is supported by falsified data quite laughable.
  4. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Do we really have to bow to their bullying and call them 'skeptics' instead of 'deniers'? I understand that a very few on the list can be classed as skeptics in the actual scientific definition of the word, but many of them are lunatic fringe deniers, and putting them together with actual skeptics further devalues the term.
  5. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    What I notice is the abundance of grey hair. How sad that these old men, who will be dead when climate change really bites, are obstacles to protecting the world their children and grandchildren will inherit.
  6. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo#389: What I 'believe' is just as irrelevant as what you believe. What is relevant is the evidence you produce to substantiate your argument. Thus far you've produced nothing, choosing instead to ignore the 170 denier myths factually disputed on this site and focus on some drivel about who said what. You're still in grad school and you're an expert on the ethics of the research community; you admit you have to 'watch yourself' -- and yet I (and presumably others on SkS) am completely untrustworthy. Have fun looking for other places to ask questions; no doubt you will settle on one or two that provide the answers you want to hear. Come back if you want serious discussion without name-calling. Here's something from the Comments Policy to consider: No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. DB - please leave this exchange up for a while so others can see the sort of nonsense that we're getting these days.
    Moderator Response: (DB) Okeeleedokily
  7. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    "But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here" I think CBD means real skepticism, the kind the scientists use, not pseudo-skepticism (ie only skeptic of evidence for AGW, and accepting without any critical evaluation any evidence against the theory). The site seems to exist largely to bunk the pseudo-science with real evidence, because there is so much of junk out there. Did you have some peer-reviewed science paper that you think is missing from discussions?
  8. There is no consensus
    muon, if you don't believe it's possible for GWS scientists to be tainted by money, then there's no discussion. When you tell me it's an insult and a possible violation of site policy to even consider the possibility that scientists whose work you cite as evidence could be influenced by money, what it really tells me is that we can't have a productive discussion. If this is the nature of the responses I get asking questions here, I'll keep looking around for other places to ask questions. There's a bunch of what seems like good information on this site and whether or not you believe it, I am someone who hasn't made up their mind and is trying to find out the best evidence I can. But every time I bump into someone who won't even consider the possibility of bad faith on their side but knows it's happening on the other side, it's the strongest evidence I know of that this isn't a site about finding information, it's about preaching to the choir and having fun bashing the few new comers that show up or fighting with old trolls that stick around. I'm a grad student in education and I work among professors applying for grants every day and I apply for grants to do research. I have to watch myself on every grant application I submit that I'm being honest with my data and providing an accurate description of my work. Same goes true for conference proposals, paper submissions, everything. The second you tell me its an insult to even question the potential integrity of climate scientists is the second I get you know nothing about the research community and how it works and that you're a completely untrustworthy source of information.
    Response:

    [DB] You will find that when you get older, age will give you perspective.  One of the things you will learn, at some point at least, is that in science the work has to stand on its own merits, and also suffer the withering scrutiny of peer review.  This site is devoted to examing climate science on its merits and discusses the literature in the spirit of peer-review.

    You will also find that those who do not have evidence on their side fall back on the tried and true attack-the-messenger model, which today consists of trying to discredit those who do the research itself.  If that is indeed your bent at this time in your life, may I recommend a change of venue for you?

    Then the discussion of the science can continue here unabated, free from aspersions and character assassinations.

  9. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    On the topic of these skeptics disagreeing with each other, this post by MediaMatters has emails from Richard Muller and Judith Curry throwing Bastardi under the bus. Muller also explicitly debunks Murry Salby in his email to MediaMatters. Oh yeah, Judith Curry may be worth considering for the roll-call? #10 Les - I agree with you, in that it is a very fine line between calling out skeptics for their BS and a witch-hunt. However, unlike witches, these people have earned their right to be on this dunce's list, and the more these people are shown to be spouting garbage, the better.
  10. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Good resource to add, John. May I suggest that when you divide it into categories, you include such titles as "Political Idealogues", "Good Scientists Gobe Astray" and of course "Climastrologists"? It would be horrible to piant people into the denialist corner who may not be beyond redemption.
  11. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Climate models require a surface energy balance to couple the atmosphere and ocean/land responses--hence a specification of the latent heat transport into the atmosphere due to evaporation is required.This transport is about 80W/m2,as compared to a CO2 radiation flux of about 2 W/m2.Can you present a model for the latent heat transport based on "sound physics", with an associated error bound that is less than 2W/m2? Without such a component model the larger" climate model" cannot claim to be physics based and will be seriously limited in its ability to predict the effect of CO2 on future climate change.
  12. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    @ Sphaerica Oh, I agree, that one's "wackier than a 3-dollar bill" (or your euphemism of choice). But this forum is a lesser place if we start bandying about some of the more colorful and pointed descriptive terms that are commonplace in lesser venues than this. We need to model the behavior we expect of others. /point
  13. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    CBDunkerson at 01:41 AM on 19 August, 2011 Ryan, actually we DO exercise scientific skepticism here. Really? I note you address climate change scepticism in an assertive and evidence based fashion, But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here. Apologies if I miss the point.
    Response:

    [DB] "But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here."

    Eh?  You've lost me.

  14. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    24, JC, How about "Climate Mythologists?"
    Response: [JC] Had a thought after responding to 24 - or another alternative is "Climate Misinformers". Hmm...
  15. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    20, DB, "Too far" In this case, I disagree. Postma is an absolute [-snip-], no better than some of the recent posters on this site with his own version of made up science. Using that as an example of skepticism, as if not buying into every obscenely ridiculous denial argument is a banner to be waved is not, to me, palatable. I thought my choice of words appropriate to the situation (actually, they were an insult to RVIs everywhere).
  16. funglestrumpet at 07:46 AM on 19 August 2011
    A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    All well and good, indeed very good. BUT, how do we get this into the mainstream media? I have just Googled 'Climate Change' and gave up after page seven, having found no reference to this site. The good news is that when I Googled 'Climate Change Skeptics' this site was the second item on the first page. All I know is that originally I only found this site by accident. O.K. the 'Climate Change' search had a lot of government sites, which would get top billing I assume, but there were some of this site's standing. I wonder if there are any marketing people among the sks readership who could advise accordingly. Just a suggestion - how about a sydicated weekly newspaper column that deals with, say, one climate myth a week and put photos of any prominent skeptics who believe in it. It could also offer an advice feature entitled 'Ask Uncle John(?) about your climate change worries.' This could have a link to sks when more depth to the answer is required than there is room for? From a personal perspective, I often find that the contributers to this site rely on argot too much. For instance, when perusing the science related to specific myths one finds reference to the PDO (Post Dump Olfaction?) and such like. This site is an excellent reference for anyone concerned about the subject of Climate Change, but I wonder if it would be even better if it put things more in layman's terms.
  17. How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
    From Dr Doom: Despite recent global warming, temp. today is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs. For most of geologic history, earth's temp. was above 17C. I will here echo muoncounter and suggest a citation is in order. Royer et al 2004 suggests that there was a period, centered around 300 Ma in the past, where global temperatures were lower than those of the present. But I will again echo muoncounter and suggest that your comment quoted above has little to do with whether climate science contrarians are correct in suggesting a new glacial period is imminent (or that one has been fortuitously forestalled by AGW).
  18. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    Kinda mangled that. Here is the 2nd half of that quote: "And second there are issues that confront society that have science as their foundation. If you are scientifically illiterate, in a way, you are disenfranchising yourself from the democratic process, and you don’t even know it."
  19. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    This video of Neil Degrasse Tyson discussing Scientific Literacy could be posted on just about any thread on this site and be on topic, but this one seemed the most relevant. "If you’re scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you. It’s not just a lot of mysterious things happening, there’s a lot of things we understand out there! And that understanding empowers you to, first not be taken advantage of by others who do understand it"
  20. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo#387: "why it's a concern on one side and not the other?" When the oil industry geological association tempers their position statement with an overt 'its gonna cost us,' what doubt is there that money talks? But if you are implying that academic scientists are equally swayed by threats to their grants, you're a. unsubstantiated b. ignoring the fact that there is much more money to be had by working in the denial industry c. insulting folks who are engaged in difficult enough work without such harassment d. flirting with Comment Policy violation. But why bring up former VP Gore? He is not a scientist (and comments with gratuitous Gore throw-downs violate the Comments Policy as well). Dead issue. "The issue seems to be about the actual scientific evidence and conclusions being in question or not." No, the issue that deniers continue to raise is usually over the wording of questions in the survey or the response rate to the survey. Side-show: question the science, not the survey. Apply the same skeptical microscope to the junk science being turned out by the denial industry. "a possibility at least somewhat suggested by the East Anglia e-mails" All investigations of the email hack showed no wrong-doing on the part of the scientists in question, so that's a dead issue as well. Find the appropriate thread for continued comments -- if any are necessary. "Commercial publishing companies frequently come up with peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that their curriculum is great." Is that how textbook-buying decisions are made in your schools? In mine, there's a state board that believes humans and dinosaurs lived side by side, just like on the Flintstones. What's your point? Now go read the Comments Policy again and refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations.
  21. There is no consensus
    And side note, the argument about money to me seems to be that you both (CB and muon) see it as a concern for skeptics but don't seem to consider it as a potential issue for GWS folks. I don't get why it's a concern on one side and not the other? I don't want to get lost in this issue, but think about Al Gore for a sec. I'm betting folks here are a bit embarrassed by some of the stuff he's said and how far beyond science he's stepped multiple times. So why did he do it? The issue seems to be about the actual scientific evidence and conclusions being in question or not. If one believes the science is settled, they would conclude that anyone questioning it must be motivated by factors other than science since the science is settled. But if you don't start from the position that the science is settled, it's possible that folks citing "evidence" on either side could be arguing out of self-interest rather than science, a possibility at least somewhat suggested by the East Anglia e-mails. I get follow the money is a powerful strategy to use in interpreting evidence, data, research and it's a huge issue in education. Commercial publishing companies frequently come up with peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that their curriculum is great. But if the argument can't cut both ways, than it's just one more piece of an a priori determination that one side is right and the other is wrong.
  22. There is no consensus
    I just went and read Doran's summary of his own study, and it seems that maybe the key issue for this thread is the specific description of the consensus, not whether or not there is a consensus. The two questions Doran listed as most important and that the bulk of reporting on the survey referenced were, have temps risen since 1800 and is human activity a significant factor. A couple of thoughts. 1. Those two points aren't even close to the IPCC conclusions, so if this is your definition of consensus, it doesn't seem to represent consensus on a strong position in favor of GWS as exemplified by IPCC. Second, why did Doran pick 1800? Given that there seems to be pretty good historical evidence that Europe was pretty cold during the hundred years or so before 1800, it's potentially even less significant that temps have risen since then. Lastly, the second question said that human activity is a significant factor, but it doesn't say to what degree. I do education research, so tests for significance don't mean anywhere nearly as much as effect sizes. Even if we completely accept Doran as 100% truth, it doesn't seem to add a lot of evidence in favor of a strong, IPCC like description of what scientists agree on. I just had this argument with a buddy saying, depending on what the definition is of GWS, my bet is varying ranges of percentages of scientists would say yes or no. Given Doran's two questions, I'd say yes to both of those as well, but to quote a famous Spanish sword fighter, "I do not think that means what you think it means." If you asked me to say yes or know to the APS's restatement of their position that said, "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring", I sure hope that any good scientist would ask for clarification as to how the term global warming is defined and the time frame in question. Given that the APS does neither in that brief statement, I'd sure hope any good scientist would say I can't say yes to this without knowing more details.
  23. How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
    DrD#60: "today is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs." How is that relevant to today - and how is it relevant to this thread? See the estimating sensitivity from paleoclimate thread More in general, it enhances your credibility when you provide a source for such statements.
  24. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    This fool's gold comes in so many forms, to the relatively less educated eye that only sees what they want to see, you can just recycle and recycle and the layperson can't tell the difference. It's increasingly not a question of expounding on the science, it's overcoming irrational denial. Though I'm sure this has been discussed before.
  25. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    It's worth bearing in mind that all these people are listed under the heading "climate skeptics" which may be appropriate for some of them but for most others, being labelled as a skeptic is something of an unwarranted compliment.
  26. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Thanks so much for name and shame. Generally, I think it is too late to be nice. You are exceedingly polite and civil toward these people - many of whom have received funding and support from carbon energy industries - both directly and indirectly. To me, it appears their scientific ineptitude is a poor cover for their ethical shortcomings.
  27. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo#382 "hoping for a bit more in terms of argument by evidence or reason" There are ~170 skeptic arguments addressed by evidence and reason. See 'most used skeptic arguments.' "... follow it up by saying people who dispute global warming science generally do so not based on science but more on finances." Let's say that there is some basis in experience for that generalization. For example, AAPG's position is distinctly lukewarm: Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models. ... AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain). I used to be in AAPG, so I can imagine the debate that went into forging this tepid statement. Note that they clearly admit warming is occurring and that reducing fossil fuel will make a difference in the continued trend. But they come right out with the reason for their hedge: reduced emissions due to decreased fossil fuel consumption may negatively impact the oil industry. A clear example of 'not by science, but by finance.' This from an organization whose past president gave a speech detailing the two strongest motivators in the oil industry: Greed and envy.
  28. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo, you're reading in things that aren't there. "it's a bit odd that your first thought is maybe the guy is a petroleum geologist" I didn't say that. I listed petroleum geologists and actively publishing climatologists as the likely 'outer bounds' of the range of response which could be found within different scientific communities since I had no idea who 'Marque' was. You may also note that I ASKED what scientific community was being referred to... making your claim that I assumed one seem somewhat odd. "you follow it up by saying people who dispute global warming science generally do so not based on science but more on finances" Given that the people most familiar with the science are least likely to dispute it and those who work in the fossil fuel industry are the most likely to do so I don't think that's an inaccurate generalization. For the record, citing statistics IS argument by evidence and reason. As to the 'maybe APS members are afraid to speak the truth' idea - I refer you again to the Doran study. It was strictly confidential and included (un-named) prominent 'skeptics'. Ergo, no reason for fear of a 'backlash'... yet still less than 10% of participants believed that humans were not causing significant warming. Alot of the participants in the Doran study were in the physical sciences. The listed percentages in the study are; geochemistry - 15.5% geophysics - 12% oceanography - 10.5% General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology - 5 to 7% each climatology - 5% Ergo, it's results would seem likely to correlate fairly well to the APS membership.
  29. There is no consensus
    Here is a little perspective on the APS petition from Greenfyre's: http://greenfyre.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/aps2.jpg
  30. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Addendum: The response to Richard Muller's comment on An Inconvenient Truth refers to it as a book rather than a film. Minor nit.
  31. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Is it fair to put Richard Muller on there? I know he was been idiotically repeating denialist talking points, but his science has so far been confirmatory of climate change. There is a bit of hope for Muller ... he does not seem to have yet totally sacrificed his scientific integrity like some of the others.
    Response: [JC] I did think about this. Muller is not a skeptic in the sense of being skeptical about manmade global warming. But he has promoted a number of myths like the conflation of "Mike's Nature trick" with "hide the decline" (which are two separate things). A more accurate title for this resource may be "Purveyors of Climate Myths". But well, that just doesn't roll of the tongue, does it?
  32. There is no consensus
    The scientific community reference was tied to the American Physical Society newsletter article, the community is of physics scientists (see posts 76-79 in this thread for the original links). So again, here's a guy not in the Petroleum Geologists society, but head of an APS newsletter saying there's considerable presence of people in the APS who do not agree with the IPCC. And while I appreciate the response, it's a bit odd that your first thought is maybe the guy is a petroleum geologist and you follow it up by saying people who dispute global warming science generally do so not based on science but more on finances. Are you making that critique of Marque? Based on what evidence? I'm hoping for a bit more in terms of argument by evidence or reason rather than hearing people saying everything skeptics says is wrong and they only say it because of money. Here's a similar response to yours from someone else at the APS: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/07/18/202891/american-physical-society-reaffirms-it-is-incontrovertible-human-emissions-are-warming-the-globe-and-must-be-cut-beginning-now/ Given the Marque-must-be-fired theme for suggesting that there are doubters in the midst, doesn't that seem to indicate at least the possibility of an environment under which other APS members might be less than forthcoming in discussing their exact thoughts on GWS if they disagreed with the IPCC conclusions?
  33. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Heh, Dennis's post made me imagine a potential scene at one of Monckton's lectures; Monckton: 'Now, this is a graph from the IPCC showing their projected temperature rise based on CO2 increases.' Audience member: 'No it's not. That graph isn't in ANY IPCC report. You created it.' Monckton: 'Ok, they didn't make the graph itself, but I developed it entirely based on formulas and values in the IPCC reports.' Another audience member: 'No you didn't. You assumed feedback effects were linear and would all be completed within 20 years... both of which contradict IPCC statements.' Monckton: 'Put down the damned cell phones and just listen!' :]
    Response:

    [dana1981] We've also got a plan to do a page/series on "skeptic" falsified graphs, like the Monckton IPCC figure you reference.  So many ideas, so little time...

  34. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    John, this is such an excellent resource that it could be a site of its own. In fact, I recommend an extension to the smartphone app for this. Anytime one of these figures appears in a public forum and starts their climastrology talk, a questioner could open this up, find that comment and ask them to resond then and there to the scientific rebuttal you have provided.
    Response: [JC] Dennis, that's an evil suggestion - both way too much work and way too good to ignore!
  35. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Steve Milloy of JunkScience (in)fame(y) could use some more visibility and he certainly belongs in the list.
  36. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    CBD: "... it does not." An understatement. Kay et al 2011 say just the opposite of Ryan's claim: On all timescales examined (2–50+ years), the most extreme negative observed late 20th century trends cannot be explained by modeled natural variability alone. ... In a warming world, CCSM4 shows that multi-decadal negative trends increase in frequency and magnitude, and that trend variability on 2–10 year timescales increases. --emphasis added
  37. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    Ryan#46: "any current trend is also natural," Prove it. Historic records, consistent with modern measurements, say different. Looks like the 'natural cycle' is flat and the recent melt is anything but natural.
  38. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    17, RyanStarr, Oh, and "discussing" Postma isn't being skeptical, it's being just on this side of rational compared to the (-Snip-). Holding up "discussion" of Postma as a demonstration of true skepticism is a complete joke.
    Response:

    [DB] Tsk.  Too far.

  39. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Ryan, actually we DO exercise scientific skepticism here. However, I am starting to notice a pattern where you say completely false things and then seem to avoid looking at or responding to any evidence to the contrary cited. If you think that is skepticism then you are doing it wrong.
  40. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    17, RyanStarr, If you are skeptical of Mann, then you have a lot of reading to do, beginning with all of his actual science publications. You should also have a very firm grasp of what PCA is, how he used (or misused) it, as well as all of the myriad, gross weaknesses in McIntyre's and Wegman's and other's attacks. You should also recognize how silly the attacks on him are. They are all focused on one ten year old graph that has been validated and reinforced repeatedly over the intervening years, while all assaults on it have been utter failures. Science has moved on, and anyone who says "Mann! Mann! Hockey-stick" is lost in denial. If you're so skeptical, actually look and educate yourself. And I know you haven't based on what you said about Mann. That particular case is absolutely cut and dry, and for you to say what you have says you don't know and don't understand, and since all of the information is readily available, that means that you just haven't bothered to look, or to do so with a properly skeptical eye. Please get a clue.
  41. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    CBD are you saying that at "Skeptical Science" we don't exercise scientific skepticism? Or exercise it selectively. I'm skeptical of Mann, Gore, and I'm skeptical of that Postma guy. At the real skeptic sites they've already discussed him, questioned his work, they do that, even though he was skeptical of AGW.
    Response:

    [DB] "At the real skeptic sites they've already discussed him"

    At real skeptical sites, like Skeptical Science, all is viewed through the lense of the science itself, not through ideology nor climastrology (no mythical "cycles").

  42. ClimateWatcher at 01:13 AM on 19 August 2011
    A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Roger Pielke?
  43. ClimateWatcher at 01:12 AM on 19 August 2011
    A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Where's Pat Michaels?
    Response:

    [dana1981] On the aforementioned 'unpublished' list, though I got his entry ready for publication last night.  We must have neglected to publish it.  We'll add him to the sks.to/skeptics page shortly.

  44. It's waste heat
    mullumhillbilly - The disproportionate amount of energy retained by GHG emissions versus combustion is because the GHG's retain solar energy (fusion), not just release a bit of chemical energy (combustion). By comparison to any amount of coal burnt, the sun is an essentially limitless energy input. A gift that just keeps on giving, unfortunately... I will note that Gedankenexperiments regarding greenhouses, glass plates, etc., have led a number of commenters astray - glass greenhouse analogies really don't capture the details of radiative physics and energy flows.
  45. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    RyanStarr, most of what you claim this study says or suggests... it does not. Perhaps you should read it before commenting further on 'what it means'.
  46. rustneversleeps at 01:05 AM on 19 August 2011
    A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    My! What a diverse group they are! :p
  47. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    @CBD, thanks or reply, I think we have to keep in mind how short the current record is, and of course there is a first for everything. With short records we can expect to see lots of 'firsts'!
  48. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    RyanStarr, Michael Mann is not a climate skeptic and the claims that the hockey stick was inaccurate and proxy inputs were upside down are themselves long-debunked myths.
  49. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    @DB, not sure what you mean, the general message from the AGW supporting side of the argument has been that ice loss is accelerating and will continue to as CO2 levels rise. This study suggests otherwise, that a high degree of natural variability exists in the decadal time frame. They say 50-60 years is required to pass before warming effects become apparent. It would also suggest that any current trend is also natural, unless you want to entertain the notion of 'spurts' of AGW ice loss. This very much contradicts the view popularly expressed on this site, this thread actually. The news isn't so old, it's still August, and hasn't been discussed _here_ at all.
    Response:

    [DB] For the many reasons stated earlier, the study is essentially a thought experiment not supported by actual observations and metrics.  You were pointed out why it's not applicable to what we observe and measure by myself in my earlier response to you and by CBD in his repy to you above.

    "The news isn't so old, it's still August,"

    Compared to the rate of demise of the Arctic Sea Ice, as ably denoted by muoncounter below, the study is indeed old news.  Obsolete, even.

    "and hasn't been discussed _here_ at all."

    Just because we allow occasional reinvention of the wheel does not also mean we will suffer through continual reinvention of the flat tire.

  50. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    One of the obvious next steps (which I'm guessing you already have in mind) would be an extension to the 'contradictions' section, to show which skeptics disagree with each other on which issues. e.g. I think Spencer and Lindzen both agree that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic and the greenhouse effect is real, Salby disagrees with both of these. What I would expect to emerge would be a highly fractured and inconsistent body of knowledge. This can then be contrasted with the level of consistency of the consensus position (while still representing the areas of uncertainty). A good graphical representation of this would help: perhaps throw in an equal number of consensus scientists, and for each pairwise comparison tot up the number of points on which they agree and disagree. Then refine everyone represented by a point in a 2d plane with number of points of disagreement as a distance metric. The graphviz tool 'Dot' can do this for you. It's a lot of work though. Not sure what would emerge. Are there any skeptics who argue for a high climate sensitivity? Or at least any who don't argue for low sensitivity? So on some issues, the skeptic community might be more clustered.
    Response:

    [dana1981] You are correct, we have also started a database of "skeptics" debunking "skeptic" myths.

Prev  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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