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  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  Next

Comments 107701 to 107750:

  1. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TTTM - and by what mechanism "could" you accumulate that heat in days? Can we stick plausible physics?
  2. The value of coherence in science
    To boil it down, Judith Curry is an expert in atmospheric studies, and gives mainstream views on this topic. She knows nothing special about palaeoclimate studies, and chose to accept McIntyre's version of the debate, hook, line & sinker, rather than to consult people she knows who actually work in the field. Her wallowing in the ClimateAudit mania was disappointing and embarrassing. Her postings I have seen on her new blog tend to be open-ended bringing up of issues, which she then turns over to essentially unguided commenting. It's all very polite, but I haven't so far seen anything that would lead to clarification or resolution of anything.
  3. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    "My guess is this is due to our strict Comments Policy and the fact that registration is compulsory before you can submit a comment" There's a test for this effect. Old AccuWeather page with no registration required: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/ New AccuWeather page with registration required: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science I would estimate there are 10X as many comments on the average post in their old format. Registration probably eliminates some of the obvious trolls and noise, so I think that's a good thing.
    Response: 10 times as many? Yikes!
  4. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    @adelady I am continually astonished by people's misunderstanding of the energy flow associated with the earth. The earth receives about 385 x 10^22 Joules of energy every year. We had been accumulating somewhere between 5 and 10 x 10^22 Joules every year in our oceans. Not recently though. You can easily see that the earth receives from the sun and radiates away to space many, many times that which it accumulates even at the best of times. In answer to your question or rather to put it into perspective, the heat you speak of could accumulate in a matter of days if not hours.
  5. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TTTM, look at this graph. Notice, sea level sort of bounces along, upward:
  6. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    @TTTM: "So sea levels are dropping which is further confirmation that the ocean heat content isn't increasing." Yeah, except Sea Levels aren't dropping. That itsy bisty fact kinda demolishes your whole argument, doesn't it?
  7. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Surely there must be some reasonably technology-neutral site for discussing energy liberation, capture, transmission, storage, general manipulation? I can't think of one but perhaps somebody else can make a suggestion. Maybe a case of "be careful what we wish for"-- too many obsessions, not enough time...
  8. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Tim TTM - just how sure are you that nothing at all is happening in the deep ocean? Unless you're involved in some measurement project that we've not heard about, I'd be a bit more cautious. Where exactly will the heat to drive the next el Nino come from? El Ninos don't create heat, they only redistribute it. Whatever process has a La Nina like the current one showing lower temperatures is the other side of the el Nino coin. After this La Nina there **will** be an el Nino. Maybe straight away, maybe 3 years. Either way, the heat released will not come from nowhere. Just because we can't identify it now doesn't mean we won't see it then.
  9. gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 7 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    scaddenp, Thanks for that Grootes & Stuiver paper. I hope to have something to report in about a month. Before my trip to Asheville I will be visiting a 75 MW photo-voltaic power plant and a solar generator located on an 18,000 acre site. I wonder whether these technologies come within the scope of this blog?
  10. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Completely OT except it is housekeeping. The IPCC Reports Science or Spin thread is a bit mucked up, with comments and moderator's remarks blanking each other out. On Topic. Keep the moderation as it is. And if things get a bit difficult - shift (or delete) comments belonging to other threads sooner than you sometimes do. Not always necessary, but a good move from time to time.
  11. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    So sea levels are dropping which is further confirmation that the ocean heat content isn't increasing. What does this say about the radiative imbalance recently? It can only say one thing...the earth is as warm as it should be. Maybe even warmer than it should be. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't heating it right now. Its ironic that the author should be criticising cherry picking so agressively and yet in the very same breath mention record hot temperatures.
  12. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    I'm with scaddenp: keep the moderation. Other sites can promote controversy to run up their hit counts, but you're doing a lot of work to make this site mature and intelligent. Keep it up! I'm making a donation. I suggest others who appreciate the site do the same.
  13. The value of coherence in science
    Getting somewhat back on topic and speaking of coherence, although contrarians find themselves bemused when Dr. Curry does not monotonically disavow mainstream science, they eagerly accept her musings on what can only be termed social science topics, again "tribalism" and "post-normal science." The coherence problem becomes visible when we compare contrarian acceptance of Curry's extracurricular communications with other examples, such as Steven Schneider's exploration of scientific consensus. On the one hand, endorsement and accolades, on the other bitter condemnation. So we have a conspicuously disjointed feature in that contrarians find their least comfort when Dr. Curry is speaking on what she's most qualified to talk about, more happiness when she's delving into matters outside of her expertise, with this odd standard of appraisal selectively reversed in other cases. Perhaps this behavior is better classified as inconsistency as opposed to incoherence.
  14. The value of coherence in science
    #45 chriscanaris Similarly, when I've spoke favourably of Judith Curry's or Mike Hulmes' efforts to engage the blogosphere in constructive debate, folks have responded negatively somewhat to my disappointment. Judy Curry, however, has been producing some very sophisticated discussions. Somehow, their efforts seem to be perceived as a betrayal of the cause. It depends which cause you're talking about. The reason "warmists" tend to perceive Dr. Curry negatively, in my view, is that she has tended to make rather grandiose pronouncements about the "problems" with climate science, and then retreat when asked to elaborate on them. Most of us don't see this behavior as "constructive" or "sophisticated," for better or worse. I don't pretend to know anything about her motivations or her sincerity, nor do I really care. But I do think that her recent activities haven't been very helpful. A number of people -- Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt, for starters -- have engaged with her at length; watching from the sidelines, I've seen that she tends to respond to their very detailed criticisms with vague, gnomic remarks about "tribalism." The more substantive issues often wind up on the back burner, to be discussed at a later date that never seems to arrive. Tribalism is a legitimate concern -- and plenty of sociologists and philosophers of science have discussed it with far more rigor than Dr. Curry -- but it's not a legitimate response to pointed, specific, science-based criticism of Dr. Curry's interpretation of climate research and data. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think you have to be a "warmist" to understand why some people would perceive her behavior to be frustrating, counterproductive and -- far too often -- evasive.
  15. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    John, just curious, how many hits do you get a day ?? I don't post often here but do follow along and learn LOTS. The moderation is spot on and it's a relief not to have to wade through the multiple posts of nonsense at far too many sites. Keep up the good work ..... ;-)
  16. The value of coherence in science
    Chris, a lot of folks find Judith Curry a puzzle. As a publishing scientist and thus a professional communicator well-versed in expository writing crafted so as not to leave distracting ambiguity hanging in the air, nonetheless her less formal writings on the topic of climate science are riddled with strangely unintelligible remarks, innocent I think but which some take as equivocation. The other matter I find dismaying about Dr. Curry is her encouragement and stoking of sectarianism, of totemic encampments by her use of terms such as "tribalism" and "post-normal science." Her communications are often 180 degrees at variance with her quite reasonable stated objectives.
  17. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Karamanski, answers about where the climate is headed and how it'll get there mostly hinge on sensitivity. For the nitty-gritty on sensitivity, see "A detailed look at climate sensitivity." For some simple comparisons between expectations and observations, see "Comparing IPCC projections to observations." If you've got questions pertaining to what's covered in those links, best to submit them there as that makes the whole process of discussion more valuable.
    Moderator Response: For newly arrived readers, the "Search..." tool at upper left is very handy for zeroing in when seeking answers.
  18. The value of coherence in science
    Ned @ 22: I was impressed by your very thoughtful post. I particularly noted your comment: 'This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens.' Actually, with respect, I think there is far too much labelling of positions taken by various players. I have sometimes posted comments broadly supportive of AGW perspectives only to find others taking issue with them because I am viewed as a 'sceptic.' I've often spoken of my extreme discomfort with the Monckton/ Plimer/ WUWT commentariat modus operandi. However, I often feel I have to couch what I say with great care to maintain credibility as a poster - far more care than if I was perceived as a card carrying warmist. I had a very grumpy moment the other day provoking a strong response - well, we won't go over that territory again. Overall, this site is far more tolerant of sceptics than the other players in the AGW team. Still, the feeling of differing standards and expectations doesn't go away. Nevertheless, I'm old enough not to go take my toys home or sulk in a corner - I appreciate this sort of thing is near inevitable on any site where people feel passionately about a topic. I would add that on the very rare occasions I've posted on WUWT, I have usually been in polite disagreement with the presentation (maybe 75% of the time but I'm only guessing - I post so rarely there because I often feel it's not worth the trouble). However, I haven't felt as if treading on eggshells when posting even when in disagreement. By way of further illustration, I'm currently reading Pielke's 'Climate Fix.' He is clearly not a sceptic but is often perceived that way because he does not accept so-called 'catastrophic' scenarios unquestioningly. He also highlights the logistical difficulties in decarbonising economies. He does support decarbonisation as best as I can tell - I haven't got that far in the book. Whether Pielke is right or not is a separate issue. Similarly, when I've spoke favourably of Judith Curry's or Mike Hulmes' efforts to engage the blogosphere in constructive debate, folks have responded negatively somewhat to my disappointment. Judy Curry, however, has been producing some very sophisticated discussions. Somehow, their efforts seem to be perceived as a betrayal of the cause. However, there really is only one cause - our welfare as people and our good custody of the planet. At the same time, your acknowledgment that the AGW side has its own issues with lack of coherence bespeaks considerable intellectual honesty. The empirical data and the hypotheses they lead to do not mesh into a neat package - one could hardly expect perfect coherence in any attempt to evaluate a system as large and as complex. Herein lies a further problem: those who note lack of coherence in some aspects of the big picture are often decried as 'sceptics.'
  19. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    I strongly accept that humans are causing global warming and that solving this problem should be our highest priority. However, I am skeptical of the accuracy of climate models. I think a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius by 2100 is a bit wide of the mark, even in a busisness as usual scenario . Since 1880, global temperatures have only increased by about .8 degrees celsius. In order to reach 3 degrees celsius by 2100 global warming would have to undergo a very steep acceleration. Apparently this isn't showing any signs of happening. Global Temperature increases over the past decade were at the low end of climate model projections. I find it very hard to believe that we will reach 3 degrees celsius by the end of the century. Could you please explain this to me?
  20. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    This graph is proof positive of AGW. The amount of hot air has risen in direct proportion to the number of comments. Or is that just correlation???? And note that the comment curve has flattened. So we can all go back to sleep.
  21. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Any thoughts to a similar post on deleteds? Betcha the App triggered a spike in comments meriting deletion as well. re: Doug (3) It's still the sun. :) The Yooper
    Response: You had to ask, didn't you? I have a lot more important things I have to do with my limited time but the urge to plot another graph is irresistable:



    Please, no more requests. I'm not plotting the ratio of deleted skeptic comments to proAGW comments (hmm, although that would be quite interesting...)
  22. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    You've obviously tried to "adjust" your "data" so as to hide both the MWP and LIA. Also the recent rise in comments is obviously due to bit-flipping because of increased cosmic ray flux; we know this because so many comments are random gibberish.
  23. bgood2creation at 12:48 PM on 7 October 2010
    Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    "But I would argue the level of discussion here at SkS is also of a higher quality than at many other blogs..." I agree. I spent a few days at WUWT, and I would say the conversation here is generally at a higher level. (You can decide for yourself if that is an understatement.)
  24. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Keep it draconian - even more so. I dont mind being pinged for inappropriate comment. And thanks very much for that expansion of RSS.
  25. Berényi Péter at 11:54 AM on 7 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    #119 scaddenp at 15:03 PM on 6 October, 2010 Lindzen got a Nobel? News to me though he most certainly has produced outstanding work. Lindzen and Choi not being one them however. It has been specifically rebutted in the published literature and so far as I am aware, Lindzen has not responded. Well, he is a Nobel laureate, sort of. The 2007 Nobel Pace Prize went to IPCC and Al Gore, while Lindzen was a (reluctant) lead author of IPCC TAR WG1 Chapter 7 - Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks. At least Mike Williams must have referred to this connection on BBC. I myself think this Peace Prize thing is pure shame. BTW, Lindzen has responded to critics. It was submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research on February 12, 2010.
    BBC One Planet - Climate change, pot plants and small frogs Nobel winner Richard Lindzen on being a climate change denier, and why office plants rock
    "American atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen was one of the lead authors for the IPCC's third report on climate change. But he's not on this week's One Planet show to talk about the need for action on carbon emissions - quite the opposite in fact. Professor Lindzen believes the impact of human induced climate change has been exaggerated, and is urging political leaders to abandon their pursuit of costly carbon markets. His views may not be shared by the majority of the world's climate scientists, but Professor Lindzen is undoubtedly a formidable scientist - he's written (or co-authored) well over 200 scientific papers, and has been the recipient of numerous awards for his work on atmospheric physics. Debate is the foundation of science, so this week Mike questions the professor about why he feels the IPCC has become biased in favour of climate change, and hears his views on how humans have had a marginal impact on global warming. Also in the show, reporter Richard Hollingham looks to overcome his disdain for office pot plants - and in the process the One Planet plant gets a health check. Plus we hear about the world's smallest frog found in Malaysia."
  26. An underwater hockey stick
    Thanks Doug, missed that. Reading the paper, I would hesitate to draw wider conclusions than the authors do themselves. The authors argue that the waters are result of mixing two very sources so that a change in proportion of mixing could dramatically affect temperature. Interesting but more work needed.
  27. An underwater hockey stick
    True enough, ScaddenP. There's a link to an open access copy of the full text back on the past page of comments, btw.
  28. An underwater hockey stick
    To me the interest of this paper is what it suggests regarding the utility of sediment cores in relatively closed waters as useful records of broader changes, possibly more sensitive and thus better for recording early onset of changes. Take a look at the graphs in this paper: Rapid 20th century environmental change on northeastern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada inferred from a multi-proxy lacustrine record (pdf, full text) and notice the coincident bump in numerous geochemical and biological markers during the course of the 20th century. Details show up that we'd not necessarily expect to see so clearly in bulkier, more highly damped bodies of water.
  29. An underwater hockey stick
    Having trouble with our library connection to AGU so only seeing the abstract. However, the authors believe that what they are measuring is the temperature INCOMING intermediate North Atlantic waters, presumably inferred from local oceanography. To say where the warming is coming from would require data on intermediate water formation in NA - couldnt find anything useful in a quick look.
  30. An underwater hockey stick
    doug_bostrom at 10:37 So true, i did make that my point myself at the begging o the thread, the correlation between this reconstruction, and hemispherical is convincing, and the authors also state they believe its because of the sources of the currents feeding it. There isnt enough info to draw anything definite about it... but i think it would be very safe to assume the anomaly has nothing to do with back radiation at the location in question, considering the depth.
  31. An underwater hockey stick
    Point is, let's not wander off into the weeds by talking about warming of the ocean on a global scale when the author is making no such claim.
  32. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, The US Supreme court, with a strong majority of conservative justices, ruled that the science is overwhelming and CO2 is a pollutant. If you want to be taken seriously you need to document your objections to the supreme court ruling. Your argument of "I don't think so" is a waste of space. If you cannot document your objections with facts you need to take your anger over to WUWT where they will agree with you. You have spent too much time on this web site to blithely deny the hazards of uncontrolled temperature increase.
  33. An underwater hockey stick
    Not to butt in, but the article above is talking about a comparatively tiny area of water in a restricted basin, not hemispheric-scale warming. Just so everybody's on the same page, figure 1 from the article, showing the area of interest:
  34. The value of coherence in science
    John... Ah. I missed your post at the very top regarding Taylor Dome. But again, here, I would suggest that you're not exploring the situation any further than where it confirms your expected result (confirmation bias). If you add current CO2 rise and Greenland temperature records since 1970 I think you're going to see a very very different picture. CO2 level, obviously have gone from 285 to 390. That's going to put a sharp dogleg in that line. Then the temperature since 1970 (according to the data I've seen) has risen maybe another 1.5C. The chart you've created on your Taylor dome page relies heavy on the scaling of each X axis to get the effect you want. Once you add the current CO2 levels and temps into that chart you're going to have to rework the axes. I think that will give a more rational perspective between the two lines.
    Moderator Response: This discussion is getting specific enough that I think it belongs in another thread. How about There's No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature?
  35. An underwater hockey stick
    CBDunkerson at 04:39 AM No, i was talking about hemispherical records, and in light of the amount o energy it would take to raise water at 400m 1.7K from radiative heating at the surface above its location, is utterly ridiculous.(thus the reason i assumed you were mixing up temperature with energy) And i was kinda hoping you would follow the link backs, to realize that the ocean temp profiles are logarithmic... There is nothing ive seen on SoD i disagree with, its an excellent site. I have no problem with back radiation, with decreasing entropy however... As to the paper, read it.
  36. The value of coherence in science
    John... When I look at your header graphic "isn't perfect" is not the description that comes to my mind. You've drawn a pointer to the start of the 20th century and labeled it as if it were NOW. "Highly misleading" would be a much more apt phrase. I would suggest that if you actually did add the instrumental data (not global averages because that's not what GISP-2 is measuring) for Greenland you'd see something on the line of 2C warming since the end of that chart. Is that confusing, as you say, or is it inconvenient to the message you're trying to deliver? It would also be decidedly UNscientific to dump that data because it doesn't fit your selected conclusion and try to find other data that does. I'm looking at the Taylor Dome data right now and I'm not finding temperature data. I'd be interested where the conclusion comes from that Taylor dome shows comparable results. None of this is personal. I'm very confident that you are an intelligent person and a very good chemical engineer. In your photo you look like a someone with whom I'd enjoy downing a few pints at the local pub. But I find this to be a case where you are crossing into a field of expertise outside of your own.
  37. The value of coherence in science
    TIS, What is so confusing about this graphic? It can and has been done. In contrast, the inset in the linked graphic is misleading because it does not tell the whole picture. Neither does the header on your page. In fact, when complete the data tell a very different story. As far as I can determine, the header for this site is not intended to be taken seriously. Either way, it is not presenting data as yours is. Altogether a different story.
  38. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 08:22 AM on 7 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    @Rob, Good eye on the header. The GISP-2 ends about 100 years ago. The person who did the website put it all together after sorting through bunches of graphs and pictures. I like the look, but I agree it isn't... precise. To be fair, this site shows a plant growing through an ice sheet. I did make sure to post the link to the data. I did consider adding instrument data in a different color, but it was confusing.. The Taylor Dome data is more recent and basically shows comparable results, even with my smoothing it gets into the 70's. Any heavily smoothed data loses recency. The GISP-2 is heavily smoothed. I accept that it isn't perfect.
  39. It's the sun
    Well my model was derived empirically from IPCC data. It was pretty naïve statistically speaking, and the model wasn't without its violations of assumptions. On the other hand as the magnitude of CO2 versus solar forcing was roughly consistent with my regression model, I don't see how Ken reaches his conclusion that "is no way that the above chart could allow Solar forcing to be dominant in the first half of the 20th century" (it would be nice if Ken referred to which chart). I think he's got to get over the confirmation bias.
  40. The value of coherence in science
    Doug, thanks for the link to "How facts backfire" - a worthwhile article. (By the way, are you of Danish or Swedish background? I've never come across a Brostrom outside my family before.) A question that I have for any of the skeptics here is - What evidence would you find sufficient to change your mind about ACC? I ask because I think that our current understanding of climate is a broad, consistant, theory. What do you think is missing?
  41. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    GC - that is good to here and we will be very interested in your report back. Please tell us who you talked to. If you get to talk to Richard Alley, then I suggest you swat up on ice-core temperature determination (eg Grootes and Stuiver and here). Just so you dont waste time. I will especially look forward you putting up a revised analysis of Alley 2000.
  42. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    #110: "You generally need to have lengthy public debates, and huge amounts of sound science on your side, to get anywhere at all." Apparently that process actually works in some places. Canada: In draft regulations introduced several months ago, Environment Canada estimated that the targets would result in new vehicles in 2016 producing 25 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than those sold in 2008. Europe: the legislation on CO2 from passenger cars is now officially published in the form of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles. And even locally in the US: New Jersey helped mark a milestone in climate-change policy in 2008 with the launch of a 10-state program to control carbon dioxide emissions from power producers. And then there's the other side: The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing climate-change regulations under the Clean Air Act ... But it’s not even clear why such controls are needed, given questions about the validity of the scientific case for blaming global warming on fossil-fuel emissions.
  43. The value of coherence in science
    I wondered about that header graphic too Rob, thanks for confirming my suspicion. And why did he specifically choose that particular ice core? This post by Chris on another thread is helpful.
  44. The value of coherence in science
    I think TIS's example of CO2 saturation at 50 ppm is a good example of exactly what this Stephan's blog post is all about. Okay, TIS puts forth this analysis that CO2 absorption is saturated at 50 ppm. How does that square with the MUCH larger puzzle of climate? How do we get glaciation cycles? Why do we see a warming trend in the pat 30 years? What about tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling? The onus then is upon you to provide a theory that explains all the observed phenomena better than current theory. Also, I have to state, Kler's header graphic really bothers me. On his site he states that the data comes from GISP-2. When you go to the actual GISP-2 data you find that the data ends at 0.951 thousand years before the present (95 years ago). But Kler has chosen to mark that point on his header graphic as "global warming part." John Kler. Did you make any attempt to add to that chart the current temperature trends from central Greenland since 1913? The statements you make here sound as if you are attempting to be genuine and honest in your attempts to present coherent science. But I would put to you that that the very face of your website is doing exactly the opposite. Again, providing coherence in science means presenting ALL the facts. I'll give you a little clue. I've seen the data for modern Greenland temps and I believe they are about in line with the peaks in your header graphic for 3500 years ago.
  45. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Why talk Coke, RSVP, when we can talk coal? The human world doesn't seem to be spinning in the direction you think it is. It seems more likely that, at least for the U.S., a Repub/Tea Party-oriented Congress will relax or remove law designed to regulate CO2.
  46. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    @RSVP: "On the otherhand, the categorization of CO2 as a pollutant is also hard to take serious" Not really, as excess CO2 represents a serious threat to our civilization. It is therefore quite legitimate to classify it as a pollutant.
  47. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP: What makes you so sure about where the law will end up drawing the line? Let's hope my comment is just a joke. Michael Sweet explained why your comment was silly. Saying "Hey, it could happen!" simply compounds the silliness. First, no one's talking about "banning" CO2; this is a typical denialist strawman. Second, if anyone were going to ban Coca-Cola, it would probably be the FDA, not the EPA. Third, as our modern experience with cigarettes and tetraethyl lead and CO2 shows, it's actually pretty difficult to impose regulations like these. You generally need to have lengthy public debates, and huge amounts of sound science on your side, to get anywhere at all. Comparing the regulation of CO2 to Prohibition is an interesting new rhetorical angle, but it's equally asinine. The classification of CO2 as a pollutant is based on decades of scientific data. By contrast, Prohibition was based largely on Protestant religious dogma and opportunistic jingoism, and passed largely thanks to the efforts of politically connected (and generally conservative/rural) pressure groups with a talent for public relations. I don't actually think we can draw any lesson from Prohibition in regards to the AGW debate, but if we could, I think it'd be pretty much the opposite of the one you're offering.
  48. An underwater hockey stick
    JB #85: So... contrary to your statement in #75 you DON'T have the surface temperature anomalies and CAN'T back up the claim that the Gulf of St. Lawrence has warmed more at ~400 m below sea level than at the ocean surface? You believe that warming is originating in the oceans rather than from 'back radiation' (and cite a Science of Doom thread which is in the process of debunking that view), but contrary to prior claims you do NOT have data showing ocean warming greater than surface warming. Which, as per my prior comments about the Labrador current, wouldn't prove your point in any case. "I will point out again we are talking pre mid last century(we werent really having that big of an effect, but numbers speak better than words)" That'd be the time period when increased solar irradiance was causing most of the global increases in temperature. Arctic amplification would still have come into play and thus all the objections I've raised still apply.
  49. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, why not cut to the chase now and let truth prevail straight away? Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF) (52 pp, 308K) Technical Support Document for the Findings (PDF) (210 pp, 2.5MB) It's extremely, vanishingly unlikely that you know better, but if you don't bother reading this stuff you'll never find out, will you? Certainly you won't persuade anybody with silly allusions to prohibition and soft drinks, but failing having any specific facts at your fingertips, that's all you've got.
  50. The value of coherence in science
    TIS Scientists and engineers are similar in their science background, but very different in approaching problems. As a blanket statement, this seems pretty dubious. But what concerns me more is the implication that engineers are somehow "better" at science (e.g., more practical, more realistic, or what have you). In fact, science is a group endeavor and one of its greatest strengths is the fact that when you make mistakes, or get basic facts wrong, a lot of people will let you know about it, at length and in excruciating detail. Whether you're an engineer or not, if almost all of the experts in a given field are telling you you're wrong, the solution is not to assume a conspiracy, or play the victim, but to look at your argument critically, from their standpoint, and consider in all humility whether they have some valid points. Then, you can attempt to form a coherent, informed argument that will actually satisfy their objections and win them over. In my experience, this is something that far too few "skeptics" are willing to do. As a teacher of mine once said, if you're getting results that are drastically at odds with the accepted science, there are two possibilities: 1) you're a genius who has a good shot at winning the Nobel Prize; or 2) you made a mistake somewhere. Sincere skeptics should have at least as much skepticism toward their own arguments as they do toward the consensus view, for the simple reason that the consensus view is far less likely to contain undiscovered mistakes.

Prev  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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