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  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  Next

Comments 108301 to 108350:

  1. An underwater hockey stick
    adelady #12 Enjoy the wettest September in Australia in 100 years and the current La Nina, the most water in outback in 20 years and the breaking of the drought. Of course the worst drought in 100 years was brought to us by - climate change driven by AGW. And of course the breaking of the drought was brought to us by - you guessed it - climate change driven by AGW!
  2. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Half-baked, unleavened epistemological mush, gooey and and impossible to swallow, johnd, but having the non-nutritive rhetorical value of being universally applicable to any field of inquiry you choose. Unappetizing; I'm not biting.
  3. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    doug_bostrom at 11:08 AM , ask yourself just how easy it is to reverse your own perspective in cases where cause and effect seems to appear with such clarity. Are you able to accept that scientists such Spencer can see that perhaps cause and effect are being confused in some studies and can build a case with them being reversed? Who can adequately peer review the validity of his latest work without considering that the conventional view of cause and effect is wrong?
  4. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Thank you for the explanation ! I have gone [online] to my library and ordered the book. [Ecoscience costs $100 in paperback !] I will refrain from commenting on it's contents until I have read it. If the quotes I have read are accurate they are scary, but I will give the man the benefit of the doubt. I believe in being accurate. He is a co-author not the only author. Again thanks for the explanation. I don't think there is any vast conspiracy just human beings responding to their own self interest. [Which is a post by itself.]
  5. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    [Spencer] sees confusion between cause and effect and apparently not all scientists it appears are able to adjust their mindset to his perspective that would enable them to judge his work without bias. That's what I call resorting to "magic" in order to support an opinion, substitution of imaginary bias to account for disagreement rather than arguing substantive scientific differences. It's a more benign form of fantasy than chanting incantations of conspiracy to explain why research publications are lopsidedly in agreement with the gross physical causes and effects of anthropogenic global warming, knock-on effects. I'm sure it is indeed frustrating to find abstracts of so many papers including words such as: We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years. and The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent withthe rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities. and Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906). and Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft. and The causes of twentieth century temperature change in six separate land areas of the Earth have been determined by carrying out a series of optimal detection analyses. The warming effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have been detected in all the regions examined, including North America and Europe. and The usefulness of global-average diurnal temperature range (DTR) as an index of climate change and variability is evaluated using observations and climate model simulations representing unforced climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. On decadal timescales, modelled and observed intrinsic variability of DTR compare well and are independent of variations in global mean temperature. Taken together, no, the conclusions are not "fair." Earth is not "fair," physics is not "fair." Tough. Imaginary bias is insufficiently powerful to account for what we see in front of our noses.
  6. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    archiesteel at 06:22 AM, I fully understood your intent. It just peeves me somewhat when people offer advice to others that they themselves ignore. It takes two to tango.
  7. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and will do so again if allowed. It is good for people with differing opinions on climate change or anything else to exchange ideas without finger pointing or name calling. Apparently I will not be allowed to respond to the questions put to me. It has been an honor and I respect your tolerance for differing opinions.
    Moderator Response: Please study the Comments Policy for more information about why leveling false accusations of advocacy of forced contraception, reliance on websites premised on conspiracies to deceive the public, etc. will result in frustration when it comes to successfully posting comments here at Skeptical Science.
  8. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    KL #115 "We have done this extensively elsewhere - but that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore." Again you're better off admitting that you've got it wrong. I've dealt with this piece of misinformation that you keep bringing up here and here with a little bit of theoretical background here. Just to be absolutely clear, this shows unambiguously that your claim of flattening has no merit from a scientific perspective.
  9. There is no consensus
    Actually BP what's interesting is that from a cognitive perspective faulty "appeals" of the kind 10:10 demonstrated are ineffective; for efficacy, arousal of or appeal to fear must be grounded in reality w/respect to the actual risk at hand and as well must present a clear avenue to reducing the level of fear resulting from the awareness of the particular risk leading to fear. Nobody's going to blow up as a result of leaving their bathroom light on, so we're left to conclude that 10:10 were only guessing about their method of approach. Now if 10:10 were to actually show up on people's doorsteps with the threat of physical violence, different story I'm sure. They didn't do that, they're instead using a crude cognitive bludgeon not properly crafted to achieve its intended effect, akin to putting on a blindfold and a boxing glove, then rummaging in a toolbox and expecting to find the proper wrench for the job at hand. Likening 10:10 to the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit or the like is rather a ridiculous approach in itself. Again, if you're trying to inculcate fear in the audience here so as to engender an effect, you'll want to ground the risk you present in reality, not fantasy.
  10. There is no consensus
    BP #238 Perhaps you're unaware of the immediate retraction and apology concerning the video by the 10:10 group? Certainly puts your shrill hand wringing in perspective. #236 Maybe - I'm still not convinced. But your google search was misleading as it showed participation in the campaign by a bunch of local government groups. Even adding the word "funding" or "financing" to your search doesn't clarify at all.
  11. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    doug_bostrom at 05:22 AM, on the contrary I think most people do have at least a basic grasp of of physics, and of mathematics as well, as climate science is all about reducing an extremely complex system to a number of basic laws and mathematical equations. However the computation of such in combination is far beyond the capacity of a single human mind. In addition the depth to which those not involved in the actual research is limited to analysing the completed studies, the conclusions reached, often only the abstracts. Few people have the opportunity or ability to explore and analyse the essential elements such as the raw data, the proxies being developed or any of elements of the mathematical models constructed, these are often tightly held by the scientists themselves, not even shared with other scientists. Spencer with the work he does on feedbacks has commented that even other scientists are no able to grasp the essential elements of his work, and I think that is a very telling point. Spencer understands the perspective from which other scientists apply the accumulated laws of physics and mathematical equations, but he sees that the order in which are inserted into the "critical path", for want of a better term, may not be the correct order, and inserts them in a different order. He sees confusion between cause and effect and apparently not all scientists it appears are able to adjust their mindset to his perspective that would enable them to judge his work without bias. If it is difficult for scientists who specialise in the physics involved to be able understand the perspective of a fellow equally qualified scientist, then that puts the average poster commenting on their works at aqn extreme disadvantage leading to a situation where what they present to support an argument is more due to their opinion on the relative merits of the conclusions drawn by any study rather than any intimate knowledge of the inner workings that are generally not available to those outside the working group.
  12. An underwater hockey stick
    doug_bostrom I think that would be highly unlikely, assuming currents at the golf have remained consistent, as it would require negative entropy through the system. It will more likely be the result of changes in one or more of the currents feeding into the gulf. Either way, it does corroborate that the warming starting at the end of the 19th century, is unmatched during the last 1000 years. But this could be showing a strengthening of the THC at that time. All sorts o possibilities, but not enough info at this time to draw any concrete conclusions from it.
  13. Berényi Péter at 09:38 AM on 3 October 2010
    There is no consensus
    #237 doug_bostrom at 07:20 AM on 3 October, 2010 My, what a political turn this thread has taken. It's still about how to make consensus. The particular method promoted by the 10:10 team is proven to be effective in the short term multiple times throughout history, particularly here, in Central Europe. Should I say we are all too familiar with it? Unfortunately however, it may not work so well in the long run, as sooner or later people are prone to come to their senses.
  14. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    Robert Way, Why focus on the summer minimums? If you look at the two illustrations, the one on the left (as well as a higher extent) has clearly more high concentration ice (up to 100% shown by the grey colour) than the one on the right, which has more ice of lower concentrations (as shown by the brighter greens & reds). There are even areas of low concentration close to the North Pole. The dates were chosen more or less at random. In 2010 the ice is thinner and more spread out. It is a rough corroboration of the PIOMAS model, which shows the fall in volume.
  15. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    "the science is abdominal" - based on gut feelings perhaps?! A case of projection?
  16. An underwater hockey stick
    Joe, don't take my word as worth anything but the first thing that comes to mind for me when looking at fig. 1 of the paper is the confined area; I'm left wondering if the connection to the rest of the abyss is such that we're looking at what is effectively a semi-isolated pool of water, able to warm more quickly.
  17. An underwater hockey stick
    Thank you Doug for the link to the paper. Riccardo, this paper has found a direct correlation, to the deep water T's at the gulf of st lawrence vrs northern hemisphere atmospheric T's... i think it is a very interesting paper! It is a little complex though, in that it is the result of the mixing of several currents. For the oceans to show a much greater anomaly than atmospheric T's, would be a physical impossibility for it to be driven by LW forcing. But this is showing a change in current strengths, driving warming of deep waters... Whats caused it? Why isnt it lagging? It raises a lot o questions to my mind...
  18. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    I'm not sure that presenting data from the same calendrical date separated by 30 years is "cherry picking," Robert. That's easily enough time to capture a trend. All the same, looking at the same delta from a graphical perspective and being more inclusive is arguably better in terms of eliminating ambiguity. A classic example of "cherry picking" would be to take data from 1987 to 1989 and claim that was a "recovery," or 2007-2009 for that matter.
  19. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    cruzn246 - "is there a tipping point for solar" - Well yes, on it way to a red dwarf, the sun will eventually boil the seas and that surely is tipping point. Not one that need concern us much however. This sounds like a continued effort to explain warming from solar effects. Lets try the science approach. What would we predict to occur, from considerations of past solar warming and from basics physics? Warming more pronounced in tropics; warmer days rather than warmer nights; summers warming faster than winters; and the biggy - the stratosphere warming not cooling. Observation dont match these predictions but they do match the predictions for GHG-driven warming.
  20. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    CW - been away for a few days. Interesting argument for a more extreme HCO climate. I would like to make a couple of further points though. Firstly, I can't comment on NH proxies for HCO temperatures but we do have evidence for warmer temperatures here (NZ) 5-6000 kpa. However these are glacial records and it was pointed out to me that by topographical and ablation considerations, current glacial retreat will likely exceed those boundaries within decades - without any FURTHER warming. It would be interesting to whether same was true for NH proxies. Secondly, I dont think HCO is useful analogue. We are heading back to pliocene CO2 levels, not HCO and more importantly, it is the RATE of change that is important, not where it goes. Milankovich cycle driven change is slow. Thirdly, if we continue to emit, we will be back a Miocene levels. Milankovich cycles operated then - the big difference between then and now is the composition of the atmosphere.
  21. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    Lets not cherry pick particular dates please unless you're using the summer minimums...
  22. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    What would [KL's] conclusion have been concerning AGW had the graph terminated circa 1985 or circa 1995, for example? So many recoveries from which to choose! Every few years, another ray of hope. Truly we live in the best of all possible worlds.
  23. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Hi everyone, The "wiggle" is real, and is just that, a wiggle. Additionally, as has others have quantitatively shown here (and as has Hansen et al. 2010), it is not of statistical significance. The long-term trend remains positive and shows no signs of slowing. Regardless, how did KL fail to notice the other wiggles in the same graphic? What would his conclusion have been concerning AGW had the graph terminated circa 1985 or circa 1995, for example?
  24. There is no consensus
    My, what a political turn this thread has taken. If the scientific case against anthropogenic climate change is weak and one has ideological reasons to ignore that, I guess any opportunity for advantage must be seized.
  25. Berényi Péter at 06:39 AM on 3 October 2010
    There is no consensus
    #232 kdkd at 13:00 PM on 2 October, 2010 That's local government agencies who have decided to participate in the campaign, not providers of sponsorship. You are kidding, are you? David Cameron announces his ambition spon·sor
    1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation.
    2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission.
    3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.
    4. One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent.
    5. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time.
    The British government signs up to 10:10, assuming responsibility for the campaign and the group behind it, including a promo depicting reluctant kids to be blown up. A rather generous publicity boost for a private company while shooting themselves in the leg. Hilarious. "Further, and crucially, the solution to carbon emissions will eventually be technological not ideological. Most personal efforts to show willing will in the long-run make no meaningful difference [...] their lobbying activities encourage empty promises rather than sustainable change"
  26. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @NETDR: "When people like Al Gore go to congress and ask for reparations for Peruvians who are freezing to death because of our CO2 climate scientists are silent." "If a volcano erupted in Iceland one day the next day there would be a study claiming that volcanoes are caused or at least made more frequent by global warming." "The extremists are ruining the credibility of the real climate scientists who are too frightened to speak up." Please provide actual evidence supporting any of these allegations. Oh, and what does "the science is abdominal" mean, exactly?
  27. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    ... trust has been seriously shaken by the scientists own inaction. More incoherence. Scientists should involve themselves in policy decisions. Scientists should not involve themselves in policy decisions. It all depends...on what? Ideology? If a volcano erupted in Iceland one day the next day there would be a study claiming that volcanoes are caused or at least made more frequent by global warming. Don’t climate scientists know this makes them appear foolish ? What an embarrassingly crude and wrong fabrication.
  28. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @johnd: "I think you missed the point my earlier comment was making." No, I think I got it quite right. It's you who seem to misunderstant my intent. "it was all about the apparent opinion you hold in that other posters here, especially those who are on the same side of the debate as yourself, are simply incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not there is any merit in what NETDR was posting" I certainly do not have this opinion. Rather, the opinion I hold was simply that it's better not to respond to troll, and I was arguing the merit of having that opinion. It is precisely because I believe people on this site are quite intelligent that I argued in favor of ignoring what I consider to be a troll. By presenting them with rational arguments to support my opinion, I am trusting their good judgement will cause them to agree with me. "and whether or not they should respond to his posts without having to be told by somebody who has appointed themselves as their apparent guardian." So, in your opinion, to make a suggestion that we should ignore someone is "appointing" oneself as their guardian? You've got a pretty skewed view of reality, if I may say so myself. Either that, or you're (ineptly) trying to shame me into silence, which is a much greater threat to free expression than what I'm suggesting. Tell me, how long have you been posting on Internet forums such as this one? "They are not as naive or as stupid as you seemed to allude to." I have never alluded to this, and I would appreciate if you stopped insinuating that I do. I consider such an accusation to be rude, and uncalled for. "As for your comments about unspoken rules amongst contrarians, that may be how you see it, but that doesn't mean there is any such thing, I certainly don't think there is." How many times have you corrected an incorrect statement made by a contrarian? By "unspoken rule" I don't mean some sort of conspiracy, just the very human tendency not to criticize those who are on the same side of a divide as us, even when they make clearly false statements. "Sceptics by nature are willing to consider alternative ideas. In fact if you think about it, the range of views held by sceptics precludes it," Right. Does the range of view preclude you from correcting other contrarians when they say something erroneous? Because I don't remember you ever doing so. "it would be more something held by those who are united in one belief, people such as yourself." We are not "united in one belief," we agree that the evidence supporting AGW is strong, and we accept the theory is likely true. Anyway, enough on this off-topic distraction. You are free not to follow my advice and argue with NETDR all you want. I have to say, however, that so far your actions seem to closely follow my suggestion. :-)
  29. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    J Murphy What we post on this site is not very important in the wider world but you do bring up an important point. When people like Al Gore go to congress and ask for reparations for Peruvians who are freezing to death because of our CO2 climate scientists are silent. But Al Gore isn’t a scientist but by their silence they allow him to speak for them. Silence means consent in this case. When John Holdren speaks of “climate disruption “ or as some call it “weirding weather” [so now weather IS climate?] no one stands up and corrects him. The extremists are ruining the credibility of the real climate scientists who are too frightened to speak up. I have news for you John. No warming no disruption! If a volcano erupted in Iceland one day the next day there would be a study claiming that volcanoes are caused or at least made more frequent by global warming. Don’t climate scientists know this makes them appear foolish ? As someone once said of a huge complex and probably wrong computation of the effects of nuclear weather. “The science is abdominal but I don’t want to appear in favor of nuclear war.” Climate policy is based upon trust of the scientific community and the trust has been seriously shaken by the scientists own inaction.
  30. There's no empirical evidence
    The link to Law Dome Ice Core under Figure 1 points mistankingly to Taylor Dome Data. This is the correct link to Law Dome Ice Core data.
  31. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    JohnD, you have led yourself to a place you probably did not intend to go. Based on your latest remark, it's apparently your opinion that most people are fundamentally too unintelligent to be able to understand some first principles of physics and then be led through a process of exploration and elucidation by researchers to follow these principles to some conclusions that are beyond the realm of "opinion." That's a remarkably insulting opinion, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can you explain where the gulf of understanding arises here, follow the science back to the point where the average man in the street is too dull to follow the plot? On a side note, your apparent belief that you yourself are able to discern useful facts from pointless speculations suggests you believe you're in command of ground truth. Coming from a person who based an "alternative" hypothesis for energy transport to the top of the atmosphere on a failure to understand the difference between latent and sensible heat, I find this conceit quite remarkable. But again, perhaps I'm mistaken and you do not believe yourself to be uniquely intelligent.
  32. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    johnd wrote : "As for your comments about unspoken rules amongst contrarians, that may be how you see it, but that doesn't mean there is any such thing, I certainly don't think there is. Sceptics by nature are willing to consider alternative ideas. In fact if you think about it, the range of views held by sceptics precludes it, it would be more something held by those who are united in one belief, people such as yourself." I struggle to think of more than one or two times that I have seen any so-called skeptics on this site arguing against any of the wilder claims posted from time to time. Perhaps you don't think it's your job to do so ? As for sceptics naturally considering alternative ideas, that probably explains the acceptance by some that the greenhouse effect is false. That is certainly an 'alternative idea' ! How about the earth being flat; or the moon being made of cheese - alternative enough for you to consider ? Finally, "the range of views held by sceptics", especially when more than one are held by the same person at once, certainly precludes rational discussion. As is the case with the theory of evolution, if you have one theory accepted by the majority (especially in the scientific world) and many counter-theories (mainly involving religion), it is easy to determine where the rationality lies and where the blind belief is. Isn't it ?
  33. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    ...would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? Sort of like insisting that we all buy and use seatbelts, without explaining why we should.
  34. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    GC, the IPCC did at least bother to spend a few words exclusively dedicated to uncertainty. Not enough, clearly, or not effectively in any case. That said, always nice to see our opinions roughly in alignment, heh! Like some sort of infrequent astronomical conjunction...
  35. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    RSVP wrote : "Aside from all this, would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? If a chemistry investigation leads to knowing that a particular product or chemical causes cancer, that information is plenty for people to take action." I disagree. I think it would have been daft, and left the IPCC open to accusations of only doing half a job, if they had stated only what you think they should have stuck to. If they were only to mention what has happened and what is happening, the next question would be - 'What is going to happen ?'. It all follows, one after the other. Who do you think should be answering that question ? Also, how can you really judge if a product actually causes cancer unless you set up some sort of trial which can give some form of statistical significance to the question ? How can you judge whether people living in an area with Radon as a constant background radiation are rationally doing so because the risks are far outweighed by the benefits ? You start with what you know, determine what you need to know, make projections, carry on studying and act accordingly as and when deemed necessary. In the end, surely, most risks have to be judged as much on their potential for causing future harm, which is why I always have a little chuckle when a so-called skeptic (as evidenced on another of these threads) reckons that the danger from an extraterrestrial object is more immediate and therefore should have more money pumped into a solution than is being presently 'wasted' on the projected AGW dangers. But just how are either of those dangers determined if not by future projections based on known facts; and surely a scientific consensus among many disciplines determines which is a more immediate threat ?
  36. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    archiesteel at 00:25 AM, I think you missed the point my earlier comment was making. It had nothing to do with whether NETDR was presenting valid arguments or not, it was all about the apparent opinion you hold in that other posters here, especially those who are on the same side of the debate as yourself, are simply incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not there is any merit in what NETDR was posting, and whether or not they should respond to his posts without having to be told by somebody who has appointed themselves as their apparent guardian. They are not as naive or as stupid as you seemed to allude to. As for your comments about unspoken rules amongst contrarians, that may be how you see it, but that doesn't mean there is any such thing, I certainly don't think there is. Sceptics by nature are willing to consider alternative ideas. In fact if you think about it, the range of views held by sceptics precludes it, it would be more something held by those who are united in one belief, people such as yourself.
  37. We're heading into an ice age
    Perhaps SkS should start a separate thread on noctilucent clouds, which apparently are predicted to be both more common as well as moving into lower latitudes w/warming of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, here's an intriguing article about a powerful laser being borrowed from Europe by the Australians and hauled to Antarctica with the objective of further investigations: Scientists use giant laser to measure cloud temperature
  38. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    #48:"The earth will be hit by a comet or asteroid large enough to destroy civilization. The question is not if but when. ... CAGW will have to get in line with all of mankind’s other problems. " This is utterly nonsensical non-reasoning. The case of comets or asteroids is a low probability event; the case of global warming is a high probability (if not already certain) event. Never mind that those 'trillions of dollars' might have beneficial results: development of more efficient, less carbon-intense alternative energy sources for one. Maybe that's the real reason for such fierce denialism: fear of losing one's carbon-based paycheck. As far as getting in line is concerned, in the US that line goes through Congress, where even such obvious things like relief for the Haitian earthquake refugees are blocked by obstructionists.
  39. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Yes, RSVP, you're right in your hypothetical. However, that hypothetical as an analogy for GW doesn't work. Here's a better one: my dad died of small/oat cell lung cancer last year. Ninety-seven percent of the people who have/had that type of cancer are smokers or were smokers. My dad was a smoker. He was warned thirty years ago. He didn't believe the science. He died a very painful death (I gave him morphine every hour for the last day). When the activity gives pleasure, and the consequences seem distant and unbelievable, it's tough to alter behavior. Even being confronted with facts can sometimes backfire. Even this analogy isn't good, because GW will have (is having) social, not simply personal, effects. The social mass is notoriously difficult to motivate, and particularly so when the core of that mass is (and will be) well-insulated against the worst of the change.
  40. We're heading into an ice age
    Thank you JMurphy for the heads up about the Rwanda gorillas. Robert Felix's web site slants news to suit his theory and I grabbed that off of there as a recent phenomenon. As far as noctilucent clouds, does the IPCC use them in their considerations? I know Robert Felix doesn't mention them at all in his ramblings. Here is an article that wonders why the thermosphere is shrinking more than expected from just the solar minimum alone. Carbon dioxide build up is blamed for that cooling but only partially. Something else in the make up of the thermosphere is leading it to shrink, to cool. Shrunken Thermosphere Appears the increase in noctilucent clouds comes from rising methane emissions and it is thought that the disturbances from rising carbon dioxide lead to weather extremes that push water itself up to the mesosphere. Here is an article talking about unusually low, split and faster jet stream leading to weather extremes: Wayward Jet Stream Possibly noctilucent clouds are a missing piece of the puzzle that cinches the Hamaker hypothesis which is detailed in a 1989 film you can get here: 1989 film "Stopping the Coming Ice Age" Incidentally, those ice crystals of the noctilucents, they apparently collect dust from micrometeorites as well as stuff maybe that gets blown up from the surface turning them into first surface mirrors. Seems increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its consequences are coating the planet with highly reflective mirrors far above the greenhouse gases: Why noctilucents are inordinately reflective.
  41. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    chriscanaris #39, You give Hegel a pass because of the "standards of a different era", then you used Newton's dabbling in alchemy to bolster your case, even though he lived 100 years before Hegel!! Shouldn't we judge Newton by the standards of his religion-obsessed era, also? To return to the present, the "weightings" to give to climate feedbacks should be determined scientifically. I think you are confusing those with the political weightings that will guide action in the real world. As we all know, some groups are "more equal than others" in the political sense. Thanks, I will watch Schneider and Julian Simon. Simon was an economist (or at least a professor of business management), who is usually identified with "Cornucopianism", the theory that the Earth can support humanity foreven in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Simon was the ultimate anti-Malthusian, in fact. I doubt if climate feedbacks form part of the discussion. I (and I think any scientist) would be wary of "synthesizing" scientific theories and ending up with a plastic fuzzy. The fact that Newton's theories arise as a limiting case of General Relativity is not a synthesis. Political synthesis is to be expected, yes, but on conditions of justice and fairness. "Social Democracy", for example, is often presented as a synthesis of Communism and Classical Liberalism, retaining the best features of both.
  42. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @KL: "that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore." That flattening isn't statistically significant. It is not very different from the dip in the mid-80s, or other slight "corrections" of the temp increase (to use a financial term). Cherry-picking time frames in the historical record, one can find many examples of flattening, dips and the like - yet, temperatures have kept going up. About SLRs, it seems you are wrong as well. From the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "More accurate satellite measurements indicate that global sea level has risen by 1.2 inches over the past decade, about 70% faster than the 20th century average." As far as OHC goes, the Purkey and Johnson study gives a good hint as to where the "missing heat" is hiding (with troubling implications).
  43. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @NETDR: you failed to address a *single* of The Ville's counter-arguments.
  44. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @johnd: "So whilst you may consider that science is not about opinions, how different contributors select and present supporting arguments on this site is most definitely all about opinions." You're stretching the meaning of "opinion," here. There's a difference between citing scientific work because you have the opinion that it addresses a certain point, and basically stating your opinion that (for example) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas without providing actual evidence to support that opinion. For example, you objected to my earlier post where I gave my opinion that NETDR is a troll. That is an example of an opinion that, according to you, has no place on Skeptical Science, and to a degree I do agree with that evaluation - I wish I didn't have to make those kind of posts, but when trolls start to take over comment sections you have to act. I'm curious, though: can you explain how NETDR has helped move the scientific discussion forward? Do you agree with the arguments he's posted? If not, why didn't you say so? Could it be because of the unspoken rule among contrarians that you never argue with someone on "your side," even if they say thing that are clearly false? I would expect serious skeptics like you, BP and others to be the first to correct erroneous claims from posters like NETDR - after all, their unsupported attacks reflect badly on *all* skeptics.
  45. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken #116 You'd be better off admitting you got it wrong. If you like you can look at it as an estimated baseline. Still nothing to do with equilibrium. It's a point estimate. By definition the rate of change of a point estimate is zero, because it has precisely 1 dimension. One could run a model to estimate what the climatic response to a constant CO2 concentration since 1750 would be. I would imagine that a reasonable answer would be forthcoming from such a model. You can probably dig around the literature to work out what value that would be if it's of interest to you. However this is still nothing to do with your illogical search for the mythological equilibrium. You have misunderstood how the system is modeled.
  46. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    To say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is as meaningful as stating that air acts as a heat or electrical insulator, or that salt water acts as an electrical conductor. While these words contain truth, the facts in themselves are insufficient for making system level determinations. Yet this is exactly how AGW was originally formulated and currently being defended. Aside from all this, would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? If a chemistry investigation leads to knowing that a particular product or chemical causes cancer, that information is plenty for people to take action. I suspect in the case of climate change, even though warming has already impacted our lives, these changes have not been dramatic enough relative to other negative stresses. Therefore in order to gain attention, pessimistic projections into the future are required.
  47. An underwater hockey stick
    Surprising how fast the oceans respond? I don't know about fast. But I am a bit concerned about our current inability to determine if or when another 1998 style el Nino could come roaring out of the oceans. Another jolt to remind us to get on with the job of measuring just how much energy can accumulate down there. I'm not terribly keen on seeing another spike like that.
  48. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    CBD #114 CBD - "A forcing of zero indicates no CHANGE in temperature... not no temperature." Strictly no CHANGE is energy added or removed. Who is claiming 'no temperature'?? CBD - "If we choose the total solar irradiance in 1750 as the baseline then the climate forcing for solar irradiance in 1750 is zero... by definition." The TSI is AD1750 is not accurately known - so the problem is twofold - what was it then, and what value of TSI was required to get no heating or cooling of the Earth system in the absence of any AG forcings. Or put it this way - if the industrial revolution never happened and the CO2 was still at 280ppmv today with other GHG unchanged - would the Earth have warmed or cooled since AD1750?
  49. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    John T Here's a side by side picture of Arctic sea ice for 20 August 1980 & 2010. Notice anything different over the 30 years on say the east of Greenland or in the Canadian archipelago? Or perhaps the amount of ice cover itself?
  50. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    "The Arctic ice result isn't what you claim. The Antarctic is not either." JohnT, The post's claim is that "Overall, Arctic sea ice is getting thinner." Presumably, you believe it is not. Evidence? Here is sea ice concentration (30% or more) and extent for two dates 20 years apart. Spot the difference?

Prev  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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