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  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  Next

Comments 95701 to 95750:

  1. Dikran Marsupial at 03:54 AM on 15 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    BP@47 wrote "Fine piece of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, that. However, Marcus has explicitly stated it was unusual as it's "the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years"." Sorry, that really is very funny, nice attempt to distract attention from the fact that you had used a regional trend to try and refute a claim about global trends. As to Argumentum as Ignorantiam, that would be true if I had said that the AGW hypothesis rests solely on the fact that we can't explain the current warming without AGW, but I didn't write that. Instead I wrote that there was a known mechanism with good support from experiments, observation and theory. As it happens Marcus was quite possibly wrong on that point, but that doesn't make your reply any better. BTW, it isn't all that surprising that sub-decadal trends are dominated by ocean temperature changes; that is why discussion of trends generally includes dicussion of complicating factors, such as ENSO.
  2. Meet The Denominator
    There are another 159 articles in Nature that contain the exact phrase "global warming" and don't contain the phrase "climate change." You see where I'm going with this? There are nearly as many papers published in one year in one highly reputable journal as you've been able to collect (using your absurd standards) in several years time. The Denominator simply crushes you into nothingness.
  3. Berényi Péter at 03:50 AM on 15 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    #46 Albatross at 03:25 AM on 15 February, 2011 In addition, you seem to be assuming that the current rate of warming is only going to last 40 years, it is not, and you also do not seem to be allowing for the fact that the rate will not increase in coming decades. No, I do not assume such a thing. As far as I know we do not have instrumentation to measure future temperatures yet, therefore I do assume they are unknown. That's all. On the other hand you seem to assume a lot about coming decades, based on what?
  4. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 15 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Muon @ 180 and Dikran @ 185. I had already noted these problem with PT's list when it contained 700 papers, a little while ago. Many papers without science content that are related to policy or social aspects. Many papers that a superficial look would suggest as undermining some aspect of AGW (the A or the W most of the time), but that, on closer reading, can introduce even more cause for concern. Many publications that are obscure at best, and of course, the heavy reliance on that travesty of a journal that is E&E. As PT admitted himself, he can't read them all, so some are bound to show pretty much the opposite of what he would like, as you found, Dikran. I'm glad I didn't spend too much time digging in the list, because it soon struck me that what I did spend had been a total waste. I avoid doing that nowadays.
  5. Meet The Denominator
    In just 2010 - 2011 there have been 398 articles published in Nature that contain the exact phrase "climate change."
  6. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    John Brookes - no question, these sorts of economic analyses are very difficult, which is why many don't even attempt to quantify the benefits from avoiding climate change. But I think the key is that despite these difficulties, economic analyses constistently show both that the costs of carbon pricing are minimal, and that the benefits outweigh the costs by a significant margin. How much of a margin is a difficult question to answer because of the issues you raise and many others, but I think we can say with good confidence that with carbon pricing, benefits > costs.
  7. Meet The Denominator
    189. As I pointed out, use by year. Is it that hard?
  8. Meet The Denominator
    190 Poptech Does your list include those often cited papers by Christopher Monckton? You know, the one's that he says support his anit-AGW claims but the authors of the papers say they don't.
  9. Meet The Denominator
    PopTech said... "Rob, how is this possible if only 1000 results are listed?" Come on, are you really so uncreative that you can't think of a way? Break it down by years, by journals, by authors. There are plenty of ways do parse out the data in chunks that are smaller than 1000 papers.
  10. Berényi Péter at 03:41 AM on 15 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    #45 Dikran Marsupial at 00:57 AM on 15 February, 2011 It is only unusual in that it cannot be explained by natural mechanisms, given our current understanding of climate physics. Fine piece of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, that. However, Marcus has explicitly stated it was unusual as it's "the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years". If it's not that unusual (as it is not), you should show peer reviewed papers demonstrating the natural causes behind each multidecadal warming event other than the current one in the first place. As soon as it is done while no paper is found which would explain this particular event by natural causes, it still does not prove anything beyond the fact our understanding is not perfect. But we already knew that. However, there plenty of are papers that identify natural causes behind the recent warming, and that does prove something. Consider e.g. this one: Earth and Environmental Science, Climate Dynamics Volume 32, Numbers 2-3, 333-342 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9 Oceanic influences on recent continental warming Gilbert P. Compo & Prashant D. Sardeshmukh It says land warming is almost completely explained by warming of ocean surfaces, no direct GHG influence is needed. The paper says nothing about causes of SST change, but it must be internal redistribution of heat in oceans, as we do know heat content of the upper 700 m of oceans is stationary during the last 8 years (since installation of the ARGO network). If warming is caused by SST indeed, there is no recent warming whatsoever, as SST has no trend either. It may well be the case there's no event to be explained at all, exceptional or otherwise.
  11. Meet The Denominator
    PopTech... Here's a start on verification just to give you a taste. How many papers have been published in Nature that contain the exact phrase "climate change?" 3120. Yes that's more than you can actually pull up at a time. So you'd have to bread it down into yearly segments. But that's just one reputable journal out of probably 10,000 or more peer reviewed journals. You can see where this is going. We slice and dice all you want but the results are likely to come out pretty close to the same.
  12. Dikran Marsupial at 03:40 AM on 15 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Poptech@189 While google only return the first 1000 results on-line, that doesn't mean it would not be possible to get the full list off-line by writing to Google. However, your one-line reply highlights the point Rob was making, which is that you don't apply the same skepticism to your own list, which is why you evaded answering the substantive point Rob made. Still, it is your choice...
  13. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    BP @44, I agree with Dikran, s/he makes some excellent points. In addition, you seem to be assuming that the current rate of warming is only going to last 40 years, it is not, and you also do not seem to be allowing for the fact that the rate will not increase in coming decades.
  14. Meet The Denominator
    PopTech said... "Rob, is it possible to verify your number of 954,000 using Google Scholar?" Of course it's possible. It would be a massive task. But again you fail to apply any rigor to your list so I would say we're on equal footing here, bub.
  15. Meet The Denominator
    PopTech.... The whole point of the exercise is that it's more of a cartoon response to your cartoon claims. You come in here ranting and raving and knocking over the furniture about my methods and how nothing can be verified but you categorically and emphatically refuse to apply even the slightest skepticism to your own list. Look, no one claims that there are not papers that challenge AGW. Of course there are! There must be for science to operate correctly. But you've gone so far overboard trying to build and defend your list that you've rendered it utterly worthless. It's sad because it honestly could be a great resource if you applied even just a little bit of scientific rigor to it. But you seem emotionally incapable of such a project. I guess the problem here is that, if one were to do a real study the results would not support what you would like to find. In that you are clearly not a skeptic. You are a climate change denier.
  16. Meet The Denominator
    apiratelooksat50(177) "Since, apparently it matters, would the regular posters here be willing to list their degrees and experience?" Does it matter? I do not need an advanced degree to accept the findings of experts who do. If I wish to contradict them and their findings I had better be able to show either (1)my work or (2)some evidence that I have extensively studied the subject at hand. (1) requires a research paper of some sort. (2) can be managed with a relevant scientific degree. With that said, if I claim to have advanced degrees in Fluid Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Climatology and Rock History who can contradict me?
  17. Dikran Marsupial at 03:20 AM on 15 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Poptech@182 It is not possible to verify your list of 850 papers that 'Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm', as it appears that whether a paper supports skepticism of AGW alarm is rather subjective, especially once you include the word (alarm). There are plenty of papers in your list that suggest that AGW is likely to be a problem, for example: Joan Feynmana, "Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?, (Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1173-1180, March 2007) A paper that shows that in the past, climate change (caused by changes in solar activity) has caused the collapse of societies in the past. No cause for alarm there then! The paper provides no evidence to suggest the current warming is due to an increase in solar activity (we measure it these days, so we would know). So I can't see why this paper should be a cause for any skepticism regarding AGW "alarm", unless of course one was rather uninformed.
  18. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    Brookes: Ever heard about the Dust Bowl? These things happen, and unless you can statisticaly prove the floods, droughts etc are increasing in frequency, they are just the tail of the probability curve. One thing that would be hard to deal with now though, with huge population dependency on the global growing regions,is another mini Ice Age. There were three minima with major agricultural declines, 1650, 1770, and 1850.....extrapolate.
    Moderator Response: We are not going to have another mini ice age anytime soon. See (and comment on) the Post "What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?." For more detail about the causes of the last mini ice age, see (and comment on) the Post "A detailed look at the Little Ice Age."
  19. Meet The Denominator
    #175: there may or may not be more alarm papers than non-alarm papers in the denominator. But there are a lot more papers there. Your job, if you choose to accept it poptech, is to focus on the numerator and clean it up. As a token AGW science defender on a U.S. conservative forum, one of my biggest problems is disorganized lists such as yours without quality control that get cherry picked so I have to spend time explaining why N2 is not a greenhouse gas.
  20. It's cooling
    Yup. Still happening: Yes, Virginia, Polar Amplification is Real: The Yooper
  21. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    On the Australian ABC's 7:30 report tonight they talked to someone from Munich Re, who are especially interested in disasters because they are re-insurers. The Munich Re person explained how weather related disasters in Australia were increasing rapidly, and that Munich Re attributed some of them to climate change. Yet the skeptics keep insisting that you can't blame AGW for any weather events, and they keep saying that there is no evidence for increased extreme weather events.
  22. Meet The Denominator
    One of the largest problems I have with PopTechs list is that it is inconsistent. For example: the inclusion of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009 paper denying the greenhouse effect entirely, along with the Lindzen papers arguing low climate sensitivity to the acknowledged greenhouse effect, mean that the list makes no consistent point. The contents are simply self-contradictory. To quote: "Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one ca'n't believe impossible things.' 'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the White Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast..." PopTech, it might be a useful list if it were categorized as to argument, so that particular issues could have a body of work supporting a discussion; preferably separated between peer-reviewed science and policy papers. Currently, however, it's just a number (850 at the moment) of disjointed papers and articles pointing in every direction possible, a pile of jackstraws - lacking coherence and utility.
  23. Meet The Denominator
    #174: "hence the exact number won't matter - it will dwarf 850." Even 'the 850' is still inflated - it includes policy papers which have no science content. If PT wants to challenge the science, he must stick to science papers, not the opinions of policy wonks.
  24. Meet The Denominator
    Why is it that you avoid addressing issues that others in this thread have raised Poptech? You insisted that certain of your questions be addressed and they have, but you don't give the same consideration in return. Is it a case that you don't know or you simply clam up when things don't go your way? The best way to treat your list of 850 would be to transpose it onto toilet paper so that at least some good use might be made of it. I'm sorry but the generous figure of 2.4% dissent that I gave you illustrates your weak position. There will always be some level of dissent, that's normal. When you come across something that is Earth shattering enough to sway the 95% opinion that you and others are not barking up the wrong tree, let us know. You can harp over the numbers all you want but it does not change the complexion of things one iota. In the mean time your arguments are as weak as an individual in Germany who contends that he can use "geometric harmonic index" to explain global temperature trends over the last ~5,000 years, and extrapolate it a further 1,000 years into the future. Go check it out, maybe it qualifies for your list. As I said before, your time would be better spent if you set your mind to be constructive because you add nothing worthwhile to any debate or discussion
  25. Meet The Denominator
    173,174: fair enough... in fact - and this is nit picking - it wont, as they say, go beyond result 1000 (give 10 results per page, that's page 100)... very odd. If someone has the time, you can always do it year by year, of course... so not impossible to verify. but the post does say 200 pages. Just to save a little face... we can verify the rogerpielkejr.blogspot post... it's only 1 page ;)
  26. apiratelooksat50 at 01:40 AM on 15 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Since, apparently it matters, would the regular posters here be willing to list their degrees and experience?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It doesn't matter, unless perhaps someone tried to make an argument from authority based on their own claimed expertise, in which case it would be for them to demonstrate the support for their claim. In science the merit of an argument is based on its internal consistency and support from experiment, observation and theory; the source of the argument is irrelevant.
  27. Dikran Marsupial at 01:38 AM on 15 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Poptech@175 Go get yourself a copy of the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report (you know the one that demonstrates AGW is a cause for concern) and count the references. Then remember that the IPCC report is only a summary overview of the key research.
  28. Meet The Denominator
    Yeah I got what he meant Les. It will tell you how many results there are, but wont let you see any beyond page 100. Of course Poptech would not be satisfied until every one had been gone over with a fine tooth-comb to find hints of skepticism via his foolishly broad definition of 'alarm', whereas all the rest of us can see that there are undoubtedly way, way more papers that conclude that AGW is cause for alarm (by Poptech's definition) than the other way around, and hence the exact number won't matter - it will dwarf 850.
  29. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    @Tamblyn: you touch on two related problems, that are ultimately just as challenging as climate...population growth and resource depletion. The happy clappy thought that science is going to find ways to replace scarce metals and energy sources for future generations, is incredibly optimistic. Malthus will ultimately be proven correct.
  30. Meet The Denominator
    #168, 169 Poppy Tech: Check Mate Anyone understand what he's saying? I tried Robs search and it works much the same, no 1,000 result limit. I've no idea what the Google Scholar Help link is on about, but it's under the heading of "Citation Export", so I suppose it's something to do with the API, judging by the other help questions... Makes on wonder about the reliability of his list if it involves using advanced technology like google, without him having a clear understanding of that technology...
  31. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    My problem with any economic analysis is just how you quantify the negative effects of warming. I can imagine doing this if you say, "we'll have 10% more droughts", and then calculate the rise in the price of food. But what if the rise in the price of food leads to starvation, riots and civil war? Is that factored into the costs? If Queensland floods more often, how do you calculate the cost of broken hearted farmers having to walk off the land? On the other hand, when you look at the cost of cutting CO2 emissions, how do we factor in human ingenuity? Its a bit like someone in 1950 trying to quantify the influence of the computer - very hard to do accurately, with a tendency to be too conservative about our ability to make things better and better.
  32. Dikran Marsupial at 00:57 AM on 15 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    BP@44 Marcus' challenge clearly relates to global temperatures, so pointing out there have been occasions when "NH Extratropics" have warmed faster clearly does not show the claim to be "unsubstantiated" because that is a regional warming, not a global warming. "it is your turn to show us an *unnatural* mechanism that you think was responsible for warming a thousand years ago." Straw man (and a rather silly one at that). Nobody is saying that warming a thousand years ago was unnatural. More importantly, the hypothesis of AGW is not based on an assertion that the warming we have observed is unprecedented, the hypothesis is based on a mechanism with observational, experimental and theoretical support, not on the observed warming even being unusual. It is only unusual in that it cannot be explained by natural mechanisms, given our current understanding of climate physics. It can be explained however, if include anthropogenic influcences.
  33. Meet The Denominator
    Nope. Should be possible, like I said, to take a sample and extrapolate. I certainly can't be bothered tho - you just ain't worth it.
  34. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Daniel Bailey #27 Deleting my posts won't change the facts Daniel.. Johnd and I have made some simple logical points about the range of extreme events in Australia. To suggest that 30 years is a significant period to judge changes in flood/drought events is preposterous. Not even 100 years is a significant period when we have seen only one such other drought event (the Federation drought) and one other such flood event in Brisbane (the twin floods of 1893) of similar severity. Adelady - as Harry Butler famously said; "The Aboriginals were great naturalists but not great conservationists". They were not crash hot on science either - certainly not up for sailing 12000 miles around the world to observe the transit of Venus or inventing Harrisons clock to measure longitude. I have not read his 1824 log for some time but I seem to recall that John Oxley had observed debris high in the trees along the Brisbane river and the local Aborigines were quite agitated about floods - indicating that the 12m flood had been fairly recent in 1824. Our cruel and exploitative British ancestors were actually rather good at recording things and navigating their way around - if not too hot at bush survival. I would expect that the 12m height of the debris was a fairly accurate estimate if not actually measured.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You erroneously assume I deleted your post, which I did not do. My comment was for others to read on the dichotomy of your inconsistent position WRT time series and statistical significance. As to the content of your comments, as long as it complies with the Comment Policy, I leave them alone.
  35. Meet The Denominator
    No-one has the time to verify that many results anyway. Maybe one person with too much time on their hands would look at all publications from a certain year and extrapolate from there using data for all published articles. Anyway, the obvious point remains that regardless of the exact numbers involved, you have 850 papers (some of shall we say, less than stellar quality?) and there are thousands and thousands of climate papers out there that evidently implicitely work from the grounding that AGW is happening or explicitely state that it is. If they didn't, they'd be on your list right? So, are you denying that there are vastly more papers than your 850 that explicitely or implicitely accept that AGW is real (even the parts you might find 'alarming'), just because the exact number of those papers is so large it can't easily be quantified? I know there are more grains of sand on a beach than 850... but I can't count them all. I guess that means by Poptech's logic that his list has as many 'skeptical' papers as there are grains of sand on a beach?
  36. I want to earn my future, not inherit it
    Well said and + 1 vote. I hope everyone who visits Skeptical Science follows suit, and I wish more people your age would speak up about what is being bequeathed to them. (I frequently find myself feeling grateful for being 49 and not having children, because I won't have to see the worst of it, which is an awful way to think). Btw, does anyone know where we could nominate WUWT for Best Science Fiction blog....? ;)
  37. Berényi Péter at 00:18 AM on 15 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    #37 Marcus at 11:34 AM on 11 February, 201 When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years Marcus, you may notice that according to this reconstruction using RCS (Regional Curve Standardization) NH extratropics have warmed by 0.66°C in 40 years between 950 and 990 AD. That's a rate of +0.165°C/decade. As the reconstruction is based on tree rings, arctic amplification is left out. Also, it is a smoothed version of the actual temperature anomaly signal after a 40 year low-pass filter was applied. Therefore your claim the warming which is observed "over the last 30 years" is "the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years" is unsubstantiated. Now, as it is established, it is your turn to show us an *unnatural* mechanism that you think was responsible for warming a thousand years ago. Science 22 March 2002 Vol. 295 no. 5563 pp. 2250-2253 DOI: 10.1126/science.1066208 Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook & Fritz H. Schweingruber It is very likely there were many more 30 year long periods during the last 10,000 years when rate of warming was faster than we see right now (followed by cooling later on, of course). Sorry, pink noise is just like that. In the good old days it was called natural variability.
  38. Coral Reef Baselines
    I like your contrarian spirit! Hopefully, you apply that to science on both sides of the isle. "It looks like you're putting the imperative of the message before the science." In this case, I think correctly interpreting the science matters. But, I really just want to get at truth, not prove a point. Iv'e gotten myself into a lot of trouble with my colleagues for publishing a few papers that (like Sweatman et al) argue reef degradation isn't as severe as we thought (in terms of both coral loss and seaweed increase)(Bruno et al 2008 - warning 7GB file!, Schutte et al 2010) Some colleagues - for whom I do think the message is more important than the science - wrote a pretty tough critique (Hughes et al 2010) of our work, ie, the positions in that case are reversed! I am working on a "rebuttal post" (and publication) that in essence explains how they cherry pick to exaggerate the decline. (point being I'm a non-idiological critic)
  39. Dikran Marsupial at 23:37 PM on 14 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Poptech@71 wrote "Show me a paper that does not mention "anthropogenic global warming" but explicitly endorses it." Just as an exercise, I tried to find the phrase "anthropogenic global warming" in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report. I ocurrs exactly once and once only (on page 896, in a discsussion of the projected regional climate change for central and south america.) Now if that one reference were deleted, would the IPCC WG1 report no longer be "expicitly endorsing" "anthropogenic global warming" (other than in mere pedantry)? Poptechs challenge just demonstrates that he has not really looked at the literature, there are plenty of papers by e.g. James Hansen that do not contain the phrase "anthropgenic global warming", does that mean they don't support the hypothesis that much the observed warming since the late 20th century is due to an anthropogenic increase in long-lived GhGs? No, of course not. Poptech has been told before that if he wants to curate a resource that would actually be of benefit to the skeptics, he needs to do more than just collect papers. He needs to organise them by topic (much as John has done here at sks - which is why it is a vauable resource); but more importantly he needs to weed out the papers that are incorrect - otherwise he is sending skeptics into battle* armed with blanks. I'm sure they'll thank him for that! A skeptic version of skepticalscience would be a really good thing for the debate, if it would stop the same old tired canards being trotted out again and again, rather than encouraging their reuse, which is all that Poptech's list really achieves. * N.B. as far as the science there are no "sides" and no "battle" - we are all seeking the truth.
  40. The Climate Show: Episode 6 and their own website
    It's a great podcast. I look forward each new episode. The relaxed tone, the special guests and the structure of different blocks (science, solutions, Skeptical Science, etc.) makes it an interesting, informative and easy hearing. I usually listen to it in the car, on my way to work.
  41. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    @Glenn Tamblyn: that's not a very cheery thought to end on, though I fully understand where you're coming from. Given the advances in medical science we've seen over the past few decades, there's a distinct possibly some of us typing here today will live to see some of the consequences of global warming. When I think about the "head in the sand" attitude of many deniers & political conservatives, though, I sometimes despair for my baby daughter's future, and wonder if my grandchildren will have a habitable world to grow up in... one thing's for sure - it's not gonna be the same world I grew up in.
  42. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Marcus In 37, you wrote... "When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years" According, the inverse must also be true. That some climate proxy exists with a 30 year or less resolution going back 10,000 years, proving that such a change has never occurred in the past.
  43. Meet The Denominator
    As always, fascinating. The various means the "denial" community come up with of "disproving" stuff. It's going to keep philosophers of science, sociologists, psychologists etc. in work for years to come. I had no idea of Pop Tech's particular techniques before... and yet it seems to date back to 2009. Better Check That List / rogerpielkejr.blogspot "My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does." all be it with a smaller, and shrinking, numerator.
  44. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    I suppose it is true to say that amateurs necessarily cherry pick but that they don't necessarily do so deliberately. They just aren't aware of, or don't have access to, the multitude of information that swamps their little cherry pick.
  45. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    Dana, "Clear as mud, right?" Thanks for your, actually, very clear explanation. :)
  46. Meet The Denominator
    I wonder how PopTech would classify a paper by Cliff Ollier setting out novel views about Greenland ice loss, published in a reviewed journal at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html Does PopTech take take into account that Olliers position is subsequently demolished by a paper published in the same journal a month later, at: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page7523.html The first paper would I am sure get on the PopTech list but I very much doubt that any note would be taken of the second paper.
  47. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    A compelling refutation of Monckton (who read Classics at Cambridge, not Economics) and one which concludes with the all important question … what exactly are we waiting for? From government, we are waiting for political will and realisation that continued failure to adopt meaningful CO2 reduction targets and introduce an ETS, designed to prevent undermining its purpose (eg through trading in off-sets of little value), is not and never has been an option. Prime Minister Gillard appears more resolute than her predecessors. Given the scientific advice she is receiving and pressure from the Greens, she has little option but to seek passage of legislation and its implementation in 2011. Opposition insistence that adapting to climate change, paying the business sector to reduce emissions and adoption of a meaningless CO2 reduction target (5% below 2000 levels by 2020) makes them irrelevant. Acceptance of science based advice rather than that provided by climate change deniers (Monckton, Plimer et al) is unlikely. The Opposition has yet to explain how we can adapt to increasingly global warming and ocean acidification or pay for their effects. In reality, the attitude of the Opposition towards climate change and its consequences makes them irrelevant. Excluding fossil fuel industries, the business sector appears more interested in maintaining its competitiveness in domestic and international markets. It is likely to oppose an ETS or Carbon Tax which does not give them comfort in this regard, largely because it is ill-informed, particularly about new commercial opportunities The fossil fuel and coal fired energy industries faced with reduced domestic use of their products by 2020 and significant fall in exports by 2050 will not support measures hastening decline of very lucrative markets. In summary, the Australian government will act to abate CO2 emissions in 2011 and assist development of alternative energy sources, gas and geothermal, to replace fossil fuels. Transition to a low (then no) carbon economy will pose challenges for both government and industries dependent on fossil fuel use. They can and will be met with in-depth planning, so far not evident. Is Minister Combet the man for the job?
  48. Coral Reef Baselines
    "What have they got to do with science? Are you kidding? Science isn't just numbers in a lab notebook. If it isn't communicated (with peers, the public, policy makers) it isn't science. Addressing the distortion of science and attempting to explain that distortion (and explain the science clearly and honestly) is part of the job of a scientist (and of an educator, which I also am)." But what does this have to do with Sweatman's science? I can only see that what you're worrying about is what The Australian might say about Sweatman's science rather than what Sweatman is saying himself. It looks like you're putting the imperative of the message before the science. "My beef isn't about whether there is a step change, if so what caused it, etc. It is about what the GBR looked like before people, ie, what is the baseline. I don't think reef state in 1986 represented the baseline. Make sense?" Having read Sweatman's paper I don't actually see how this captures Sweatman's position. He seems to be unconvinced that your methodology captures the true trend. His position seems to be more accurtaely that the longer term trend is overstated not that it started in 1986. But I'm happy to defer to you and him on this and look forward to reading more.
  49. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    Mozart at #19. Natural gas is touted as a partial solution, but there is a catch. Comparisons tend to only look at the combustion of the gas, not the extraction from a well. Often CO2 is included in the source and it has to be separated. There is a new gas well in Western Australia (Browse)which when it comes on line shortly will produce 5% of the country's CO2 emissions!!! One gas well producing more CO2 than the whole of NZ! An appropriate carbon tax would have ensured that the project wasn't viable.
  50. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    The World Bank also do a great job of ignoring the science in their economic analyses: The World Bank, droughts, and voodoo economics

Prev  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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