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  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  Next

Comments 96151 to 96200:

  1. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    Good :) A thought came to me, and perhaps this is where he gets the 57% figure - about 1.4˚C is expected from a climate sensitivity of 3˚C and current CO2 levels, and 0.8˚C has been realized. Guess what 8/14 is?
  2. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    I personally would be interested in knowing where Monckton came up with the 57% figure - the IPCC doesn't seem to use any numbers similar to that at all: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html Unless they cited such 'warming in the pipeline' figures in another section. They do discuss here though that even if 2000 levels were kept, we'd expect a temperature increase of ~0.3-0.9 (likely 0.6) degrees Celsius by 2100. Monckton's claim of 0.4˚C at most is barely defensible within that range - the 0.4˚C part at least, not the "at most." Good article Dana, as always; one error though, just grammatical: second to last paragraph, I think "fod" should be "for."
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text; thanks!
  3. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    #62: "Those who continue to question AGW ... are now victims of a "Climate Denial Machine???" No, the victims of the CDM will be those who've become the targets of US Republican-controlled Congressional committees. Starting with the EPA's efforts to regulate CO2.
  4. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    As a point of interest for those who may not know, Richard Lindzen, the MIT climate skeptic, has testified in court that the link between smoking and cancer is due to bad statistics. He is a very heavy smoker. Occasionally people note his belief that smoking does not cause cancer to show that his Climate opinions are not believable.
  5. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    "Furthermore, it does this with or without mankind's help, as it has for eons and eons, given that in reality it is a natural process...ironically." Oh, that old canard again, RSVP? Seriously, don't you get bored with this repetitive cut & paste approach? As has already been pointed out to you-ad infinitum-the existence of past, non-anthropogenic climate change, does not rule out the existence of anthropogenic climate change-any more than the existence of naturally occurring forest fires rules out the existence of arson. Comprende RSVP? 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, in spite of declining TSI, at the same time as the stratosphere has cooled significantly, then maybe you'll be adding to the "sum of knowledge & learning". Recently, though, the only thing you've contributed to is the systematic dumbing down of this blogsphere-with your repetitive pseudo-scientific nonsense & your incessant persecution complex.
  6. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    I used the term "in the pipeline" simply because it's a commonly-used phrase (but true that it's often misunderstood). It simply refers to the unrealized warming from the CO2 we've already emitted, and is unrealized because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. enSKog - good catch, I corrected the reference to Scenario B1.
  7. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    Text just above the figure should refer to B1, not B2. The 'warming in the pipeline' idea always seemed to me too open to interpretation. It is the 'CO2' in the pipeline that is the problem.
  8. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    The 'in the pipeline' phrase is often misused to suggest it is stored in the oceans (well by the less well educated contrairians), curious to see Monckton effectively argue this as thermal inertia. I am also fairly sure part of the "in the pipeline" is assumed to be non CO2 positive forcings masked by atmospheric particles such as sulphates and the like, so in theory as we clean our emissions while we lose positive forcing from black carbon we decrease the negative forcing from particulate pollution (I am wandering a touch here to be fair)
  9. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    JohnR, Ah ha! moments of scientific revolution (unsettling settled science) come from presenting evidence, not from asking the same question a hundrededth time because the presenter didn't like the answer received the previous 99 times. Indignation is an emotional plea.
  10. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    JohnR wrote : "The science is never settled." Who said it was ?
  11. CO2 lags temperature
    stevenwv wrote : "What facts would you like verified?" Well, let's start with the first paragraph of that previous post of yours : "It is undeniable that we have yet to reach the 100,000 year interglacial temperature peaks." What figures/data can you link to, to show those "undeniable...100,000 year interglacial temperature peaks" ? You can reply on the following thread : Are we heading into a new ice age ? "CO2 is constantly absorbed and released from the oceans and is the obvious simultaneous prime emitter and absorber of CO2." What figures/data can you link to, to show the oceans currently being "the obvious simultaneous prime emitter and absorber of CO2" ? You can answer on : CO2 is coming from the ocean
    Moderator Response: Stephen, when JMurphy wrote "you can answer" on specific other threads, he/she really means you must, or your answer likely will be deleted from this thread, where your answer would be off topic.
  12. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Those who continue to question AGW, accepting full well that there is GW and A have played a part, are now victims of a "Climate Denial Machine???" (#59) This site is in danger of becoming Skeptical of Science and an enqiring mind. Please stick with the science, not the emotion. A quote from Lonnie Thompson, "It's amazing how science works: you labour and you labour and you learn things that don't fit and don't make sense, and suddenly you get a piece of information from some far corner of the world and it makes you say, 'Hey, your paradigm was wrong, you didn't understand how the system worked'". The science is never settled.
  13. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Jonathan Bagley wrote : "Also, why would the "deniers" invent the phrase "climate change"." "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. Luntz memo, 2003
  14. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Typos in item 9: "stratophere" (twice) should be "stratosphere".
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed; thanks!
  15. It's cooling
    Notsure (#116) The moderator has beaten me to the reply button it seems so I will address a few other (perhaps off topic) points. "I have not heard an argument against the mechanism described by some of the sceptics. If someone understands why the variability of the suns magnetic shield has no influence on our climate then please explain." Would you provide some links to explain these mechanisms? It is up to the person making a claim to support there position before others can critique. "So far all the supporters of manmade global warming seem to do is try to shout down sceptics which only places doubt in my mind over their confidence in the theory." You have come to the right place then as that behavior is not tolerated here. Yours is the polar opposite to my own personal experience. In my discussions with Skeptics I have only ever been presented with incomplete hypotheses , conspiracy theories and (ultimately) insults. The supporters of the AGW theory have provided me with mountains of data and explanations.
  16. It's cooling
    Notsure, The influence of cosmic rays on temperature is covered in Could Cosmic Rays Be Causing Global Warming. The post addresses almost all the issues you have raised.
  17. It's cooling
    The ten indicators of global warming described all respond to the suns heating except ocean heat content which is related to stored heat. Few manmade GW sceptical scientists I know of disagree that CO2 causes warming. The argument seems to be about the level of CO2's influence. Climate change seems to be accepted by all only the degree of human influence is questioned. However there seems to be violent disagreement over the amount of energy reaching the planet. I understand CO2 traps the heat reflected from the planets surface driving the ten indicators and the manmade GW followers insist that the suns heat remains constant. While many of the sceptics insist that there is variability in the amount of heat reaching the planets surface. Those sceptics argue that the variability is due to sun influenced cloud cover while the MMGW folowers argue that the suns output is not varying. The global warming supporters only argument against the cosmic ray influence on cloud cover seems to be by issisting that the suns output is constant. I have not heard an argument against the mechanism described by some of the sceptics. If someone understands why the variability of the suns magnetic shield has no influence on our climate then please explain. So far all the supporters of manmade global warming seem to do is try to shout down sceptics which only places doubt in my mind over their confidence in the theory. Currently I sense the planet is cooling but I am told it is really warming. I hope it is warming because I am not convinced that a warmer future is more dangerous to my grandchildren that a colder world.
    Moderator Response: No, the energy being trapped by CO2 is not heat being "reflected" by the planet's surface, but the energy absorbed and then radiated; see "CO2 effect is weak." Nobody is "insisting" that "the Sun's heat remains constant"; see "It’s the sun." The evidence in favor of the role of cosmic rays is entirely unconvincing; see "It’s cosmic rays." Your "sense" that the planet is cooling is trumped by the empirical evidence; please read the post at the top of this page. Regarding warming not being bad, see "It’s not bad." And if you want to comment on any of those specific topics, please do so on the appropriate one of those threads. Off topic comments get deleted after a polite warning or two. Also, I strongly suggest that you read The Big Picture, which you can get to any time by clicking on its image at the top right of The Home Page.
  18. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    About a year ago I tried having a similar discussion with a climate "skeptic". The response that I got was that smoking causes cancer was just another great lie that the government was telling us, how could I be so gullible as to belive that smoking might cause cancer, cancer and smoking were totally unrelated! Sigh.
  19. We're heading into an ice age
    stephenwv, I responded to your claim that rising temperatures increase CO2 absorption, on the ocean acidification thread.
  20. We're heading into an ice age
    Stephen, There is no "normal" high temperature for an interglacial. They typically represent an increase in temperature of roughly 2-4 degrees C. What you have to keep in mind is that the change in temperature depends largely on how the planet's orbit and tilt coincide; they don't always act in synchronicity. Secondly, what studies are you referencing in regards to solar activity? As that activity has been roughly flat since the 1950's there is goof reason to conclude the current warming is not primarily due to the sun. As for a flattening of temperatures, I assume you are referring to the graph at the top of the post which outlines temperature fluctuations over the last five interglacials. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I am mistaken, but I would posit the "flattened" appearance of the current interglacial is due to greater paleoclimate resolution. In other words, it looks flattened because we have a more detail the closer we get to the present.
    Moderator Response: Any more conversation by and in response to Stephen about the Sun belongs on the thread It’s the sun.
  21. Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
    I found the data here! For October through December 2009 in the contiguous US, there were 325 new max temperature records (plus 197 ties) and 529 new min temperature records (plus 186 ties). Based on an assumption that the average number of records (max + min) per month for these 3 months (174 new records or 238 including ties) is the same for the previous 117 months, the new ratio of max to min for the 2000s is about 1.98:1. Because of the assumption, though, I cannot have 3 significant digits, so 2:1.
  22. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    We all know that the lineage of today's Climate Denial Machine can be traced to the Tobacco's industry campaign against science. I did not realize until a few minutes ago that the campaign against climate science began in the 1970s. "By the mid 1970s, conservative economic and ideological interests had joined forces to combat what they saw as mindless eco-radicalism. Establishing conservative think tanks and media outlets, they propagated sophisticated intellectual arguments and expert public-relations campaigns against government regulation for any purpose whatever. On global warming, it was naturally the fossil-fuel industries that took the lead. Backed up by some scientists, industry groups developed everything from elaborate studies to punchy advertisements, aiming to persuade the public that there was nothing to worry about." Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming
  23. We're heading into an ice age
    #230: "... we never reached the normal high temperatures of a normal interglacial period.... no explanation of this several thousand year flattening of temperatures." What are you referring to? I can't make any sense out of your comments; it would be helpful if you made specific reference to events on the temperature graph labeled Figure 1 on this post. As to the repeat of your CO2/oceans comments, you've already been directed to the appropriate threads. Solar comments should likewise go to the It's the sun thread, available as #1 on the Most Used Arguments.
  24. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I like the analogy used in this piece. Are there no famous Aussie's who smoked and died of lung cancer?
  25. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I think this is a good analogy in part because of the strong denial in the face of powerful scientific evidence that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Politicians, scientists and cigarette companies spent a fair amount of effort delaying action against smoking, certainly motivated by short-term economic self interest. Their frame allowed them to deny the fact that cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer. A similar analogy could be made for asbestos/cancer or lead/neruologic damage (there was an organized opposition to the ban of lead in paint and gasoline despite clear scientific evidence of the public health danger. I don't know if these factors would cloud the issue, but we can see the repeated pattern.
  26. We're heading into an ice age
    stephenwv (#230) You make a number of assertions about Solar Activity and CO2 but do not provide any citations for them. Please include some links to back up your claims so that we can discuss their merits. Without data all we have is opinions.
  27. We're heading into an ice age
    #4 WASP You claim we recently came out of a glacial period, yet we never reached the normal high temperatures of a normal interglacial period. The relatively flat temperatures that one would have assumed would have reversed into a glacial cycle, began several thousand years ago, this lack of reversal has been in no way related to anything man caused. Studies have also shown that over the short term, temperature changes are much more closely correlated to sun activity than to CO2 levels. It has been shown else where on this site, that over time the CO2 released by the oceans during the warming trend, eventually slow and the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans reverse the trend of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact "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). click here Thus the absorption of CO2 is not static and in fact increases as ocean CO2 emissions decrease and temperatures rise. I have seen no explanation of this several thousand year flattening of temperatures. I have seen no accounting for the decreasing emissions and increasing absorption by the ocean which would appear . Where are these statistics taken into account?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let me first thank you for being on-topic. However, one of the things to keep in mind from the Comments Policy is no all-caps. Lastly, user WASP has "gone silent", with their last post occurring on 30 July 2008. It might be a while before getting any reply.
  28. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Typo: "This paradox is at the heart of probabilistic causation. No single instant can ever be linked ..." should be "... No single instance ..."
  29. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Tom Dayton (#54) Thank you for the clarification. The apparent incongruity had me at a loss.
  30. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    ratman123 wrote : "What you linked to are statistics for the last hundred years, which if we are going to go by the smoking argument is like giving statistics for a few hundred cancer victims." No, it is like giving statistics for a hundred years of cancer studies, encompassing far larger samples than are currently used to study cancer. Normally, people would call that a good thing. ratman123 wrote : "Secondly following the links within the links we get this text on the statistics......." And your point is ? And since you seem to have sourced that text from WIKIPEDIA without attribution (or do you have another source ?), perhaps I should add the final paragraph of that page : Despite the limitations reported above, some researchers have pointed to the recent increase in storm activity and similar changes in other basins as indicative of some significant form of climate change (Webster et al. 2005), and occuring in association with changes in sea surface temperatures (Emanuel 2005). However, it is not possible to definitatively attribute these change to global warming or any other factor. Models suggest that global warming will lead to a modest increase in storm intensity (Knutson and Tuleya 2004), but that scale of the changes expected as a result of warming in the 20th century would probably be impossible to detect with the existing records.
  31. CO2 lags temperature
    stephenwv, I've replied to your comment over on the ocean acidification thread. This is how we move conversations from inappropriate threads to appropriate ones without losing any readers along the way.
  32. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    This is my response to the comment by stephenwv on a different, inappropriate, thread. Stephen wrote "Then your statement 'As oceans warm CO2 is released, not absorbed.' totally ignores the second referenced statement from another scientific government web site. (see my links at #262.) One of those links, to an AGU public information page, does incorrectly imply that warming increases the ocean's absorption of CO2: "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)." That is simply a misstatement. The correct phrasing should have been "What is the increase of atmospheric CO2 doing to our oceans?" The increased partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 eases the ocean's absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. Warming has the opposite effect, but it is insufficient to offset the greater absorption from the increased partial pressure.
  33. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Just a small point on phrasing: You say, "Humphrey Bogart and most of the other victims would not have died their painful death if they hadn’t smoked." This is probably right, but (as you also say), any individual case of cancer in a smoker may not have been caused by smoking. It would be more precise to say, "Most smokers who die of lung cancer would not have died of lung cancer if they hadn't been smokers. In particular, Humphrey Bogart almost certainly would not have died the painful death he did if he hadn't smoked." This fits nicely with Hansen's recommended response re. extreme weather events: these almost certainly would not have happened without AGW...
  34. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    #35, #45: "with storm frequency we have......" There are several threads on hurricane frequency and intensity. It's a difficult problem, to be sure, as no one is even sure what metric to use. See What is the link between hurricanes and global warming? for starters, then use the search function to find the others.
  35. CO2 lags temperature
    #267: You've scrambled up quite a lot, so I'll try to go point by point. "the statement that so far you ignore" See this thread on ocean acidification, which actually one of several. So it is not ignored. Ocean acidification is a bad thing, indicating that atmospheric CO2 is being absorbed -- and the atmospheric concentration is still going up. That demonstrates how much of an impact we have on the environment. See also the very detailed thread on Physical Chemistry of CO2. "Thus the glacial period begins " You seem to be implying that glacial stages are initiated by CO2 changes; most look to the well-known orbital cycles to start the slip towards cold. "Those that would attempt to prove man caused as a significant problem" See the thread Human CO2 is a small % or Its not us for the proofs. "disregard recent studies that have shown a much greater correlation between temperature change and sun activity" No one here disregards the sun. See the thread It's the sun. I could go on, but you should already see that most of your objections are addressed in specific terms on other threads. All one can ask of you is that you find the appropriate threads, read the post and accumulated comments and then reevaluate your opinions based on what you learn. Comment on the appropriate threads. You'll find it slow-going at first, but you will learn a lot if you make the effort. That will create a more productive discussion than a mere rant. #272: "This site, and many other ... sites ... are being referenced by the average public as proof how significant man caused global warming is." I wish that were true. "But they assist in the spin that creates the public hysteria." Now that's problematic and indicates you haven't looked around much. SkS deals in science; far more spin originates at denial sites.
  36. CO2 lags temperature
    stephenwv (#272) "One must be able to pull information from different studies which have differing data sets and time frames to step back for the overall picture." There is a tread on this site (linked on the front page!) named The Big Picture. Breaking the evidence down into discrete chunks allows for far more detail than in a more holistic approach. It also makes those chunks easier to find. Suffice to say that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. Would someone care to clarify the points about ocean warming and CO2 release/absorption? As I understand it Ocean Acidification indicates increased CO2 absorption.
  37. Same Ordinary Fool at 04:43 AM on 11 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    "Climate Disruption".....is more applicable, but not in general use. As an example of possible related situations: current high wheat prices are due to ongoing drought in China's wheat growing region, floods in South Africa, and Russia's recent heat wave. Maybe in combination it can provide a better description....."that climate disruption that results from global warming". Bringing in the basics would strengthen your argument, reduce the waffling in the prose, and better explain the situation: "Was the devastating cyclone in Queensland stronger than it would have been without a changing climate?" Not certainly, but we know that there's more water vapor above warmer oceans. And that cyclones become stronger when passing over warmer water.
  38. CO2 lags temperature
    #264 how can you possibly say "we're not at the beginning of an interglacial, we're roughly in the middle, so natural forcings are for the most part on the cooling side" when both the reference I presented and the chart at the beginning of this blog both clearly show time frames and temperature levels consistent with past end of inter-glacial periods? Then your statement "As oceans warm CO2 is released, not absorbed." totally ignores the second referenced statement from another scientific government web site. (see my links at #262) Additionally you state "That would mean the CO2 you believe is due to natural cycles is, in fact, anthropogenic." In no way do I state such a belief! In fact i do not disagrees that it contributes. The government site statement that 1 million tons of CO2 are absorbed an hour, considering the UN Global warming commission (after scrambling to dig up adjustments to their 1990's statement of 8 million tons of man caused) now blames man for contributing 40 million tons of CO2 per year, 40 hours worth of oceanic absorption, which of course, does not include absorption that is land based, hardly an argument for a significant man caused problem, especially considering that government site states that ocean warming is "making it easier for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2)." Now I admit I have been unable to find the studies that the National Science Academies' web site statements base their statements on. It was difficult enough to find the telling statements of the ignored and hidden information of the hugely significant absorption rates that exist. Obviously there are interests that would prevent this data from being available or it would be easily found. In fact I think someone probably lost a job by including that statement in attempting to pose it as a negative factor in the over all statement about increasing levels of CO2 in some parts of the ocean. One must be able to pull information from different studies which have differing data sets and time frames to step back for the overall picture. This site, and many other limited data set/time frame sites and arguments, are seen as, and are being referenced by the average public as proof how significant man caused global warming is. Which of course they are neither intended to do that nor do they do that. But they assist in the spin that creates the public hysteria. The primary question of this blog, CO2 lags temperature, in any time frame, some times does some times does not. So the that CO2 lags Temperature is false just as CO2 leads temperature is false. The truth is there is a correlation, but recent studies have shown that sun activity is more highly correlated to short term temperature changes, and even 23,000 year time frames, than CO2 levels.
    Moderator Response: You're making multiple, separate claims, that have different "Argument" pages on this site. You need to split your comment up, putting each comment on the appropriate thread. For example, the fact that we are in the cooling phase of the glacial cycle is based not on the current temperature but on the orbital cycles, which is described and needs to be commented on in the Argument page "We’re heading into an ice age." Don't worry about your comments on other threads being missed, because most people watch the Recent Comments page. Also, you should read all the comments responding to your comment, before commenting again. Several folks have pointed out that you have interpreted your linked sources backwards.
  39. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Jonathen @48, "Denier is a word almost exclusively associated with the Holocaust" No, it is most definitely not Jonathan. There is also a difference between someone who is 'skeptical' or unsure or has doubts about the theory of AGW, and someone who believes the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW is a hoax. The latter deny that AGW is real, they are in denial. There are also people who deny that there is a link between HIV and AIDS, people who deny the link between smoking and cancer, people who deny that evolution is real. There is a long list of theories and science that sectors of the population are in denial about. Perhaps it is best to say that someone is "in denial about AGW" or is "a denier of AGW". That way there can be no confusion.
  40. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Jonathan, Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. As for Climate Change vs. Global Warming, see my previous post #37.
  41. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    The analogy also serves in a different direction. My father died of lung cancer two years ago. He smoked for 50 years. He had oat cell/small cell cancer. According to the CDC, 97% of those who have developed this type of cancer of the lungs are smokers or were smokers. When he was first diagnosed, we tried to get him to change his life a little--go to chemo, quit smoking, live healthier. He did get treatment, and he reduced the mass to 2% of its original size. He quit treatment, though, because it made him feel like crap. He also denied--even when presented with the evidence--that smoking caused his cancer. In fact, he even went so far as to claim that smoking helped kill the cancer. In the hospital one day (he was being treated for chemo side effects), we almost convinced him to quit. While we were talking about it, one of the cancer ward nurses overheard him talking about wanting a cigarette. She came into the room and offered to take him outside for a smoke. She said she was a smoker too, and she knew how he felt. We're not addicted to cheap energy; the psychological mechanism isn't quite the same (it's hard to give up relatively secure and stable conditions). However, it can look the same: denial in the face of overwhelming evidence presented by experts who work for a relatively democratic government (the least biased source available) and people who are willing to sell their integrity in order to have a little more individual security (failing to realize that they help create a more unstable and less secure world, an overall loss for them as individuals).
  42. Jonathan Bagley at 04:10 AM on 11 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I'm new here and I've been looking back at the comments. I presume your objection to 29 Jesse Douglas was paragraph 3; yet you allow, from commenter 5, "But "climate change" was a phrase invented by the deniers to avoid having to say the planet is warming. They substituted something vague for something that can be measured." Wouldn't the phrase, "AGW sceptics" be more suitable than "deniers" for a scientific discussion? Denier is a word almost exclusively associated with the Holocaust. Many of us are genuinely curious about the science behind AGW. We find it difficult to comprehend why we should be likened to extreme racists. Also, why would the "deniers" invent the phrase "climate change". It suits the deniers to use "global warming", since "global warming" implies "climate change". This is elementary logic. The "deniers" have more chance of being wrong if they choose the description "global warming".
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! Appreciate your contributions and feedback. Per the Comments Policy, usage of the term Denier usually draws scrutiny, but is not specifically banned. Depends on the usage context. In climate science the term is less of an outright perjorative as it is descriptive of a mentality (see here for a more complete & specific description of the term as typically used here). There is no intent to liken anyone to Holocaust denial. Most typically use "skeptic" as interchangeable with denier.
  43. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    Jeff T Here is a link to a post on U of Colorado sea level trend ( link). I update the chart monthly. The post includes a link to the RClimate script for retrieving and plotting the U of Colorado NetCDF file. Kelly
  44. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Unfortunatly, this article sounds familiar to me. Maybe it's because I'm a smoker but the comparison seems obvious to me, that's why I had the deep sensation to discover a bad radiography of the Earth's lungs with the last article about the 2010 Amazon drought.
  45. CO2 lags temperature
    Stephenwv, Sorry, I did not realize that DB was greeting you before with my quoted material. The links are above at 265.
  46. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    Excuse my brainless moment, Dikran. Blame it on newborn twins (first children) at 45. I think I left my brain at the hospital. Falsifiability is the basis for one of my favorite pithitudes: "science forces the imagination to work harder."
  47. Jonathan Bagley at 03:39 AM on 11 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    A point of information. The are several known risk factors for cancer of the oesophagus including heavy alcohol consumption, heartburn (acid reflux), poor diet and others. Bogart was a very heavy drinker and there is a fair chance he would have contracted it even had he not smoked. Your claim, "Humphrey Bogart and most of the other victims would not have died their painful death if they hadn’t smoked." is not valid in Bogart's case. You are on much safer ground with lung cancer, although Nat "King" Cole died in his thirties, which is very unusual, even for a smoker. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/oesophagus/
  48. CO2 lags temperature
    Stephenwv, Another new poster was greeted (by DB)with this: "Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. "I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. "Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. "I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level." Me again: Here at Skeptical Science we like to review Scientific Data. If you want to convince anyone that what you have to say is worth listening to you need to cite documented facts and provide links to the data. Your opinion or recollections will not do (mine are no good either). Please read and become informed on the facts here. Post your questions individually in the appropriate locations. A laundry list of objections is not useful. Have fun. Did someone post a link to this thread on WUWT?
  49. CO2 lags temperature
    What facts would you like verified?
  50. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    *I would not argue the event severity/frequency details in this thread only because there are better threads for that kind of discussion.* Kind of a strange conclusion don't you think. This thread is about how the statistics can help make a strong case for the theory being true, aka smoking = cancer example. Yet with smoking we have a raft of well documented reliable statistics, with storm frequency we have...... ? @ JMuphy What you linked to are statistics for the last hundred years, which if we are going to go by the smoking argument is like giving statistics for a few hundred cancer victims. Secondly following the links within the links we get this text on the statistics....... **Long-term fluctuations are evident in all three records. These may be attributed both to natural fluctuations, such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, and artificial factors associated with changing methods and techniques of observation. For more than half the record, it is likely that hurricanes were undercounted due to the failure of any trained observer to encounter the storm. Similarly, the intensity may be understated if no observer encountered the eye wall. ** This whole thread discussion seems about as scientific as to blokes talking in the pub! You lot will do more harm to the anti skeptic movement than any skeptic will ever dream of.

Prev  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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