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  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  Next

Comments 95801 to 95850:

  1. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech wrote : "It simply has to do with whether a paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW Alarm." Why does it appear so difficult for you to understand the simple fact that, as Pielke Jr has already told you (no, not in a private correspondence or email - why would he bother wasting his time telling you privately what he has told you publically ?), your little list supports only your definition of what a 'skeptic' is and what 'AGW Alarm' means. The list means nothing outside of that, apart from a number that the more credulous of so-called skeptics can use to try to claim that it is a lot. Try to see things as they are in the real world and in other people's minds. Try to come outside your bubble and understand that, just because you think you can self-determine what a particular word means, doesn't mean that it has any validation to anyone else. Try it. Poptech wrote : "I am entitled to the context of the words I use. What is amazing is you believe that a word with multiple definitions, that I use in my own context, must not mean what I say but what you want." I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that you determine the meaning of words and can use any meaning of any particular word (that has more than one meaning) as you see fit, and that everyone else in the real world then has to try to work out which meaning you are using in any particular moment ? That the context you have in your head (which is usually hidden from everyone else) should be evident to everyone else in the real world ? Hm, I have news for you - if you play with words and try to claim that their meaning is determined by yourself, you are being shifty, insincere, shallow and untrustworthy. Sorry. Poptech wrote : "Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes? "My analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend..." Roger Pielke Jr." As usual, we have the Poptech shuffle, where nothing is as it seems and words are used to suit the Poptech agenda. The rest of that quote (from 2005) is : ...once the data are normalized to remove the effects of societal changes. That was a response to a K. Emanuel paper, to which Emanuel also responded, but to which Pielke didn't again respond. Ultimately, Pielke's paper is not against 'AGW Alarm' (except in Poptech's version of 'AGW Alarm'), and Emanuel's response took into account Pielke's claims. No 'AGW Alarm' here...only in Poptech's world.
  2. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    johnd @28, "perhaps you need to go back and carefully read my post that you were replying to, in particular the second last paragraph, and you will see that my post was in fact a response to your comment "Yes, something very different is going on alright." " First, if you are going to speak to a particular point/sentence, please quote it in your reply at the beginning as I have done here. Second, what you claim in the quote above is not strictly true. You took spent a long time taking issue with the start and end dates and made insinuations of scientific malpractice against the authors. You do later say this: "Therefore before one can conclude that something very different is going on, other than some short term aberrations, one needs to consider if the beginning and ending points of the study were firstly moved back, say a nominal one decade, and then secondly moved forward one decade, would the same conclusions be reached. " The trends are statistically significant, which means that there is enough data to extract a statistically robust/significant signal. I again challenge you to demonstrate that moving the start and/or end dates refutes their conclusions-- anything else on your part is hand waving, speculation and void of science. and again I remind you that this work does not stand alone, but forms part of a much larger coherent body of evidence which shows that rainfall extremes around the globe (including Oz) are increasing. And Rob painting @36 makes an excellent point when he says (well when the research has demonstrated): "I do hope you understand that rainfall totals can fall in a region yet extreme rainfall events can increase." And it still appears to me that you are criticizing a paper which you have not even bothered reading (in full). Have you read the paper johnd?
  3. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Guiganbresil - I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted Ah, so therein lies your problem. A little reading?. You're going to have to expend more energy I'm afraid. The global oceans are acidifying not just upwelling regions. Seriously, did you not think that scientists studying this problem gloss over the obvious?. You're asserting that upwelling itself is somehow increasing the acidity of coastal regions over the last couple of centuries. How does your novel mechanism work?. Citations?. Note how the scientific studies on climate show consilience?. For example: Continued fossil fuel burning leads to increases in atmospheric CO2 which in turn leads to more dissolved into the oceans via Henry's Law. Notice the the relationship here?.
  4. Meet The Denominator
    Skepticalscience readers, Here is a challenge that I hope someone with more time than I will follow though on: 1) Find out how may papers on the list are also cited in the IPCC reports. 2) As I mentioned in my previous post, papers which have been overturned/refuted in the literature are also still on the list-- find all the papers which have been refuted. 3) Find all the papers which are inconsistent with each other or contradict each other (e.g., papers saying it was warmer during previous interglacials or MWP, and others claiming that equilibrium climate sensitivity is low). If the skeptics want to overthrow the theory of AGW they need to present a cohesive, consistent and coherent picture, not one that includes a wide myriad of logical fallacies, contradictions and refuted science.
  5. Meet The Denominator
    140 Ron Thanks. So not really a "typical" example of anything. I guess the rest Of the list is equally dubious? So: what Dana said. 2/10 to Mr PopTech; amusing, but could try harder.
  6. Meet The Denominator
    Oh dear, not the infamous list again. I'm sure that the creationists have compiled similar lists in a (futile) attempt to challenge the theory of evolution. One hardly knows where to begin with the issues. First, the title does not make sense. what does the author mean by "skepticism"? Scientists are by their very nature skeptical; and the author seems to be confusing "uncertainty" with the actual meaning of "scepticism". Why is "man-made" in quotation marks? That is usually done to imply that something is not real, when AGW is in fact an established theory, some might even go so far as to argue it is a "fact". And it is not sure what the term "alarm" is meant to convey, is it pejorative, or is it a claim that the impacts of AGW will not be "alarming"? Moreover, there is clearly a mismatch between the papers cited to support the title. There are also gross contradictions in the list-- some papers like G&T09 which essentially deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, others which deny it is warming, others which say it is warming but that that the warming is caused by natural cycles, others which claim that the warming is there but that is is nothing compared to the warming observe din previous interglacials, others which attribute the warming to the sun (an external driver)...I could not compile a more incoherent, contradictory potpourri of papers if I tried. There are also some beautiful examples of how the list has some serious issues and not to mention the numerous examples of own goals. An example of an own goal is citing a debunked paper like G&T09-- a fundamentally flawed paper which has been soundly refuted in the literature. Including such a fatally flawed paper (which is wrong) is not a reason to be sceptical of AGW, in fact it is a reason to be skeptical of the sub-par "science" undertaken by so-called "skeptics" contrarians and deniers of AGW. In fact, all those papers written by "skeptics" which have been overturned in the scientific literature (and there are quite a few) should be removed from the list. I could go on, but this really is like shooting fish in a barrel....
  7. Meet The Denominator
    Ultimately the problem with lists like Poptech and the Oregon Petition is that they don't apply any filters. Poptech's response is that people can look at his list and evaluate the papers themselves. The problem is that when your list is 850 papers long, that becomes completely impractical. The length of the list is a detriment. If, for example, it filtered out garbage papers like those published in E&E, and categorized them by exactly what areas the papers are examining, it would be feasible to get something useful from the list. But as it is, it's just a list of every paper Poptech can find that he thinks are skeptical of AGW "alarm". It's pure quantity over quality, and the only thing anybody can get out of it is the number 850. And considering that the 850 includes garbage like EG Beck's paper, the number itself is utterly meaningless. So if all that can be gleaned from the list is the number 850, it's an entirely valid argument to point out that compared to the total number of scientific papers on the subject, 850 is a drop in the bucket. And it is. Poptech, you've clearly put a lot of time into compiling this list. I would suggest that your time would be better used applying some filters and organization than continuing to add quantity rather than quality.
  8. Meet The Denominator
    Nothing discredits poptech more thoroughly than dozens of posts by poptech himself. Nice honeytrap you've written, Rob!
  9. Meet The Denominator
    I represent that general population Philippe and I certainly don't swallow anything, I don't care what it is. It all deserves closer inspection. So I do as my mother taught me to do except I've changed the wording slightly to suit the modern age. I believe nothing of what I hear and only half of what I read. You could put fifteen pages of citations, appointments, etc. etc. to a persons name and I say, yeah, so what, the person is human and therefore fallible. I don't do science and these lists are meaningless to me, so I too have no reason to believe that anyone doing real science would care either. The world is no longer full of ignorant uneducated savages, yet there is always some predator waiting in the wings to prey upon sentiment.
  10. Meet The Denominator
    Yes Les Roger A. Pielke, Jr. is your man.
  11. Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 14 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Rob, the general population will swallow just about anything anyway. The truth is that both the OISM list and PT list of papers are sad attempts at creating doubt about the general state of the scientific knowledge when there is no such doubt. Neither one of these things deserves any attention from one actually trying to understand the science. The only reason why they are attracting so much attention is because they are given such resonance by blogs and people in the press trying to spread doubt. Is there anyone out there doing science who gives a hoot about these stupid lists? Please...
  12. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
    Gareth: Kudos on a great article! Please make it more SkS user friendly by adding "Related Articles" and "Further Reading" tabs.
  13. IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period
    Dana; Kudos on a great article! Please make your post more SkS user friendly by adding "Related Articles" and "Recommneded Reading" tabs.
  14. Meet The Denominator
    Could some please help me regarding Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes? I'm not families with him... Is this Policy wonk our man? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr. Who posted this? http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/02/quote-clarification.html If so, this can't possibly be a good example of an unambiguous anti or pro anythin person??? Thanks for clarrificstion.
  15. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    guinganbresil: Although I like Sigourny Weaver as an actress, I do not value her scientific reputation. If you use the search box in the upper corner and search "ocean acidification" you will find about 20 threads on this site that will fill you in on this issue. I like here and here for starters. If you inform yourself about the science you will be able to put together an argument that others might listen to. When your primary scientific reference says that ocean acidification is a severe problem and you hand wave their conclusion off it is not a very good argument. These professionals have measured a change in pH in an important location for fisheries. This is a big problem. What data do you have that they are wrong? If this was not an important issue the PNAS would not publish their paper. An amateur saying professionals are obviously wrong does not get very far.
  16. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    #3: "measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2." Rising atmospheric CO2 seems to be making an impact in more than just coastal waters: See prior ocean acidification threads; here's one for starters. See also McNeil and Matear 2008 Southern Ocean acidification via anthropogenic CO2 uptake is expected to be detrimental to multiple calcifying plankton species by lowering the concentration of carbonate ion (CO32−) to levels where calcium carbonate (both aragonite and calcite) shells begin to dissolve.
  17. Meet The Denominator
    I think people too often dismiss the impact that PopTech's 850 papers site has. People locate that site and swallow the premise hook, line and sinker. The general audience doesn't think about it. That's why this simple method of applying the denominator is important. It's an easy concept to grasp and puts such numbers in proper perspective. This method of applying the denominator is a great way for the general public to apply true skepticism.
  18. Meet The Denominator
    In case you haven't heard I'm no scientist, nor do I have any affiliation with any research into the matter Poptech. But I do read a lot. Now I'm going to be very generous and whittle the searches I've made on Google Scholar and limit it to 35,200. That would give you a representative figure of 2.4%. That gives your argument far less validity than the IPCC claim of 95% certainty in my eyes. That means to me that there are a further 2.6% that are undecided or abstain from leaning one way or the other. A 95% certainty is good enough odds for this average Joe. So if you think that the average person these days is gullible enough to buy your nonsense, think again. Learn to be constructive or get out of the kitchen.
  19. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech: "No, I am only obsessed with correcting misinformation about my work." What work? From what I see, you are leeching.
  20. Meet The Denominator
    'Stu, "We get it. Poptech has attempted to justify the unjustifiable and has not succeeded."' ^ I didn't say that. "That is not peer-reviewed." What's your point? I never claimed that it was. FWIW, its reference material is: http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/ I said: "Face it: your list contains bad science as measured by the objective position of whether it is demonstrably correct or not." You said: "Incorrect." Wow, crushing argument. Let's leave aside the fact that you've previously acknowledged that there are some papers in the list that, if correct, mean that others in the list are incorrect (i.e, that you have refuted yourself). The above statement seems to suggest that you are in agreement with C&K when they say: "Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate." which is a demonstrably false statement because they neglected the time over which those emissions happened. And if you can't see that, there's no helping you. "Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes?" Sure, I think he's right. Data is data. But he was also right when he said: 'the title of your post is: "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category' So perhaps it's more about your sloppiness than anything else ;-)
  21. Newcomers, Start Here
    stephenwv - The ice cores are taken from glacial and continental ice sheets, as floating ice doesn't tend to have been consistently present for tens or hundreds of thousands of years; a requirement when establishing a time-line. See the wiki Ice core page, also for related published work see the NOAA page on this. Ice cores trap tiny bubbles (I considered a Don Ho reference here...) of atmospheric gases as they form and compact (compact due to accumulating snow on top of them). Depending on the rate of snow accumulation at that spot the bubbles represent a few 10's to perhaps 100's of years sample (depending on the core site). Analysis of relative oxygen isotopes indicate local temperatures, amounts of CO2 show atmospheric concentrations, beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity, which can be used as a solar activity proxy, dust is an indicator of volcanic activity, and so on. Note, however, that whatever gases melting ice releases (a very very small amount) is of the relative concentrations from when it formed. That means the CO2 concentration in such released melts is lower in CO2 (190-290ppm) than in the present atmosphere (395ppm).
  22. Meet The Denominator
    PopTech... "Fascinating how everyone avoids the Pielke question." If you are going to use one statement from one scientist in one paper as a method to validate your entire invalid list, yes, we have reason to avoid the question.
  23. Meet The Denominator
    Eric in comment 117 made a good point. The problem with the Poptech list is that as designed, it's essentially worthless. Nobody has the time to look through 850 papers, so all that can be gleamed from the list is the number 850. But aside from the subjectivity of the list ("alarm"), it also contains known garbage like E&E papers, including EG Beck's nonsense. That a a paper is "peer-reviewed" by some definition of the word doesn't necessarily mean there is any worth to it. Now, if the list were at least categorized as in Eric's suggestion, something useful could come out of it. We could skip over the Beck-style garbage and look just at papers about hurricanes, for example. But just as a list, all Poptech gives us is an utterly meaningless number, which is exactly how "skeptics" use the list - as nothing more than a number. So Rob's treatment of the list as such in The Denominator is perfectly valid. You can complain about his methods, and we can complain about Poptech's. Bottom line, Poptech's list doesn't tell us anything worthwhile. I also urge everyone to remember the list purports to contain skepticism of AGW alarm, not AGW. Some comments are making this mistake.
  24. Meet The Denominator
    I have to say, I find PopTech to be a fascinating individual. The metal contortionism he's willing to go through to defend an ultimately indefensible position is nothing short of astounding.
  25. It's a natural cycle
    Certainly forcing produce multiple reactions. 2 reactions that I have not seen integrated into the CO2 mix, are the absorption of CO2 due to increased acidification, which seems to be accelerating. Coral and shells dissolve more rapidly as acidification increases, which allows for increased CO2 absorption. Also CO2 release into the atmosphere, from the ocean, decreases as the thermohaline circulation slows due to continued warming. There have been precious few, if any studies done on these CO2 reducing reactions, and incorporated into the CO2/AGW puzzle. This is one of the few references I have found to either. Harvard Magazine - Nov 2002 - The Ocean Carbon Cycle
    Moderator Response: See the post "PMEL Carbon Program."
  26. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    When I first heard about 'Ocean Acidification' I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted. I found that the pH of the ocean water starts dropping (see Fig 3.) when you descend past the biologically active layer (~pH 8.1), and reaches a minimum of around pH 7.6 at around 800 meters. I did not see this important fact mentioned on the PMEL website. Near the coasts, this deep water upwells and mixes with the surface water, lowering its pH and bringing vital nutrients to the surface. The rate of upwelling is a function of the direction of coastal winds. So, in other words, measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2. As far as the impact of surface pH on ocean organisms, I found that the most alarming research (thin shells etc.) was done in areas of known upwelling. It is clear that living organisms will spread and populate the very edges of their tolerance - shellfish will live in low pH water that dissolves their shells IF there are sufficient nutrients to support them. Finding examples of critters at the edge of their tolerance is just a matter of selecting the right critter and the right locale. I am concerned that the PMEL website is showing a lack of objectivity when it repeatedly focuses on anthropogenic nature of ocean carbon cycle changes (in the mission statements) when there are large natural variations that should also be studied to gain a true understanding of the ocean dynamics.
  27. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    #56: "increased absorption of CO2 resulting from the dissolving of the calcitrate" Try searching "carbonate compensation depth climate change" in Google Scholar; 8000+ results.
    Moderator Response: Stephenwv, in the Search field on this page, type PMEL Carbon Cycle.
  28. Newcomers, Start Here
    #114 It is correct to state that the Vostok ice core samples were not created directly from salty ocean water. The Vostok station is located in the center of the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, hundreds of miles from the ocean. I apologize for not providing any supporting links as this is being tapped out from my phone, which does not support copy & paste.
  29. Meet The Denominator
    "What is "bad" science is subjective." This is about as untrue as a statement can get. Science that is demonstrably incorrect is bad science. That's entirely objective. Right here is a brief blog post (with references), perhaps one you've seen before, that describes concisely why Khilyuk & Chilingar (2006) is wrong, by my objective definition above. Face it: your list contains bad science as measured by the objective position of whether it is demonstrably correct or not.
  30. Newcomers, Start Here
    stephenev, The ice cores are from glaciers not frozen seawater.
  31. Newcomers, Start Here
    #112 Prior to finding the reference of CO2 in ice core samples I had only heard there was no CO2 in ice. Recently I read that when ocean water freezes, there are pockets of unfrozen water that is trapped. This is supposed to allow concentrations of salt to form as the remaining water freezes. This suggests that the small amounts of CO2 present in the water would also be trapped. Do you have a link that would address any of this and the miniscule amounts involved that you state exist in the core samples. Am I correct that these ice core samples are not created directly from salty ocean water?
  32. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:13 AM on 14 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Is it time to close off this thread? Poptech has been given enough rope and has used it well to hang himself several times over. We get it. Poptech has attempted to justify the unjustifiable and has not succeeded. Rob's post was worthwhile, drawing out Poptech to demonstrate just how worthless his list is (as demonstrated by the fact that almost no-one uses it anymore in trying to convince people to their odd beliefs). And no-one from the Oregon Petition fraud has even bothered to comment. Probably because the fraud has already been well and truly exposed for what it is.
  33. Meet The Denominator
    Mod, an unsnipped duplicate version of my post is still here. Did I accidentally re-submit it? Anyway, the snip makes it look like I've been very naughty. Readers, try and guess what word I used ;-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] It was only 1 word (the toe went over the line). Very naughty & the whole comment would've been disappeared. :)
  34. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    I am unable to find studies that address the increased absorption of CO2 resulting from the dissolving of the calcitrate in shells and coral due to increased acidification. Funding for such CO2 absorbing studies must not be available. Here is one of the only references I can find. Harvard Magazine - The Ocean Carbon Cycle - Nov 2002
  35. Meet The Denominator
    #116: "an instance serving for illustration" If you had included the last word in that sentence ('specimen') in your cut and paste, you would have the correct context. What you provided was neither an instance nor a specimen, but an illustration. You made it up to make a point, something the deniersphere seems to do quite frequently. If you cite 'illustration' as 'example,' it is evident that you draw no distinction between fact and fiction. Further commentary is pointless.
  36. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
  37. Meet The Denominator
    "What is considered a "legitimate concern" is subjective. This is the problem with many of the arguments here, they are in the context of the author's personal opinion which may not relate to someone else." Granted*, but by your definition a paper that concludes 'in a certain region crop yields fall in warmer years' is alarmist - even if it's based on observations rather than projecitons. But how can it be alarmist if it merely states this and makes no policy recommendations? *By the way, in my opinion your opinion is ( - tiny snip- ).
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let's take the high road, Stu. There are ways to say what you said that do not violate the Comments Policy.
  38. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech wrote : "I did not use the scientific definition of the word theory." Now that explains a lot. Thank you. Just like you don't use a real-world definition of 'alarm', 'AGW alarm' or 'skepticism' - you use the versions you have created in that Poptech world of yours. Let's face it, you can make any word mean what you want it to mean and no-one can get past that confirmation bias of yours. Round and round and round you go, where you end up, no-one knows from post to post. Amazing.
  39. Meet The Denominator
    "Not at all as that is for science to decide not those who wish to censor science." Oh good grief. Do you realise how foolish you sound? I'd say that maintaining papers on the list whose authors have objected to being on the list is, if not censoring science, akin to censoring scientists. Or rather, smearing them by association. Aside from the regular papers whose results you have somewhat misinterpreted (or interpreted as being skeptical of AGW rather than simply discussing climate science), you are giving an airing to a lot of papers that really shouldn't see the light of day. Not because anyone's censoring them, but because they're bad science, mainly published in low-rent journals, and no-one's ever going to cite them. I talking about papers like Khilyuk & Chillingar's efforts. But hey, if you wanted to provide a resource that makes your fellow 'skeptics' more wrong, then mission accomplished!
  40. Newcomers, Start Here
    @111 I think you just have a basic misunderstanding. The gas bubbles in ice represent what was in the atmosphere at the time they were captured, which includes all gases. Releasing those gases together as the ice melts is not going to increase the parts per volume of those gases in the atmosphere.
  41. Meet The Denominator
    Fascinating thread, the attack and defense of generalities. There are a few scientists who believe CO2 is not historically high, skeptic Ferdinand Englebeen shows conclusively that they are wrong. A slightly larger number, but still only a dozen or two that believe that CO2 is not a major GHG or that increases in CO2 do not increase GAT. Another skeptic, Jack Barrett, uses MODTRAN to show that their basic arguments are wrong. Often their arguments contradict each others. The only skeptic papers worth arguing about, IMO, are those which acknowledge AGW and show low or no amplification or show that 2C or less in a century is manageable, or that give a broad perspective of drawbacks and benefits of CC. Those can be countered with specific arguments to the point where presuppositions, logic and conclusions can be compared. My advice to Poptech is to categorize the papers by type of argument. I believe the urgent-action-required side could use categories like models showing sufficient warming to melt Greenland in century timescales or trends in catastrophic impacts or other CAGW arguments. The rest of the papers supporting AGW, of which there are thousands, are settled science, but should not be conflated with catastrophic projections for which urgent action is required.
  42. Newcomers, Start Here
    #110 Context is paramount. At our current level of understanding, global warming is beimg caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration makes it easier for the oceans to absorb CO2 despite the increased temperature that would otherwise cause the oceans to become a net source. #111 The gas composition analysis of ice core samples is done through relative comparison of the minute gas pockets trapped in the ice crystal matrix. Melting ice is not a significant source of CO2.
  43. Newcomers, Start Here
    Regarding my belief that there was CO2 in ice, another NAS affiliated web site, states: “Atmospheric CO2 measured from bubbles in Dome Fuji ice shows the same pattern as the temperature time-series.” You tell me ice has no CO2 to release as it melts. Somehow I got the impression that they were measuring CO2 in ice. My bad. I thought NOAA was supposed to be a credible Government scientific organization, again, affiliated with the NAS. So I was not skeptical of their statement. I'm learning. Must be skeptical. Can't trust anyone. What the words say is not to be taken literally (or something).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link (the system was not recognizing the italic double-quotes you were using).
  44. Meet The Denominator
    #109: "I just gave an example" The word 'example' is defined as a specimen or instance that is typical of the group or set of which it forms part Since you admit that your 'example' is not a member of the group you specified (search results for the words anthropogenic global warming without any quotes), we must conclude that your use of the word 'example' is made up to suit your purposes (just as your use of the made up 'AGW Alarm'). Whatever credibility you may once have had was done in by your own words -- again. The rest is just noise. Too bad the web doesn't have a squelch control, the way old ham radios did.
  45. Newcomers, Start Here
    NOTE: I wanted to have the quote and link at the bottom of this post read first, please do so. For some reason my entire comment would not preview if it led off. Sorry. I have always seen your credible blog posters discredit the referenced statement/author/website for false information rather than attacking the messenger (me). As this was not done, I was skeptical of the criticism. In retrospect, now it appears you only bring anti-AGW web site/studies/authors to task and not pro-AGW. As I was trusting of web sites basically controlled by the US Government, apparently, incorrectly believing that if they were not the most credible source of information, who was? In the past I have been skeptical of any sites that smacked of special interests and bias. Now you have taught me to be skeptical of the government sites, as well as how you apply your own bias of heavy criticism of anti-AGW anything, while you give a virtual free pass to pro-AGW anything. With that being said and understood, I do find your site to be the most helpful I have seen in sorting out the hysterical propaganda from the less hysterical. "WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING DOING TO THE OCEANS? It's raising the oceans' temperatures ever so slowly, but also, it's making it easier for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2)." Gov. AGU statement
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link (you were missing the closing double-parenthesis from the URL tag). Also, please refrain from using all-caps. Thanks!
  46. Coral Reef Baselines
    John, you're a scientist looking at reefs? Can you tell me what the following quotes from your piece has to do with the science? "Global climate change skeptics have frequently use a very similar approach: they rationalize cherry picking a favored data set and time interval in an attempt to show land and ocean temperatures haven’t increased, that sea ice hasn’t declined, etc" "Climate change deniers use this argument frequently, suggesting that natural short term variation makes long-term, anthropogenically forced trends, unlikely or undetectable. This is in a sense what Sweatman et al are arguing as well." Can I just clear something up? You seem to be labelling Sweatman a skeptic/denier. At the very least it looks like guilt by association. Is this true? If so it's rather worrying that only certain 'types of science' are acceptable. I hope you don't find it too rude. It was very honest of you to note you reviewed this paper. Obviously Sweatman defended your criticisms through the review process sufficiently to get the paper published. Do you think it's appropriate to vent your spleen here. Surely the review process was the correct place for this? I guess I'm talking professionally here. As an individual you have every right to say what you want, where you want, however you want to say it. One final question. Have you told Sweatman you're airing your opinion of his work publically on a blog? Maybe he has a right to reply here? Then again he's done this through the review process maybe he doesn't feel the need to go over old ground again.
  47. Meet The Denominator
    #106: "the results just contain those words" Try again (or rather, don't bother with another repeat of the same old carp). Your premise was blown way back here. What other contexts exist for the 47700 items under the search 'anthropogenic "global warming"'? Actually, you just made up that example, as the sentence you 'quoted' does not appear as a search result. Oops, there went whatever credibility that was left. I wonder why this entire exercise isn't spamming up your 'forum,' rather than here, where there are actual discussions of substance.
  48. Meet The Denominator
    It already is, "...negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW." That's a very broad definition. In your opinion then is there no distinction between legitimate concerns about such effects in a warming world (indeed, regardless of the cause of warming) and yelling 'we're all gonna die cos of globl warmin!!' from the rooftops? In my mind AGW alarm (or alarmism) is very different from plain facts and theories about what will happen if the planet warms up within the range of projections. Evidently not in yours...
  49. Meet The Denominator
    Rob, This is excellent and I am adding bits of this to my site. Scott Mandia
  50. Meet The Denominator
    Yes Stu, by handing his fellow deniers a list full of often mutually contradictory papers-some of which don't even support the skeptic position-he is really leaving them open to complete demolition by any non-denialist with half a brain. Some of the papers, though, are pure pseudo-science (especially the stuff from E&E). For example, the hypothesis regarding a natural 1500 year cycle simply isn't supported by available evidence. For instance, if the cycle is around 1500 years long, then why do we have one warm period starting around 3,000BC (almost 6,000 years after the peak of the Holocene Optimum), then nothing until 300BC (2700 years later), then another one starting in 500AD (only 800 years later), then another one starting in the 1700's-less than 1200 years later-& ending in the 1940's. Then the most recent warming-supposedly-occurring only 10-20 years later. Doesn't sound like much of a "cycle" to me-especially given that they've shown that different causes-& even a combination of causes-have been responsible for each warming event.

Prev  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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