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  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  Next

Comments 103551 to 103600:

  1. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    WHATDOWEKNOW, are you looking at the Intermediate version of this thread ? Have you also read this thread ? Do you see the figure which shows "the contrast in trends between PDO and global temperature. Obviously the PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend. In contrast, temperature displays a long term warming trend." And, despite what you may believe, the warming is continuing.
  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Anyone who still doubts that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation should see this demo. A picture ... worth a thousand words. A video ... must be a thousand pictures!
  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Dayton, because the clothes constitute the isolation I mentioned!
  4. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Phila, yes while "factual" is neutral, my charge of "politically motivated" is not neutral.
  5. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: adrian smits (43) Since Albatross and JMurphy have ably dealt with the majority of your comment, let me then say this: it is a matter of historical fact that I remember the specific part of the 70's that was so horribly cold that you refer to. The part called winter. ;) OK, enough of the fun stuff. Serious time. Do you have anything you'd wish to discuss on the topic of this thread? You do? Good! Tell us, what is your concern and what led you to think other than what the post shows? What was that source? If your concern was not in line with this thread, but about some other area of climate science, please use the search function in the upper left of every page to search for a more appropriate thread to submit your concern. Thank you for flying Skeptical Science Airlines, where we live to help educate the public on climate science related matters. Please make sure your tray tables are in the upright and locked position before deplaning. Have a great day! The Yooper
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, how do you explain the clothes staying cool when there is a warm body underneath them?
  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phil, what is to explain there? The picture clearly shows a heat source (human body) emitting less heat where it is isolated. Unless you consider the earth to be it's own source of heat it has nothing to do with what needs discussed here.
  8. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: JMurphy (48) Thank you! I was having dinner with the family and then undertook the pre-Thanksgiving preparations for the big feast tomorrow. BTW, someone by the name adrian smits has been commenting on other sites (RC was one, IIRC). Same MO, starts off slow, gives the idea he is just misunderstanding things, then pulls you in. The "adjusted data/raw data" bit is the dead givaway. The Yooper
  9. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    I am pretty sure you know what I mean, so don't take things word for word, I am talking about scientific objectivity; scientific discussions drive science forward, not (forced) agreement. Of course those matters you point out are absolute facts that cannot be argued with (though some still like to debate evolution...). Nevertheless if somebody PERCEIVES a circle as a square, and is absolutely convinced about that; you can bring any fact to the table proofing the circle is indeed a circle, but that person will only become more steadfast in the opinion that it's a square! That's called reducing dissonance: our human mind has a very hard time agreeing with the fact we actually might be wrong and will do almost anything to stay in consonance. And by the way, it's not about being wrong; it's about not always having to be right... Not until the person actually accepts he/she is not right; then her/his mind opens up for arguments. But only then. Hence, bringing different facts to the table need to be embraced 100% objectively, open-minded and scientifically. Not instantly dismissed or ridiculed due to opinion. Continuing, since Biblio and Murphy can only comment on my phrasing and word choice; I assume they agree ENSO and PDO affect to a large extend global atmospheric temperatures. Jeee, the oceans cover >2/3 of our planet... if anything is important to understand climate change it are the oceans. So the fact thus stays that the global atmosphere responds to PDO and ENSO cycles. More proof needed? Looking at the GISS data: PEAK monthly index temps since 1990 shows that January 2007 had the highest temperature index (0.89) since 1880, again I apologize for making the mistake of claiming 1998. Almost each and every peak coincides with pre-occuring el ninos. The GISS temperature peaks between 1990 and 2007 actually increase with 0.0159C/month; exactly the same increase for el nino peaks between 1973 and 1998 (0.0159C/month) when the PDO was in it's warm phase ('77-'98). The last el nino of 1.8 already shows the trend reversal and with a PDO having shifted from warm to cold in 1998, and the peak 2010 temp is (therefore) also lower than that in 07. Why isn't it much lower? Well, since the 09/10 el nino was 2nd to last in strength since NOI records began in 1950 and since PDO has shifted to cold. Simply because we've been in an el nino dominated phase for the last 40yrs: more net-release of heat than there was heat adsorption (la ninas). Given the latent response properties of the GLOBAL atmosphere this makes perfect sense. Now this theory will be challenged rather soon with the current developing la nina (still not official since 5 consecutive seasons haven't been below an SST of -0.5C yet).
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, previously I was explaining to you merely that "net" means "difference." Now here is what the second law says for objects A and B, complementing the picture muoncounter provided. "Net" in this case means the difference in the flows between the two objects: Given: HeatFlow(from A to B) - HeatFlow(from B to A) = Net Heat Flow, If A initially was hotter than B, then Net Heat Flow has a positive sign. (A cools and B warms.) If B initially was hotter than A, then Net Heat Flow has a negative sign. (B cools and A warms.) If you want to nitpick about the word "heat," substitute "Energy." Example: A Flow To B = 100 units B Flow to A = 80 units Net Flow = 100-80 = 20 units from A to B. From A's perspective, A gets 80 units and emits 100 units, so A ends up with 80 - 100 = -20 units relative to its initial state. From B's perspective, B gets 100 units and emits 80 units, so B ends up with 100 - 80 = +20 units relative to its initial state.
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m and damorbel. You might like to explain the temperature distribution illustrated here
  12. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    KR, Thanks so much. So, is the thermal emission spectrum of planet earth characteristic of the surface temp or of some temperature in the troposphere? If so, approximately what temp does the emission spectrum correspond to.
  13. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    adrian smits wrote : "yooper I'm not talking about the adjusted data. Just the raw please.Then you will see the 70s where very cold and there was a lot of famine.Historical fact by the way." Just in case Daniel Bailey is busy, I believe you will find raw data here. Can you use it to prove your assertion about the "very cold" 70s ? Also, as Albatross mentions, WIKIPEDIA shows that the only large famine I can see in the 70s was in Bangladesh - ranked 21 out of 22. Could you provide links to the "historical fact" you mentioned ? Generally, will you actually reply or will you divert onto something else ? I wonder...
  14. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Adrian, Please direct us to the official data source which leads to believe that "Then you will see the 70s where very cold and there was a lot of famine." Please also provide sources to support your claim that "there was "a lot of famine" in the seventies. I found this list, and it doesn't support your claim. And agin I fail to see what any of this has to do with "Twice as much Canada, same warming climate"
  15. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Muoncounter is right, Adrian. The temperature anomolies are based off the average temperatures for 1969-1990 (which includes the 1970's, obviously). Most of the 1970's were no more than -1 degree C below this average, whereas its clear that the bulk of the 1900-1930 period was closer to -1 to -2 degrees C below this average.
  16. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    There were also drought-related famines across the bulk of Africa during much of the 1980's & 1990's Adrian-so what's your point? Global Warming is expected to accelerate Hydrologic Cycles-which essentially means more severe droughts & more severe flooding-neither of which spells a bright future for expanding agriculture. I also wouldn't pin much hope on the unlocking of Northern Tundra to make up for significant losses of prime agricultural land closer to the equator. Most of the Tundra regions lack sufficient soil nutrients & also don't get enough sunlight to grow the crops needed to feed 6 billion people. This suggests that future famines will make anything from the 1970's-or the 1980's-look like a walk in the park!
  17. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    #43: "a lot of famine. Historical fact" Here is a database of sorts of global famines. Take your pick as to which decade was worse. As far as the 70s colder than the teens? Every climate data says not!
  18. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    WHATDOWEKNOW wrote : "If everybody in the room agrees and all nod there heads; now that's when I, as a scientist, get scared, really scared." A room full of people agree with the theory of evolution and nod their heads when someone states that the theory is correct. WHATDOWEKNOW gets scared, really scared...
  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #97: "'seriously not understand the basic concept of net change?'" I just don't recognise any other." Perhaps that's the problem. Here is a summary of 2nd Law statements from a class at MIT. Note the figure below, which appears under the statement: No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. The key word is sole, which appears in bold in the original for good reason. The caption states for T1 less than T2 this is not possible. However, we know that both objects radiate, albeit at different wavelengths. Some of the cooler object's radiation is absorbed by the warmer; however, more total energy is transferred from warmer to colder. The 2nd Law is satisfied and the greenhouse effect still works. As for the rest, you can talk QED if you like, but that will not help you answer any of CBD's excellent points.
  20. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    yooper I'm not talking about the adjusted data. Just the raw please.Then you will see the 70s where very cold and there was a lot of famine.Historical fact by the way.
  21. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Whatdoweknow, Different datasets provide different results due to having different base reference periods. The global temperature rise has not halted. The 2000s were the warmest decade on record, and all indicators show that the Earth is still accumulating heat. Is global warming still happening? (argument #4) Would you be scared of an entire room of scientists nodding in agreement that the Earth is a distorted spheroid?
  22. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Re: adrian smits (40) Sir, not to downplay your personal experiences nor the death of perhaps millions to various causes, but there is much in your comment that is in error. I won't delve deeply into any of them so as to not go too far off-topic, but briefly: 1. The 70's were not the coldest decade in the past 80 or 90 years. Not even close: Temperatures over a period of time are tracked via anomalies (to reduce the noise in the data to natural variability and to see the signal, if any, emerging from the background). We've experienced a 0.8 degree C rise over the past century. We're committed to about another 1.4 degree C additional rise (short term) no matter if we cut CO2 emissions to zero (which ain't happening anyway). Long term feedbacks maybe an additional 2+ degrees C beyond that (after we're both dead, so who cares exactly how much). Here's a nice graphic shows both temperatures and CO2 (in case anomalies are too funky). 2. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because it is the control knob for the worlds' thermostat. 3. We know it's coming from us. 4. It'll do more harm than good. The Yooper
  23. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    I stand corrected on the two other data-sets with 2006 as the warmest year on record. On the other hand, why aren't these 3 data-sets pinpointing the same year? Nevertheless, the solar torque cycle and PDO coincide beyond a shadow of a doubt, as well as the ENSO cycle. The "dude" (calling researches that present other valid arguments "dudes" and not climatologists: those that suite your thinking... is nothing but self-justification: now go and look that up!) forecast every single la nina and el nino event correct to the month when each peaked. Using his work, this can be done years in advance. The developing la nina was already in the books... sorry but just a hard fact! It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sun influences the oceans and atmosphere and not the other way around. It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that peak el ninos and la ninas have increased and decreased respectively with the exact same and absolutely linear rate; as I have shown, paralleling the PDO cycle. It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that ENSO events influence global temperatures. Considering that the ENSO cylce and PDO cycle's events coincide, as I clearly pointed out in my earlier comments, PDO therefore also influences global atmospheric temperatures. It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that global (atmospheric) temperatures have increased since the 1970s but that since (1998 or 2006 as you may will) this increase has at least halted. The most important question is thus: what has caused this increase and what has caused the stabilizing to declining trend in the last several years? Given the above, PDO, ENSO and solar (torque) cycles need to be taken into account when trying to answer these questions. Once taken into account, the impact of ever increasing CO2 levels may maybe not be as dramatic as some make/may believe, which in it self is nothing wrong with. Finally, what makes you believe I am not a professional? Are you? And in science it is absolutely normal to have utterly different opinions about the same research topic! That's what drives science and our understanding forward. If everybody in the room agrees and all nod there heads; now that's when I, as a scientist, get scared, really scared. But then again self-justification is all about: don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind. Or as Lord Molson said it best: I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come. Better yet, Richard Feyman puts it like this: "It doesn't matter how beautiful the guess is, or how smart the guesser is, or how famous the guesser is; if the experiment disagrees with the guess, then the guess is wrong. That's all there is." And that of course goes for the skeptics as well as the non-skeptics!
  24. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    Adrian @40, I think it wishful thinking to hope that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will alleviate droughts. Please watch this: Source here. OK, so you say that is just a projection. But observations show that the area affected by droughts has been increasing. Anyhow, what has this got to do with the fact that the high latitudes are warming rapidly, and with the fact that the station drop out over Canada, if anything, underestimates the degree of warming?
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #96 Bibliovermis, you wrote:- "Do you seriously not understand the basic concept of net change?" I just don't recognise any other. BTW I have had a copy of Tyndall's articles for some years now and I see no fault in them, although there have been many developments in thermal physics since he wrote them. In particular the roles of kinetic theory, quantum theory and thermodynamics in thermal physics; all three of these emerged because older theories did not explain experimental observations. Kinetic theory resolved the behaviour of heat in gases and lead to more efficient heat engines; thermodynamics not only extended kinetic theory to the general problems of heat in solids and liquids but also to chemical reactions. None of these resolved the observations of radiative heat transfer, it was Max Planck who opened that door, it is best explained these days by quantum electrodynamics (QED). You will need to understand QED if you wish to get a grip of the efficiency of energy processes in lasers.
  26. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    During the 1970's we had some fairly serious famines around the world. Milions of people starved to death.It also happened to be the coldest decade in the last 80 or 90 years.I was a farmer back then and remember reading stories about crop failures across the northern hemisphere.Both drought and cold weather where taking there tole.I am only to happy in fact praying that the little bit of extra co2 we are putting into our atmosphere will prevent another decade like that one,although I doubt we can make that much of a differece
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, I see that I made a mistake on this object A vs. object B point. Object A would be warming (i.e. receiving a net flow of energy) from energy flowing from a relatively warmer object, object C. It would be receiving energy from the cooler object B, but would be emitting more energy to it. Again, that is what "net" means. Do you seriously not understand the basic concept of net change?
  28. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    KL # Various I see you still can't get over the idea that you've got to look at more than just the temperature data.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, It does not matter where the energy flows in from. Energy is energy, regardless of the temperature of the emitting object. Energy flowing from cooler object B to warmer object A does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because more energy flows from warmer object A to cooler object B. That is what "net" means - more energy flows to relatively cooler objects than flows from them. I am still wondering if you had never heard of Tyndall's work before I referenced it here.
  30. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    BP #83 If you're going to post conspiracy theory nonsense, at least either present evidence, or make it clear that you're "joking"
  31. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric, My concern about your remarks re: Wegman is that plagiarism is something that can actually be demonstrated pretty easily to laypeople, and is generally agreed to indicate dishonesty or incompetence. Everyone ought to be able to recognize plagiarism, and to understand the problems with it, regardless of where they stand on AGW. A kneejerk defense of the WR, at a time when plagiarism experts have found serious grounds for concern, is not "skeptical" as I understand the term. Neither is calling these concerns "politically motivated"; whatever the various motivations may be for the various investigations into the WR's sourcing and attribution, the evidence produced so far goes to the heart of Wegman's credibility and can't simply be ignored or downplayed. Attempting to dismiss the accusations (and the evidence) on this basis amounts to an ad hominem argument, at best. More to the point, you claim in #27 that it's good to be "neutral" about the WR, despite having previously insisted that the report is "factual" and the attacks on it are "politically motivated." That's a bit of a double standard, isn't it?
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #89 Tom Dayton, between two places there is no other kind of energy flow than net energy. You write:- "Object A's net energy gain/loss is a gain of 100-80=20, so object A warms" But you do not mention where the 'in flowing energy' comes from, I do not wish to suggest you think it comes from an object B or place B at a lower temperature, which of course would conflict with the 2nd Law
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #84: "Take a balloon full of O2/N2 mixture and measure its temperature ... add some CO2," Those experiments are done, although usually with bottles; you can see them on youtube if you look. When you put both an 'air' bottle and a bottle with extra CO2 under a source of external radiation, the CO2 containing bottle attains a higher temperature. "Replace all the O2/N2 mixture with CO2, do you expect a temperature gradient anywhere?" That's just nonsense, as your PS2 required temperature equilibrium.
  34. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric... You're right. I have no evidence that Wegman would not respond. It is purely an assumption on my part. None-the-less, it's you who is dragging me into a conversation that I did not initiate nor previously participated in. I'm merely saying that I think you're coming to rash conclusions about Briffa's work without knowing the full details. My experience is that scientists generally have extremely good reasons for presenting their material the way they do.
  35. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Daniel Bailey, thanks I will look into it further. BTW, it appears that Wegman has been instructed to not comment "When contacted by phone, Wegman said, `I'm very aware of this report, but I have already been asked by this university to refrain from commenting on this issue..." http://thebrilliantstories.com/prominent-climate-science-critic-investigated-at-varsity/452234/ So I withdraw my suggestion above, but I still ask that people try to be neutral.
  36. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    fydijkstra: "Our interpretation of the facts is always coloured by our frame of reference, our theoretical background." Interpretation of the facts?? You start the sentence with a statement that means nothing. What people do is interpret the texts, they then 'colour' what they have read using their frame of reference. But what you have left out, is that the author is the person that knows the original meaning in the texts.
  37. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Re: Eric (skeptic) (27) Look up the USA Today article. The USA Today contacted 3 independent experts on plagiarism & published their thoughts on the Wegman Report. I won't further colour your opinion on it; look it up, make up your own mind. The Yooper
  38. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    More on the differences between deaths from cold and heat : The number of extra deaths occurring in England and Wales last winter fell despite the coldest weather for 14 years. As Marcus stated, it has always seemed intuitive to me that heat is generally more dangerous than cold, not only because of the difficulty in being able to cool the body down but also because of the added diseases (malaria, etc.) that come with warmer weather. Also, many of the world's major, developed-world population centres seem to be nearer to the poles than to the equator, and most Scandinavian countries seem to be able to combine first-rate economic and social indices along with the cold, snow and ice.
  39. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Rob, here is the difference. Daniel Bailey (#7) threw up the charge of malfeasance and now you claim, without evidence, that Wegman cannot be contacted about it. I am glad you are neutral about that charge as you should be. What I did was ask if someone would defend the claim made in the post about Briffa's desire to fully explain the uncertainty. It is rather obvious that he did not have that desire as the paper that Marco posted demonstrates (a counterexample of willingness to fully explain uncertainty). Briffa's method is not commonplace or (since it is novel), not supported by or derived from previous methods. I welcome any evidence to the contrary and will read whatever is presented.
  40. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, you are being confused by the term "heat." That is a common confusion, because that term is used in multiple ways, sometimes loosely. In the case of the second law, that term means the net flow of energy. The second law says nothing about the constituent two flows of energy in the two directions, only about the final result.
  41. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric... I might add here: I've not been making any claims about the WG nor have I even engaged in any conversation about the WR. It's an interesting issue to me. I've been keeping up with the news about the WR lately. I'm interested to hear what happens with the plagiarism charges. But I'm willing to stay on this sidelines of that issue for now until I understand it better.
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Please explain how that quoted comment contradicts SB. The second law of thermodynamics says net heat always flows in the direction of the colder place.
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #88 Bibliovermis you write:- "Every object in existence emits energy is all directions and the energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their temperature." So the T^4 Stefan Boltzmann thermal radiation law is quite mistaken? I suggest you are on dodgy ground here! The second law of thermodynamics says heat always flows in the direction of the colder place, it doesn't matter whether it is by conduction, convection or radiation that's what the experiments (and common experience) show.
  44. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric... LOL! I don't think Wegman wants to hear from me (nor is the WR something I'm willing to dig deep into at this moment). Which, honestly, is the big difference here. I think if you really dig in and fully inform yourself on Briffa's work he will gladly respond to your questions.
  45. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Marco and Rob, perhaps you are right. The online debate in general has done that to many on both sides. Rob, will you contact Wegman?
  46. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    fydijkstra wrote : "Warmists claim that the 4 independent investigations of ClimateGate have fully exonerated the group of climate scientists around Jones and Mann. No conspiracy, no perverting peer review, no fraud. Nothing. And the message stands upright: the climate has changed unprecedentedly and will change dangerously, if we don’t act now. The evidence has become even stronger since ClimateGate!" Rational people look at the outcome of the three main investigations (which are you claiming as the fourth - the one into Mann ?) and see the dismissal of all the baseless conspiracy theories. No surprise there. The only ones surprised are those who are like the 9/11 troofers who dismiss anything that goes against their specific conspiracy belief. Nothing has really changed but since none of the enquiries really looked into the evidence behind AGW, it is difficult to know where the second half of your paragraph is coming from - probably your own interpretation of the enquiries ? fydijkstra wrote : "Sceptics consider the independent investigations as white washing. The investigations yielded some heavy critics on climate scientists and the IPCC, but this was hidden in very polite recommendations. Maybe nothing illegal has been done, but the hidden critical comments confirm that climate scientists should not hide uncertainties, and should be open for alternative explanations of the facts. Exactly what sceptics have been saying for two decades! And what is that evidence that has become stronger in the previous 12 months? Which paper has definitely confirmed the warmist view." No, those who wish to deny AGW consider the results to be "white washing". Real sceptics would be glad that the basis behind the work of CRU, etc. have been found to be strong. Real sceptics would be working to make sure that the science is as good as it can be, and would be making sure that there is as firm a basis for the science as is possible. As for the "hidden critical comments", I suppose it takes the mind of a so-called skeptic to be able to find those 'hidden truths' which escape the rest of us. I don't know where you got the idea of being "open for alternative explanations of the facts" either. More 'hidden truths' or just your interpretation again ? If you are still asking for proof of AGW, you obviously haven't been reading anything on this site over the last year. That would be a surprise...not ! fydijkstra wrote : "Could it be, that both sides of the ClimageGate debate suffer from this kind of blindness? And could it be, that the truth is in the middle?" No, I'm afraid not. The blindness is experienced by those who wish to deny AGW (who are blind to anything that goes against their particular beliefs), and who are prepared to argue for one explanation one day, and another the next. That is selective blindness but it can be cured by opening of the eyes and the mind. As in the so-called differences between evolutionists and creationists, you are either on the side of science or you are on the side of personal/religious/political belief - there is no middle-ground and those claiming that there is, are aware that their own arguments are unpersuasive to all but the most gullible.
  47. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    Eric @ 19... Rather than making assumptions about Briffa's methods and intentions you should probably go deeper into the source research material. I believe you might find the answers to the questions that are popping up for you. And even then if you have nagging questions about why he presented his work as he did after reading and fully informing yourself on his work, contact Briffa with your questions. As long as you remain polite and brief, I've found all the prominent scientists in this field to be very eager to help people understand their work. I've corresponded with a number of them myself on various occasions.
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel, when Bibliovermis wrote "net energy flow is zero," the word "net" means the difference between the incoming and outgoing energy for each object. Let's say object A has 100 units of energy coming in and 80 units going out. Object A's net energy gain/loss is a gain of 100-80=20, so object A warms.
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Yes, both statements are correct. Every object in existence emits energy is all directions and the energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their temperature. When the net energy flow is zero, there is no temperature change. When there is a difference in the energy flows, the temperature changes. Did you not know about Tyndall's work before I referenced it?
  50. Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
    fydijkstra wrote : "The discussions about ClimateGate on this site show an interesting feature: observations and interpretations of facts are never objective. Our interpretation of the facts is always coloured by our frame of reference, our theoretical background." In this instance, there is only one fact (which cannot be interpreted and which can either be accepted or denied) : Three enquiries have found no substance for any of the accusations. fydijkstra wrote : "Let’s simply call them warmists. This is not name calling, it’s just the use of a word to characterize a group." So what about those who think the world is warming but that it is all natural ? They can't be called 'warmists' too ? Or can they ? Or is 'warmist' a desperate name used by so-called skeptics in the belief that it makes their own beliefs seem somehow more normal ? fydijkstra wrote : "There are also people who believe, that the climate has always changed, that human activities do have a certain influence on the climate, but that natural climate fluctuations are dominant, and that we should not be too worried, because mankind has shown to be able to adapt to climate change during at least 100,000 years. Let’s simply call them sceptics. This is not name calling, it’s just the use of a word to characterize a group." No, let's call them what they in fact are : those who want to believe anything but AGW, so they will argue one thing, then another (possibly the opposite) so they can argue against AGW no matter what. Perhaps we can call them 'denialists' ? I mean, your rationale there is so contorted, it is impossible to read it with a straight face. Who doesn't think that "the climate has always changed" ? Anyone ? Who believes in the dominance of "natural climate fluctuations" without any evidence - only a belief that there must be something there in the background, perhaps, with a cycle of a few thousand/tens of thousands/whatever years, maybe ? Those who prefer to deny. Who believes that we can adapt easily enough and that we shouldn't worry, everything will turn out alright in the end, possibly ? Just like 'we' did thousands of years ago...when there were hardly any people, no political borders and freedom to roam at will. Those who prefer to deny. This is not name-calling : this is the reality of those who wish to deny AGW.

Prev  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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