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  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  Next

Comments 99951 to 100000:

  1. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Eric @147, I agree with some of what you say, but only to a point. Also, keep in mind that Hansen was trying to epxlain the situation to the public, not fellow scientists. Regardless, research by Stott et al. (2004) and others have demonstrated that: "Using a threshold for mean summer temperature that was exceeded in 2003, but in no other year since the start of the instrumental record in 1851, we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude." The science reported in the IPCC also states that it is "likely" (>66% probability) that heat waves have increased since 1950 and modelling studies expect more heat waves in the future. for more heat waves. Recent major heat waves in Europe, Russia, N. America and Australia and elsewhere are consistent with that. More in AR8 (8.2.1.1).
  2. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Re: mdenison (16) Thanks so much for pointing that out! I was able to tease out posts up until the end of June, 2009. Also nabbed a bunch of missing posts prior to August 2008 as well. Updated and revised main post at top accordingly. Thanks again! The Yooper
  3. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Hansen is not correct in claiming "Almost certainly not". The probability of a sustained blocking pattern of the type we saw has nothing to do with CO2 levels. The length of the blocking event and the depth of atmospheric blocking points to weather changes originating in solar UV and perhaps solar magnetic. What changes with CO2 is some added heat in the heat wave, not the heat wave itself. There is plenty of evidence to back this up such as the negative NAO in summer http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif While not a direct cause of that particular blocking, it is a cause of nearby blocking and is not correlated to CO2 or Arctic ice. Working backwards, negative NAO comes from ENSO, other weather and solar (e.g. UV)
  4. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    #145: Is this 'blocking' pattern a cause or an effect? From the esrl doc you linked, which is "evolving research assessment and not a final report," Dr. Hoerling can't seem to make up his mind: Whereas this phenomena has been principally related to a natural extreme event, its impacts may very well forebode the impact that a projected warming of surface temperatures could have by the end of the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases. I prefer this explanation without such equivocation, which came out a month after the 'blocking' note: Weather in a given region occurs in such a complex and unstable environment, driven by such a multitude of factors, that no single weather event can be pinned solely on climate change. In that sense, it's correct to say that the Moscow heat wave was not caused by climate change. However, if one frames the question slightly differently: "Would an event like the Moscow heat wave have occurred if carbon dioxide levels had remained at pre-industrial levels," the answer, Hansen asserts, is clear: "Almost certainly not." The frequency of extreme warm anomalies increases disproportionately as global temperature rises. "Were global temperature not increasing, the chance of an extreme heat wave such as the one Moscow experienced, though not impossible, would be small," Hansen says. -- emphasis added
  5. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #8: Perfect! A fine example of what happens when someone spend too much time in "a haven for un-refereed pseudo-science with dangerously incorrect inference."
  6. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    From the WMO statement: "While a longer time range is required to establish whether an individual event is attributable to climate change, the sequence of current events matches IPCC projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming." (I am posting here to keep from gumming up the 5 BS thread) A longer time range is not needed, only a better understanding of how natural patterns are influenced and changed (if at all) by AGW. The Russian heat wave was caused by blocking, while the IPCC does project more heat in various forms, it does not project more blocking patterns, those are mainly natural http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/ So the second part of the WMO statement above is too vague to be factual. The best explanation of causes of blocking are natural and solar/cosmic, such as reduced UV and/or more GCR. The link I posted should have delved into that a bit more, but is balanced enough as it is.
  7. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Bob @3, You can view the three panel sessions here. The offending comments made by Lindzen were during the first panel session within the first 60 mins-- sorry that I can't be more specific than that. And no, to my knowledge there is no reason why thermometers would be more sensitive (or respond quicker) to highs than lows.
  8. It's freaking cold!
    PaulPs @70, I just posted this on another thread and it is relevant to the discussion of reduced N. Hemi. snow cover. Lockwood's hypothesis/conceptual model seems to apply to only Europe, not Eurasia or N. America. And remember the fuss last winter (2009-2010) when all that snow fell over the USA and parts of Europe....well, Michael pointed out what happened in the spring and summer of 2010.
  9. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault asks "What are the chances of this getting posted?" All of your arguments can be made on their respective threads, but I think it is legitimate to make them one time here. I agree on one point, when events like the Russian heat wave are discussed in the news, there should be an explanation of both natural and manmade causes. That balance is ok, but "balancing" science with nonsense (e.g. there is cooling right now) is not ok. That's all I'm going to say about it since there are other threads for that subject.
  10. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @Norman, Your subjective interpretation of the N. Hemisphere snow cover is not correct. Please read this new paper by Brown and Robinson (2010), in which they conclude: "Trend analysis of the updated SCE series provided evidence that NH spring snow cover extent has undergone significant reductions over the past 90 years and that the rate of decrease has accelerated over the past 40 years. The rate of decrease in March 15 and April NH SCE over the 1970–2010 period is 7–8 million km^2 per 100 years which corresponds to an 8–11% decrease in NH March and April SCE respectively from pre-1970 values. In March, most of the change is being driven by Eurasia (NA trends are not significant) but both continents exhibit significant SCE reductions in April." Not surprisingly an independent analysis of the data by Tamino back in 2008 came to a very similar conclusion-- N. Hemisphere snow cover is decreasing significantly in spring and summer.
  11. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    GC @17, "While no fan of Tamino" I can see that you would not like Tamino when you link us to WUWT and Don Easterbook. Both of those sources have no credibility whatsoever. Here is one recent example of Easterbrook fiddling the numbers, and here is another. We do not have time to deal with Mr. Watts, although many of the above posts by Tamino are thorough debunkings of Watts. I dare not guess who you will link us to next-- Goddard, Ball, de Freitas, Monckton? Oh well, at least you are open to the idea of reading Tamino's posts.
  12. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    THE BS AWARDS – A SUMMARY FIFTH PLACE goes to a news editor who insisted his reporters – Report only the facts. – Don’t take sides in their reporting, and – Point out that in matters relating to climate change, some people question the claims being made. WOW – talk about BS. How dare a news editor demand fair, unbiased and balanced reporting from his staff. What next, equal air time for skeptics? FOURTH PLACE goes to Patrick Michaels for misrepresenting the “facts” of human induced climate change to a senate committee. How do we know he did this? Because Ben Santer says so, that’s how. THIRD PLACE goes to every “climate denier” who ever pointed to a single cold weather event as “proof” that climate change didn’t exist. Well gee – I wonder where we learned that from? Here’s a link to TEN YEAR’s worth of increasingly extreme cold weather events. I wonder how many “singular” events it takes to suggest a “trend”? http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/winters_are_sure_colder_than_they_predicted/ SECOND PLACE goes to all those people who found something untoward suggested in the climategate emails. You know, like all those folk who took offence at destroying material subject to legal FOI requests, plotting to ruin other people’s reputations, and stuff like that. Not to mention of course, the HARRY_READ_ME file, or the “fudges factor” line of code that ensures one gets a hockey stick even when random numbers are input. FIRST PLACE goes to anybody who dares to suggest that maybe whatever was happening as far as warming went, has now stopped and maybe things are starting to cool off. I guess this could apply to just about any of the approximately 3 billion people now experiencing record and near record LOW temperatures, and record and near-record HIGH snowfalls. Yes, perhaps it’s time all us “deniers” started feeling a little ashamed of ourselves. What are the chances of this getting posted? Buckley’s – Now THAT’s “fair and unbiased” for you.
  13. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Re: depressing, I agree. Next year's list will undoubtedly include Republican-run U.S. House hearings, but personally I hope to see less reactionary "denialism" next year. I don't mind the shift in power for other reasons, but with power comes responsibilities, first and foremost to accept the basics of science including GW and AGW. Then without politicizing an argument over "CAGW", we can skip right to solutions because there is plenty of agreement over what works.
  14. It's freaking cold!
    PaulPS: It would be incorrect to change the snow cover arrow to up/down in the illustration. I made a brief perusal of the data at the Rutgers Global snow lab The last three years had the lowest snow cover of all the recorded years in the months of June, July and August (the record is only for the northern hemisphere, snow cover change in the southern hemisphere is small). That is a clear decrease in the snow cover. The maximum snow extent varies somewhat (so far). This is similar to the Arctic Sea ice extent which has responded more in the summer minimum than the winter maximum.
  15. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    What do you guys think december ranks and 2010 ends up as? In I thought it was raising at .15c/decade to .17c/decade...
  16. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @Norman: "But the last ten years of SST have flatlined, not going up." False. The last ten years (too short a period to draw statistical significance, but let's forget that right now) show a temperature increase of about 0.12C/decade. No flatlining by any measure of the imagination. Since your basic premise is wrong, it then follows the rest of youra argument falls apart as well. It doesn't help to quote denier blogs as if they were actual reliable source. I really wish so-called "skeptics" weren't so credulous of oft-debunked pseudoscientific arguments. It seems all of their skepticism vanishes when they find something that reinforces their preconceived opinion.
  17. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman: your sea level graph reference is an outdated denier blog. This data has recently been reviewed on this site and current scientific estimates are 1-2 meters of sea level rise, approximately five times what your blog claims. Provide a peer reviewed source if you want to suggest the illustration is incorrect, not a denier blog.
  18. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman: The change in snow cover depends on when you measure it. The maxamium snow cover at midwinter is about the same. The minimum snow cover in the summer is much smaller. This is similar to arctic sea ice where the change in summer is greater than the change in winter. The average snow cover throughout the year is down. It is appropriate for the arrow to go down in the illustration. The fact that we do not observe monotonic rise/fall in some indicators does not mean that CO2 is not the cause. There is a lot of noise in some indicators so they seem to flatten out if you look at a short enough time frame.
  19. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "Welcome to the 2010 Climate B.S. of the Year Award." Other than for a few specifics, how is this any different than the 2009 Climate B.S. of the Year Award? Or 2008 ... or ... iterate at will :) That's a good, but depressing, list you've made ...
  20. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #26 EOttawa, Looking at your link for North Hemisphere snow cover I really can't see a change in arrow after 1988, basically a flatline in snow cover for 22 years, so the snow cover arrow in the graphic should be horizontal. Sea surface temperatures have risen but if you look at the rates of past increases and decreases it seems SST change can happen in relative short time span. Here is a link to a SST graph SST graph. 1910 to 1940 rose 0.6 C. 1940 to 1950 dropped 0.25 C 1980 to 2005 rose 0.5 C. But the last ten years of SST have flatlined, not going up. Consider this line of thought. If we lived in 1905 and were monitoring SST at that time we could conclude the Globe was rapidly cooling and we could have all types of terrible climate change effects. I cannot say for certain if the SST will continue to rise or not, but it is certain it has not risen in 10 years so that arrow should also be horizontal. Sea level is continuing to rise but the rate is not accelerating so that arrow is a good one. Sea level graphs. I looked at a few others and from what I could tell the rest are valid as shown. Since CO2 levels are still rising but some of the arrows are not currently rising an alternate explanation may resolve this issue. Latest observation on warming temps (which could explain why some arrrows have stopped). Dust in the Wind.
  21. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Bob, Busy now, will provide a link later. Yes, it was challenged at the time, by Meehl I think.
  22. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Daniel Bailey, Thanks for a very interesting post. While no fan of Tamino, I plan to wade through the links you provided. Meanwhile, here is a link to part 2 of my musings on Greenland: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-2/ As luck would have it, Don Easterbrook did something very similar that appeared a couple of days earlier: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/
  23. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    The National Academy of Sciences/settled fact bit was a nice touch. Wish I'da thunk it... ;) Good job, Peter! The Yooper
  24. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Albatross, Could you please give some context to Richard Lindzen's statement about thermometers? That statement must have been challenged by someone? Is there anything about thermometers that could lead to a statement like that? Bob
  25. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Sorry, John, I should also have mentioned that it is a very compelling graph, and I like it a lot!
  26. It's the sun
    Continuing from a comment here. Lockwood 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum is an interesting summary paper for the Royal Society. By way of introduction, The Internet has played a useful role in conveying some of the understanding, images and data that lead climate scientists to their conclusions. However, it has also become a haven for un-refereed pseudo-science with dangerously incorrect inference. It has served to give the false impression that there is a serious, widespread academic debate on the basic nature of climate change. The most popular argument runs like this: ‘The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system’. The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study. --emphasis added The remainder of the paper is a thorough treatment of solar variation, concluding with ... the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists. Sounds like he's got his head on straight.
  27. It's freaking cold!
    You may want to change the Snow cover to an up/down arrow as based on the linked interview with Professor Mike Lockwood, winter extremes can go either way. Here is the link to the news org. The interview video is the last one on the page. http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-snow-strands-air-travellers Comment originally posted here http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-many-lines-of-evidence-for-global-warming-in-a-single-graphic.html
  28. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Found an interesting paper by Lockwood, moving to Solar activity thread.
  29. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    co2isnotevil, Re: the ISCCP data. Problems with this dataset have been noted in the peer-reviewed literature since at least 2000, and the specific problem you cite was even mentioned in the Trenberth paper that was discussed earlier in this thread. So please, drop the "crusader for truth" act. You haven't uncovered some secret flaw in the mainstream science. As you can see - and contrary to your insinuations - the mainstream science is perfectly capable of applying critical thought to its own claims. You also neglected to mention (or didn't realize) that the ISCCP data isn't used to construct any of the standard global temperature reconstructions. These come from entirely different microwave sensors and are produced by the RSS and UAH, one of which is led by your fellow skeptic Roy Spencer. The ISCCP data is primarily used to evaluate cloud data, which is evident from their own project overview. >Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus Applying greater scrutiny to those who oppose the consensus is precisely how it's supposed to work. It follows from the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and prevents solid science from becoming obscured by a constant influx of fringe theories. Every great revision of scientific consensus in the modern era has had to overcome the same difficulties, why should your ideas receive any less scrutiny? Really, your entire criticism of the peer review process is nothing more than a subtle Galileo fallacy. Honestly, it is very admirable that you are seeking to produce your own analysis, but if you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously you are going to have to subject them to a bit of rigor. That you would expect otherwise suggests a very inflated sense of self-importance.
  30. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    I'm disappointed Lindzen did not make the list for claiming, in his recent testimony to Congress, that thermometers are now sensitive only to high temperatures and not cold ones, thereby partly explaining the increase in global temperatures. Ooh, another one was the claims that the Arctic sea ice was going to make a recovery this year.... I realise though that the line had to be drawn somewhere, there are just too many examples of B.S. from the "skeptics". Seriously though, a great job and very well written. Hopefully this becomes an annual event to remind everyone of the inane claims made by 'skeptics' and contrarians. Come to think of it, this would make for a great editorial/opinion piece in some major news outlets.....the public really do need to know how blatantly and frequently "skeptics" mislead and misinform. Any takers?
  31. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @PaulPS: "If you shelter yourself to just blogs that agree with your present view, how will you ever know if you have the whole picture, or challenge thought with opposing views?" Who said I sheltered myself? I know exactly where to go if I want to hear different opinions. The problem is that science isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Powerful economic interests may have turned it into a political issue, but in the end the question remains a scientific one, and the amount of evidence supporting AGW leaves little room for doubt. Contrarians and deniers already get much more exposure than their relatively small numbers (and dubious logic) would normally get them. They have transformed an old journalistic concept - there's two sides to every story - into a way to manipulate the scientific discourse to their advantage. The reality is that, in science, there is only one side to every story. Sure, sometimes it's inaccurate, or false, but science has a way of correcting itself (publication in peer-reviewed journals, for example). The romantic idea that deniers are underdogs are rightly fighting for what they believe is a mirage. Deniers oppose AGW theory on principle, because it disagrees with their political position. Now, I want to apologize if I came down a bit hard...this site is attracting an ever greater number of anti-science trolls, and it can sometimes cause some of us to jump the gun a bit. I encourage you to continue reading the articles on this site, and to make your own judgement. Just remember this isn't a debate between two equally valid ideas, but of current science vs. theories that aren't supported by evidence or observations.
  32. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    No worries Paul, Lockwood's research is off-topic on tis thread. So avoid the wrath of the moderators it should probably be discussed here or perhaps here or maybe even this one. Just re-post it there (with a hyperlink here) and I'm sure people will hop over to the relevant thread to discuss it.
  33. citizenschallenge at 10:38 AM on 31 December 2010
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Three cheers! And well phrased Peter G. Tough choices, at first I wasn't sure about your placement... but the more I thought about my doubts the more they faded away. Another great post. John Cook, Peter G, and all the other contributors thank you for being one of the highlights of 2010. Happy New Years to you all. peter m
  34. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Albatross I appreciate your comments and advice. This site, RealClimate, and others are extremely valuable to me as I gain greater understanding of Climate Science. Visiting denier sites is also important to me so I can collect the pros and cons, and as a lay person, make the most informed decision. Skepticalscience has provided a wealth of knowledge for which I am truly grateful. I have not commented much as facing the rath of the regulars here is not very wise unless you have all of your facts straight. The interview with Dr. Lockwood ignited some questions that I thought you guys might be able to shed some light on. I am not trying to provoke or take a stand either way, just wanted your thoughts.
  35. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, A quick perusal of any thread on this science blog will show that dissenting and controversial views are openly accepted and entertained. The house rules are strict, but it is because of that that SS is perhaps the most pleasant place to discuss the science on AGW on the web, and has been for some time. I have learnt much on this site, ironically much of it by chasing down red herrings from contrarians and 'skeptics'. Now we have drifted off-topic any thoughts/comments on the post and or featured figure?
  36. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, "There is no alterior motive, but to learn and understand with inputs from both sides of the climate debate" The scientific debate/questioning surrounding anthropogenic climate change/disruption happens daily at conferences, in a myriad of journals, and amongst academics, and has been happening for many, many decades. Framing this issue as a "debate" between two equally valid/qualified/credible "sides" is highly misleading and just plain wrong. The situation with anthropogenic global warming is in many ways similar to that endured in the faux "debates" fabricated surrounding issues such as evolution and tobacco. The 'skeptics' camp is a mire of misinformation, distortion and politics, with little or no interest in the science or advancing of science per se, if anything they seem to be largely preoccupied with being obstructionist and attacking the science and scientists. There are plenty of examples to support that statement. Paul, there is really three 'holy grails' left in the science of anthropogenic warming and they are (1) equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubling (or more of CO2), and even the current best estimate of +3C was derived over the course of many decades using multiple, independent lines of evidence. It is not a question of when or if it will warm, but rather of how much and in what time frame, and what the impacts will be; (2) Sea level rise; and (3) Improving regional impacts. That is where the biggest advances still need to be made, at least IMHO. Science will continue to advance though (without the help of Montford et al.), regional impacts will be improved, decadal predictions will improve etc. Like others here, I urge you to avoid some of the more notorious politically-motivated climate science misinformation (and conspiracy) sites. The one being discussed here is one of those. If you would like a list of other "offenders", then I or someone else can post one for you. The best course of action is always to go to the original source, such as a journal paper (even reading the abstract can often tell you whether or not what you have been told is wrong, distorted or being spun), or a vetted site/source (such as NASA, NOAA, BOM, Met Office or NIWA).
  37. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Bibliovermis Here is the link to the news org. The interview video is the last one on the page. http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-snow-strands-air-travellers
  38. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Yes, you can get more primary by linking to the publisher of the interview, rather than an opinion blog hosting a clip. Contrarian sources are notorious for slicing and dicing.
  39. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    bibliovermis I received this information from an actual interview with Dr. Lockwood. You cannot get any more primary than that.
  40. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    muoncounter Cultural lesson learned. Would it now be possible to get some critical thoughts on Dr Lockwood's statement in the referenced interview? There is no alterior motive, but to learn and understand with inputs from both sides of the climate debate. If the blog is not accepting visitors that is fine too.
  41. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Rutgers University's Snow Cover Lab provides graphs of snow cover anomalies since 1966 http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
  42. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, It is better to get scientific knowledge from primary sources, or sources which directly link to such, than from a "balanced spread" of opinion blogs. "Not getting the whole picture" is perilously close to conspiracy notions of vast malicious deceit and incompetent groupthink. It is best to trace new publishings back to the primary source so that the full context can be understood.
  43. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #23: "If you shelter yourself... " In case you hadn't noticed, the 'opposing views' often drop in for a visit; some try to apply for permanent resident status. And even the people who agree don't hesitate to correct a faux pas.
  44. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    archiesteel I knew this was a denier blog, but not aware of veiled threats, thanks for the insight. The link takes you to the video that was on channel 4 news. If you Google "Lockwood a-hundred-years-of-freezing" you can see it on a different website. If you shelter yourself to just blogs that agree with your present view, how will you ever know if you have the whole picture, or challenge thought with opposing views?
  45. It's freaking cold!
    @kdfv #66 Maybe you didn't read or understand the "explanation of legend terminology" that is linked to the map, and also forgot to figure out a way to compare local departure from normal to state averages. You have to do that to say "I don't see how the two maps relate" being that they so clearly relate. You may decide to polish your abilities to simply observe a map as your assertion "it shows the temperatures generally around 4 to 6 degrees above normal" is obviously false and your assertion "it just shows the majority of states at or below normal" is permanently true no matter what you compare (but good dialectic design in your phrases, as that "or" easily makes people forget it is indeed an "and")
  46. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    http://replay.waybackmachine.org can take you back less. There you can find many more missing links from Aug 2008 to May 2009.
  47. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @PaulPS: please don't link to denier blogs, especially not those that allow veiled threats of violence in their comments.
  48. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @co2isnotevil: "I've seen good papers get completely gutted because the 'peers' who reviewed it didn't like the conclusions." Hogwash. More likely, the paper was poor but you felt it was unjustly treated because you agreed with its conclusions. In any case, that's hardly an excuse not to have your theories published and reviewed. "Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus, but it's OK for more accepted mainstream science." Again, conspiracy theories. "Oh, but if only those meanies stopped me from propagating the truth..." Seriously, that's not a defense, that's simply an acknowledgement that your theories aren't sound enough to gain approval. "BTW, I never called it a conspiracy, you did." You clearly implied it. "If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate." Ah, so scientists aren't part of a large conspiracy, they're just idiots who are swayed by groupthink instead of logic - except for you, of course! Give us a break... "I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'." Incorrect. There is ample evidence that AGW is real, and happening. Satellite measurements of OLR is just one of them. As I said before the burden of proof is on you, and you have failed. Discrediting honest, hard-working scientists to paint yourself as the only voice of truth isn't helping. In fact, it's showing your true colors, and they're quite ugly. "The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years." Again, that seems very unlikely since *every* other record shows a warming trend. What's more likely, that everyone else is wrong and that this single instance really means the opposite of what it's supposed to mean, or that everyone is right, notwithstanding a single point of measurement was inaccurate? I'm sorry, but at this point there is no reason to believe your unreviewed theories over the accepted science - and it is, in fact, accepted. The only reason it is "controversial" is that Energy companies such as Koch Industries have funnelled millions into contrarian groups (and that's no conspiracy, we have a clear money trail).
  49. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Your example concerns an absolute value. I was explicitly discussing a trend. If you are going to contribute, please read what you are replying to. Focusing on absolute values when discussing climate sensitivity is less than helpful.
  50. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Biblio, Precision does no good when the trend you are looking for is smaller than the data uncertainty. Consider a model that says 2+2 = 5 +/- 1. This is technically correct since 2+2=4 and that's within the uncertainty. Can you see what happens when you increase precision without increasing accuracy? You end up with a result like 2+2 = 5 +/- 0.25, which while more precise, is no more accurate than the first result and in fact the real answer is outside the uncertainty of the result.

Prev  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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