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  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  Next

Comments 84351 to 84400:

  1. Rob Painting at 20:32 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom Curtis @ 7 - hear, hear!
  2. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    On second thoughts I'll leave you and John Cook to your psychologising. It's hard work trying to dialogue with people who reassure themselves of the superiority of their beliefs by making up stories about the mental states of others, and there is some exciting new physics to consider.
  3. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    #7 Tim Curtin. I'll see your cherries (Eskdalemuir and Oxford) and raise them with the UK's April temperature according to CET. That graph looks almost like a hockey stick, with 2007 beating the previous record by 0.6C, and 2011 beating 2007 by 0.6C. In Scotland, where I live, global warming is manifesting itself in weird winter weather (either no snow or deluges of it), and by smashed temperature records any time the wind is persistently in the south, which has been relatively rare due to weird weather patterns. Flooding is also not uncommon. Extremes haven't been reached in the UK like Russia or Pakistan (though Cumbria and Gloucester might argue differently), but arguing on the basis of a few cherries that global temperature isn't rising is a lame duck argument. Why do satellites show the same warming, why are the seasons changing, and why are the glaciers retreating at a rate of knots? Did you go round and tell the glaciers that GISTEMP has been fudged and they should retreat so as to keep in with the conspiracy?
  4. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    HR and Tom: I guess what is stake here is the consequences of taking a strong line. I'm reminded of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" line. So I'm guessing the effect will be to polarise the debate, pushing people out of the middle to one extreme or the other. Questions: - Is that is a good thing? - Does making the middle ground uninhabitable make it harder to change your mind? - In which direction are people more likely to change their mind? I suspect in the light of recent insights on why people are deniers (e.g. default position based on political/economic ideology), and the increasingly in-your-face evidence of drought and extreme rainfall, that we are moving to a situation where people are more likely to be moving toward the scientific consensus. But I'm not a sociologist. I don't trust my instincts on this one, you shouldn't either.
  5. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    Very informative - Thanks. Shame about the typical (unconnected) so-called skeptical misrepresentation above !
  6. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    58 mods - As I thought. Not that I'll be wasting my time on talkshop (or what ever); but I suppose that that sentence sets him up for "SkS... they just censor people who don't agree with them" type triumphalism.
  7. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Well said Albatross (#65). It's worth comparing Camburn's comments about Greenland glaciers with John Cook's points made in his article at the Drum. Camburn hopes that by identifying a single, growing glacier in Greenland, we'll ignore the prepondernace of evidence showing accelerating greenland mass loss and global glacier retreat. #66: clearly you don't get what I was alluding to - that the past decade is warmer than expected based on the rate of warming over the previous two or three decades (or more). When you consider temperature change over climatically significant time periods (decades), you find absolutely no evidence that warming slowed at all.
  8. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    57 - tallbloke "there is an expressed wish that I "be quiet" here." Did someone email you that? I can't see anything in responses to your posts to suggest it.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I requested we steered away from yet another discussion of falsificationism (which would be off-topic for this thread); however that is very far away from expressing a wish that anyone be quiet here.
  9. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    HumanityRules, climate change denial is a political fact. This is very evident in the choice of allies of the various adaptors, luke warmers, solarists, cosmic rayers, conspiracy theorists and what have you that make up the denial movement. Although many of these groups are closer to the mainstream scientists than they are to each other, still they self select the most absurd theorists as their allies. Obviously the sole criterion to be welcomed into the alliance is that you must oppose mitigating climate change. If you are firm on that point, any epistemological sin will be overlooked by your new found allies. Having self selected on this basis, turning around and blaming those who will not distort the science for political convenience for trying to impose two camps is a bit rich.
  10. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    That is an excellent account of how James Hansen's Gistemp is an artefact very easily manipulated to give the desired outcome, because of the ample opportunity for subjective selection. For example, the latest Gistemp shows an anomaly for both Oxford and Heathrow UK over the period 1959-2010 relative to 1951-80 of 0.41 oC. However the UK Met Office shows the LS linear trend in Tmax for Heathrow of over 0.034 p.a. from 1959-2010, or 3.4 oC if projected forward to 2110, while Oxford, about 30 miles away has a down trend over 1959-2010 of 0.07 oC p.a., or MINUS 7 oC to 2110. Guess which is chosen by Gistemp using its 1200 km rule, which also enables GISS to use Heathrow to represent temperature trends in Scotland, even though like Oxford, Eskdalemuir up there (home to the main Scottish observatory)shows NEGATIVE trends of 0.051 for Tmax and 0.037 oC p.a. for Tmin from 1959-2010. Scotland's mean annual temperature is already less than 10 oC, and if these 50 year trends persist it is going to be really cold by the end of this century! Climate scientists are expert at linear projections when it suits them, but they don't want to know about Oxford with its temperature records going back to 1660, or Scotland, and Heathrow will do very nicely.
  11. HumanityRules at 18:57 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    (pressed submit early) Take an example of Roy Spencer. He believes CO2 is a GHG, that the planet has warmed recently (his satellite temperature record shows this) but he also believes (and has published) that climate sensitivity is low. Climate sensitivity is an unsettled issue, his is part of a spectrum of opinion on the subject. John seems to want to impose some sort of cut off point by which Spenser is to be considered in some way different to the other scientists that are putting forward their own estimates of climate sensitivity. I struggle to understand how you set the cut off point that labels one scientist a denier (and all that entails) and others reasonable. (BTW congratulation John on getting on the Drum, it's one of my favorite shows on ABC News24)
  12. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    There are some pretty serious issues raised in the foregoing comments from Tom Curtis and Albartross, amongst others. I'll put up a new post on my blog to address these, since there is an expressed wish that I "be quiet" here. My parting observation is that respectful dialogue increases understanding of conflicting viewpoints, and reduces misunderstanding of motive, so I hope some of you will join in over at the talkshop when the post goes up in a few days time.
  13. HumanityRules at 18:43 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "So which camp do you fall in?" (quote from article) Do you not think this is problematic? Take a large scientific subject like climate science. There are endless questions you could ask about the subject why should evrybody agree on every issue?. Throw in the fact the incomplete nature of this science as well and it seems only right that people who agree on one subject can (and should be) vermently disagreeing on others. And as we have seen many of the so-called deniers and sceptics agree on much of the science. For example I think all serious individuals agree that the past 100 years or so have seen the planet warm and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So the real question should be what two camps are you trying to impose on climate science
  14. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    okatiniko: GIA is a local effect. It has to be corrected for when trying to assess changes in global sea level.
  15. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Interesting place, the Australasian media... From the BBC: Actress Cate Blanchett sparks Australia climate debate
  16. Leland Palmer at 18:17 PM on 30 May 2011
    Wakening the Kraken
    It's been traditional since the time of Svante Arrhenius to fit a logarithmic curve to radiative forcing versus greenhouse gas concentration. But because this is a complicated atmospheric chemistry feedback system that the authors are talking about in the Isaksen paper, it's not clear to me that the forcing will be strictly logarithmic. It seems possible that a series of logarithmic increases could sum together into something close to a linear curve. A logarithmic curve fit with the data points generated by the above paper produces forcing of up to about 18 W/m2 and so temperature increases on the order of 14 degrees C. This paper does not count forcing due to CO2 or water vapor not generated as a result of indirect atmospheric chemistry effects of methane, though. By the time we get to 14 degrees C increase in temperature, likely a lot of the CO2 dissolved in the oceans will be forced out- and that is a huge, huge amount of CO2. At what point will the tropical oceans start to boil, adding potentially huge amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere? It seems possible that we might see a series of additive logarithmic increases, starting with the logarithmic increase due to CO2. Next, and stacked on top of that curve, could be a logarithmic curve due to methane and its indirect atmospheric chemistry effects. Stacked on top of that could be a logarithmic curve due to huge increases in water vapor from boiling lakes and oceans.
  17. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    My first impression was "Hey, John's getting serious here!", due to the wording being a bit stronger than the average article here on SkS, but then I realised you were writing for a different audience. I thought the point was well put, and forcefully so. This isn't a time to be tiptoeing through people's sensibilities, while the deniers are busily kicking doors in with their mining boots. The only way the general public will get to see the science, is if the science is put before them. Have added my comment to the moderators' queue, will be interesting to see how the 'discussion' evolves. I expect to see a post here in a few days listing the denier arguments put forward, and how often each one appears in the comment thread! :-P
    Response: [JC] Hmm, nice idea for a blog post. Noted!
  18. Philippe Chantreau at 17:49 PM on 30 May 2011
    CO2 limits will make little difference
    Mods, is Faramir the same person as Dorlomin?
  19. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    To Glenn Tamblyn In order to monitor if the global surface temperature is rising, an absolute value is not needed. A checksum will do, wherein even temperature anomalies become part of what can be considered "all things being the same".
  20. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    A well written piece, John. Excellent.
  21. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Hi John, I regularly comment in The Drum. You'll probably find the comments come through in batches as the moderators find time to read them. I have to give you two thumbs up as I usually use Skepticalscience for the abridged version of rebuttals.
  22. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Re #3 GaryB you wrote:- “The 1200-km limit is the distance at which the average correlation coefficient of temperature variations falls to 0.5 at middle and high latitudes and 0.33 at low latitudes." Thank you for making my point. Can any serious analysis expect correlation of temperature over 1200km? 1200m may just be satisfactory over land mass but is unlikely to be so for a land/water interface and absolutely not if a change of elevation is involved. It is all too easy to 'assume' correlations instead of establishing them; the latter is of course the scientific thing to do. Re #4 Chad you wrote:- " If one takes into account the land data interpolated into the ocean, the spatial coverages is well over 100% " 'Interpolation' means creating data points where you have none; interpolation always means making assumptions about how some function, arbitrary (free hand sketch) or mathematical (a very big subject!) behaves. There you have it; you must show how the interpolation is valid, something that has not been done. This validity failure corresponds exactly with the failure to establish the correlation I have mentioned above.
  23. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:33 PM on 30 May 2011
    Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    SoundOff I am not planning on looking at the specific issues of individual stations. Rather the purpose of these series is the general principles of how the temperature record is handled. That said, variations in stations, station ID's etc are unfortunately just what the teams who compile the records have to deal with. Unfortunately they don't control the information sources they are dependent on. The stations are controlled by various national meteorological services around the world. And the primary function of the stations is meteorological. The climatological function piggy-backs on top of that. So the national agencies do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, good & bad, and the temperature record guys just have to wear it and do the best they can with the data they get. Hence the importance of the Average of Anomalies approach.
  24. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    skywatcher , I don't think that a statistically decelerating trend would result in a decrease of all trends computed for any interval. This would be cherry picking. If you find a couple a value for which the trend is decreasing, and then another one for which it's increasing, what's your conclusion then ? DB, sorry, I'm not sure that I understood your explanation : does GIA produce a real decrease of SLR , and does the correction remove this decrease, giving (after correction) a higher result than what is really observed on the coasts ? I understand that the measurements should be corrected from instrumental effects, but GIA is not an instrumental effect : as I understand it is a real effect producing a real negative component, so why correct it ? for instance to my knowledge there is no "correction" from astronomical influences on the average temperatures ? it is just a part of the signal. and actually I didn't catch either your answer on how the model were validated if no statistical acceleration could be measured yet - how do you know that the models are correct ?
  25. Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
    What particularly warms me about this book is that in addition to its rigourous coverage of the science it goes further and suggests the broader social changes required to defeat the coming climate calamity. As demonstrated by these choice quotes, "A sustainable society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally." – Climate Change Denial "Preventing the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture." – Climate Change Denial "We need to replace private consumption of goods with public consumption of services." – Climate Change Denial
  26. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Does anyone else find it odd that Haydn and Cook got the science right in their book, when an alleged eminent climate scientist (Dr. Spencer) mangled the science in his recent book as outlined by Drs. Bickmore and Smith? Spencer, Christy and Lindzen have all clearly abandoned undertaking serious and unbiased science a long time ago, and have forsaken their credibility in the process. Sad then that there are those who are only too happy to aide and abet them in their misguided quest. And once again, please DNFTT (TB), you are only giving them an opportunity to further their nonsense. It is pointless trying to reason and argue with Dunning-Krugers and ideologues...pointless. Haydn and Cook have looked into the fascinating psychological underpinnings of the denialism and "skepticism" movement. The psychological aspect of those in denial or "skeptical" of AGW has been ignored for too long IMO. What is also interesting (and at times amusing) is that those afflicted with these traits, are so oblivious to their plight (some might say deluded) that they feel compelled to come here and defend their ideology, without realizing that with pretty each and every post they only succeed in illustrating the exact problems identified by Haydn and Crook. The best thing they can do is to actually be quiet, because they are only further undermining their credibility with each post.
  27. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Folks, Watch the sleight of hand being perpetuated by the deniers of AGW and "skeptics" on this thread. Note their tendency to cherry pick regional transient events in the past and then confuse them with what has been happening globally and what will continue to happen globally as we continue to emit GHGs. This is nothing but tricks to obfuscate and an attempt to confuse people not familiar with the literature and the science. It is also the height of arrogance for someone to assume that they know more than the Australian climate commission and the US National Academy of sciences. Think of it as someone on the web telling you that the oncologists have gotten it all wrong on the links between tobacco and cancer. Who would you trust them or the oncologists? Well, the oncologists of course. Beware of the omniscient contrarians and confusionists.
  28. Can we trust climate models?
    Even climate skeptics use models but, for many, the model is simply that next year will be the same as last year. That sort of model is indeed unreliable.
  29. CO2 limits will make little difference
    So if there is no agreement at a conference, then there is no point in going it alone in say Australia?
  30. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB: That time frame had a temp structure simliar to todays temp structure. Actually, the examination of that time frame is quit good. The link you showed quibled that the construction in reference didn't continue to 2010. That is not what was important in the construction as one years values do not detract from the construction.
    Moderator Response: (DB) The mid-20th century warming experienced regionally in Greenland is a far cry from the global warming of the past 3-plus decades; the disinformation sites obfuscate that fact. Multiple lines of evidence point to a converging and consistent story: the world is as warm now as the HCO (the warm period of about 8000 years ago) and it is largely due to mankind.
  31. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    "Note that the large increase in contributing station numbers in the 1950s and subsequent drop off in the mid-1970s does not have much of an impact on percentage station coverage – once you have enough stations, more doesn’t improve things much."
    I have a post on my blog that illustrates this effect. From the late 1950s to the present, despite the varying number of stations reporting, GISTEMP accounts for virtually 100% of the Earth's land surface. If one takes into account the land data interpolated into the ocean, the spatial coverages is well over 100%
  32. Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
    Skeptics use a model too, but a completely unrealistic model because in their model human activity has no effect.
  33. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    damorbel, I take it the following escaped your reading.
    "“The 1200-km limit is the distance at which the average correlation coefficient of temperature variations falls to 0.5 at middle and high latitudes and 0.33 at low latitudes."
  34. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    Damorbel, I find it interesting you can't see what is meant by correct, which should be obvious if you read the post.
  35. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke @36, Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre's blog output are widely read by the denier community, and known by them to be widely read. Given that, it is ridiculous to defend them as being focussed on particular issues. And while they may occasionally mention their disagreement with more extreme deniers, McIntyre at least scrutinises the IPCC down to the level of detail of features of a graph that are not noticeable without magnification. Curry, in the meantime, swallows uncritically almost any slander of her colleagues while turning a blind eye to rebuttals. In fact, and contrary to Curry, McIntyre's criticisms have been taken apart and shown to be without basis by Deep Climate. So far as I know, there has been no retraction by either McIntyre or Curry. As other posters above have shown, this is not an isolated example. Their multiple slanders against Eric Steig last year provides another example. These examples coupled with their uncritical response to various denier howlers puts paid to any claim they have to be disinterested auditors of the science. Unless you can show me their retractions of their accusations against Briffa, Mann and Jones (and Steig) I can see no reason to revise my opinion.
  36. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Thanks DB. I am always willing to learn if the source documentation is credible. One thing concerning the current loss of ice from Greenland proper I would like all to look at is the current rate of loss verses the rate of loss in the 1938-1950 time frame.
    Response:

    [DB] Why the focus on the 1938-1950 time frame?  Those who have looked at that period have not done a good job of examining it.

  37. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    NikfromNYC @42, it is rather hard to disagree with the claim that you can agree or disagree with statements from the book. After all, you can agree or disagree that two plus two equals four. The ability of people to agree or disagree has no bearing on the truth of the subject. What matters is are the statements true, and what is the evidence for that. a) “A sustainabl­e society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally.” Here, the need for equity and justice follow straightforwardly from an ethical principle that is widely adhered to (or at least given lip service), that you should love your neighbour as yourself, or in its popular form, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"; or as Kant puts it, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.", or more popularly, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." More specifically, based on economic theory, if principles of justice to not apply, people can externalize the costs of their actions; and the richer and more powerful they are, the easier it is to do so. Given that people do externalize costs, they then receive the benefits without direct costs. From that, simple economic motivation encourages them to maximize their good, and ignore the costs which are not directly impacting on them. That, therefore, also forces costs towards a maximum. And that, is of course, not sustainable. b) “Preventin­g the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture.” Not sure I agree with this one. What is true, however, that to be sure of preventing the collapse of our civilization we need to reduce global CO2 emissions below 20% of current values by 2050, and it is very uncertain we can do so without radical changes to consumer culture. c) “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the prepondera­nce of evidence in science, the collective view.” As a general principle, the claim that "... it is just that the professor is in denial" is not true. But this statement is made within a book showing that, in fact, opposition to the IPCC consensus is almost exclusively based on denial. Therefore, in context it is an appropriate statement. tallbloke @49, the statement is not a statement about scientific method, it is advice for how to form opinions about science for those who do not wish to actually explore the science enough to truly understand it. Ideally the advise to such people would be: "Science only works by evidence and understanding, so if you do not wish to learn enough of the science to be able to understand the testing of it, you should have no opinion about it." Unfortunately, in the real world scientific knowledge impacts significantly on the appropriateness of policy choices in society. Therefore policy makers, which includes not only the members of parliament who must vote on the policy, but the electorate who decides who will be members of parliament, must form opinions about scientific matters. As it is unreasonable to expect all members of parliament, let alone all electors, to gain PhD level proficiency in every field which impacts on policy, the best we can advice them to do is to follow the advise of the consensus of those that have the relevant expertise, if such a consensus exists. In climate science, a relevant consensus does exist.
  38. CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    I am struggling to understand what you dont understand. This reference to "control knob" is I think a quote from R Alley? If you can point me to where he uses it, I might be able to explain further what is meant. To my mind, CO2 is simply a forcing among others - something like solar and aerosols that can be varied independently of temperature (unlike water vapour). All the forcing are control knobs for climate.
  39. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Any of them published?
  40. CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    Moderator @ 2. The problem is organizing thoughts to fit the somewhat arbitrary threads. In 42. @ "How do we know CO2?" You replied that at the "top of the atmosphere" there isn't much H2O. I totally agree. I would like to know exactly what you meant by top of the atmosphere, but I wasn't quibbling. Here the same issue emerges in a different context, how CO2 controls water. A good place to evaluate that would be where they exist together in the trophosphere, no? I plead guilty to jumping around. I'm the monkey who eschews knee-jerk responses. Believe me, I read your links and think about your responses. I'm not here to waste my time or yours. Here it strikes me that you may be the one deflecting the issue by jumping to a different thread. Sure, CO2 raises temperature, temperature raises water vapor, water vapor raises temperature further; but temperature also raises CO2. I am holding your control knob, wondering exactly where to plug it in to this cycle, and exactly how it works.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] There are literally thousands of threads here at SkS and none are closed (and I'm not sure if anyone has counted them all).  Some may be dormant or currently inactive, but fresh comments posted anywhere will not be ignored. 

    Since you were directed to specific, more appropriate threads where your questions would be better placed, why not follow those pointers & get the reolution to your questions you seek?

    As for the Control Knob, have you watched this yet?

    [Dikran Marsupial] If you wanted to know what I meant by top of the atmosphere, a good place to have started would be to read the real climate article I linked for your benefit. It explains how the greenhouse effect actually operates, and most of us here would benefit from reading it (I know I did).

    Temperature does cause CO2 to rise (all things being otherwise equal) because a warm ocean can hold less CO2. However, in the current situation, all things are not equal; specifically anthropogenic emissions have cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, and higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased absorbtion by the oceans (and by the biosphere - it is plant food). This dominates the increase in ocean emissions due to the warming of the oceans to date. The oceans are a net carbon sink, not a source.

  41. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    I think Hansen is still searching, which is what a good scientist does. He recognizes that the imbalance is not as he once thought and has started looking seriously at other factors. Like any other person, his search was somewhat in tunnel vision, but have now expanded. KL is showing what current observations show. I posted a paper on Greenland that seems to have disappeared. It showed that two glaciers were shrinking, and one was growing. The rate of ice loss in Greenland has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory manner. It is obvious from earlier periods of the Halocene when temperatures were warmer for 1,000's of years that it will continue to survive for 1,000's more years. This link will take you to course material that I would hope some can learn from. http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/sealevel/sealevel_lecture_new.html
    Response:

    [DB] You are welcome to pick one of the many Greenland threads (use the Search function to find the one most appropriate) & repost it there.  Quite frankly, your comment here about Greenland reveals an opportunity for you to learn much from those many Greenland threads.

  42. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Alexandre@51, feel free to visit my blog, where there is free ranging discussion of several theories.
    Response:

    [DB] You do mean alternative hypothesis', don't you?

  43. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke Forget jurisprudence. Stick to the evidence. Come up with a theory that fits the evidence even better than AGW, and then you have something worth a debate. Until then, it's just empty rethoric to justify inaction.
  44. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Ken Lambert @ 48 would have us believe that SLR does not respond to decadal doubling in the rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, does not respond to growing loss of ice from WAIS and does not respond to water expansion as a result of ocean warming. Next he will be telling us that Polar ice loss is not occurring and that oceans are cooling. Hansen has a somewhat different view and one which is more credible than the those expressed by Ken Lambert. He appears to have only one mission in life, that of seeking to cast doubt on the views of those who are better informed than he is and who substantiate their views without cherrypicking – or am I being unduly harsh?
  45. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke wrote : "JMurphy@41 Perhaps instead of taking 'Deepclimate's word for what Curry actually said when I cheekily presented her with the T-shirt you ought to check for yourself. Isn't that what sceptical scientists do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjTRgHWTMs Now, for a start, she wasn't speaking 'for herself' but recapitulating Josh the cartoonists charicature of her." Well, I don't know how DeepClimate got into the discussion because I didn't link to him, and the link I provided for the video contains the youtube video you have given above. The exact same video that shows Curry receiving and looking at the T-shirt showing Climate Science in a dustbin, before proclaiming "My reaction to climate change". Who was she speaking for ? How do the words that can be heard on the video differ from what DeepClimate might have said she said ? And what could a "sceptical scientist" do, let alone have an opinion on this that is not based on speech that can be heard coming out of Curry's own mouth ?
  46. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Tom@48, Hey Tom, it's Einstein who said it, not me. Popper never was my favourite philosopher of science. It's something of a moot point wrt AGW theory anyway, as no-one has yet devised a crucial experiment which can decide the issue. Instead we have the models, which generate 'scenarios'. So, do you go along with John on his jurisprudence type approach? Can you see any potential pitfalls in the rule of 'the collective view'?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Firstly, the models generate "projections" based on "scenarios". Secondly those projections are falsifiable predictions (contingent on the scenario) and hence we are currently engaged in an experiment that can decide the issue. If we see cooling over the next century in which the models predict significant warming, then the model and the theory are falsified. Please no more discussion of falsificationism. The topic has been done to death already; those who have a good grasp of scientific method know as Einstein that there can be no proof; but they also know that not all unfalsified theories are of equal value (some are more corroborated than others).
  47. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    No, tallbloke, falsification is not the only criterion for evaluating theories. Your belief is called "naive falsificationism" for a reason.
  48. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    #58 - it's an exercisse in observation, and I think others can do better with statistical assessment etc. The point is that if warming was decelerating, we would expect to see that appending the last decade's data onto the warming trend since the 1970s would result in a decrease of the trend slope. What we actually see is that the first decade of this century was even warmer than we would expect it to be, based on 1970 or 1980 to 2000 data. Hence the trend from 1980-2010 is steeper than the 1980-2000 trend. Use whichever endpoint you prefer, but appending the last decade of data onto the data up to 2000 does not decrease that trend. Year-to-year variations are not important, and record years don't happen every year, hence why you need to use a climatically-significant period of time when discussing whether the trend has decreased or increased.
  49. If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    KR, your optimistic group is probably the best approach. The Marshall Plan for Europe might be the best example of directed investment for explicit development and political goals. The development we're now interested in is rather in redirecting certain activities rather than recreating whole economies after wartime destruction. We're now not so concerned with any such investment having an explicit anti-communist political objective. The political objective now should be to maintain civil society where it now prevails and to try to establish it where it has so far failed to flourish. Jobs and education are the prime success mechanisms here. Of course, no single country is now in a position to do this in the same way the USA did back then. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll were my generation's fun contrasts to the chronic fear of nuclear annihilation and the dreadful reality of Vietnam. A little dose of hope and optimism with a large defiant upward pointing finger to the society that created those 2 horrors.
  50. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the prepondera­nce of evidence in science, the collective view.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011). This is an attempt to replace the principles of the scientific method with those of jurisprudence. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein-

Prev  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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