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  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next

Comments 2401 to 2450:

  1. The Big Picture

    NB a spelling check should help here. Sorry for that.

  2. The Big Picture

    Hi Rob @158

    When you're willing to read something wrong there is allways a possibility.

    The Netherlands benefit from the gravitational effects. What gravitational effect? The gravitational effects of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Becaurse of these effects we will only see some 12.5% (or even less) of the melting water coming here. That's better then 100%, so there is a benefit.

    The KNMI calls this 'neglecteble' and I do agree with that. For they know what they are talking about.

  3. Rob Honeycutt at 06:58 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart... "Looks like you still don't understand the topic completely."

    Is that another "opinion" of yours, make without doing even a minimal amount of research?

    Previously, far up in this thread, you stated that the Netherlands "profits from" (I'm interpreting that to mean "benefits from") the gravitational effects of the melting Greenland ice sheet. The paper that you cited claimed the effect on the Netherlands was negligible over the previous decade, and makes no claims about projected effects.

    Are you claiming the author of the paper you cited doesn't understand this topic completely?

  4. Rob Honeycutt at 06:53 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart... "But of course I can't oversee everything. I didn't research the complete Internet then."

    Nor have I researched the complete internet. I merely spent 10-15 mins doing trying some very basic search terms and came up with all these examples. It's not that difficult.

    And that's kind of the point. If you're going to insinuate that someone stole your idea, maybe it would be a good idea to make at least a minimal effort to check to see if your "opinion" is correct or not.

    This is basic professional courtesy, Bart.

  5. One Planet Only Forever at 06:34 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken @131,

    There was no question. I was presenting an understanding based on observations of evidence in your comments. Your presented interpretation of my comments appears to support my observation in my comment @99 that:

    "There is a wealth of evidence in Bart’s comment history that appears to indicate that their interests are not Big Picture. Their interests appear to be much smaller/narrower. They appear to be seeking ‘positive perceptions from the perspective of short-term regional interests’."

    I have made other comments about the harm of pursuing positive perceptions because it delays learning the Truth about the Big Picture harm being done to the future of Humanity. Arguing for a 'positive, less panicked, perspective' has produced the current serious harm, and risk of more significant harm, to the future of humanity that is presented in the article I pointed to in my comment @130. Another report on that same topic is by NPR "Cut emissions quickly to save lives, scientists warn in a new U.N. report".

    The harmful reality you appear try to avoid understanding, even if you present global interpretations, is not altered by speculation based on one year of heavy snow fall on Antarctica and an unsubstantiated perceived correlation between snowfall and sea ice extent, or because Greenland may only melt on its east coast (conclusions you appear to be interested in jumping to).

    Also, as I presented in my comment @68, the very negative (panic level severity) of possible outcomes is what the people who benefit most from the harm need to 'mitigate'. It is important to understand that what is referred to as 'climate change impact adaptation' is mitigation required by others because of a failure of harmful people (success from their short-term limited regional interest perspective) to mitigate their harmfulness. And part of how the harmful try to justify being more harmful is by claiming that "It's not that Bad = positive perceptions that the harm is not very significant" or "Harm done is worth it because of the Perceived Positives".

    The Big Picture understanding is that it is generally unacceptable to use benefits or potential benefits to excuse harm done or potential harm done. The only case where that 'may be' acceptable is a case where the individual pursuing or obtaining the benefit will be the only one suffering any harm. It does not even apply to a group because different members of a group may obtain different degrees of harm and benefit.

    In spite of that undeniable Big Picture understanding regarding the importance of learning to minimize harm and help those who have been harmed, many people today try to excuse continuing to pursue more benefit from being more harmful. And part of their harmful effort is the pursuit of harmful misunderstandings or a focus on 'positive perceptions that minimize the need for helpful mitigation by reducing the perceptions of severity of harm being done' (like claiming that less fortunate people deserve to be less fortunate, or being dismissive of what is happening to places like Bangladesh).

  6. The Big Picture

    Hi Rob @153

    "the gravitational effects from the Greenland ice sheet are not going to reduce the Netherlands' risk from sea level rise."

    Looks like you still don't understand the topic completely. I stated that only 12.5% of the meltwater of Greenland comes to the Netherlands. So yes, the gravitational effect does reduce the risk from sea level rise in NL a little.

    "You were not the first to create temperature bars on a graph"

    When I started with that I hadn't seen it anywhere else. But of course I can't oversee everything. I didn't research the complete Internet then. My remark about the inspriration for the Climate Stripes was just my opinion, just a site remark and not my main message of @131. You make it more important then it was.

  7. michael sweet at 05:54 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken,

    There have been a lot of posts discussing a variety of topics here .  I am not sure just what points you are trying to make.  Can you summarize your position with a few bullet points saying what you are trying to show.

  8. Rob Honeycutt at 05:29 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart... "You already do."

    Yes. I tend to take exception when people accuse others without justification.

    I also notice a pattern here where you don't fully research your claims once you've determined what you want to believe. You were not the first to create temperature bars on a graph, and the gravitational effects from the Greenland ice sheet are not going to reduce the Netherlands' risk from sea level rise. 

    When you make claims like these it's very important to take the time to be thorough and accurate with what you're stating, and I don't see that you're taking the time to do that.

  9. The Big Picture

    Rob Honeycutt @151

    "I could go on and on..."

    You allready do. But let's stop the discussion. You made your point, there was a function available before 2015. I don't use R. I programmed the graphics myself.

  10. Rob Honeycutt at 02:29 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    2001: https://www.weather.gov/ffc/hichart

    2013: https://www.python-graph-gallery.com/heatmap-for-timeseries-matplotlib

    2014: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26734065/simple-heatmap-of-temperature-in-r-ggplot2

    I could go on and on...

  11. Rob Honeycutt at 02:25 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    I have shown you this is a standard method of presenting data in a graph. So, people have been doing this well before 2015. Thinking of something and not bothering to see if anyone else has done the same doesn't mean you are the first to do it.

  12. The Big Picture

    I still haven't seen an example from before 2015, Rob Honeycutt. 

  13. Rob Honeycutt at 00:57 AM on 22 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    That's a really cynical response, Bart. The point is, you are not the first. Heat mapping is a common graphing technique and you can't claim to have invented it. Ed Hawkins merely popularized it by applying it to global temperature with a particular color scale. In fact, climate scientist, Elie Highwood, crocheted warming stripes in 2017 inspired by a technique done by other crocheters called "sky blankets" where they crochet colors as they go based on the color of the sky that day.

  14. The Big Picture

    Well, that's great, Rob Honeycutt @ 146. That makes it even more remarkable that nobody made graphs with temperature stripes before I did in 2011 (NL), 2012 (D) and 2015 (USA). As far as I know.

    I was wrong with the publication date of het Climate strips. It seems to be in 2018, not 2016. It's a good commercial concept anyway, you can buy socks, cups, sweaters etc. with the pattern now.

    www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2018/warming-stripes/

  15. Rob Honeycutt at 12:07 PM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Ah, look! Graphical heat mapping has been a tool in R since at least 2010.

    https://flowingdata.com/2010/01/21/how-to-make-a-heatmap-a-quick-and-easy-solution/

  16. Rob Honeycutt at 10:01 AM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart... "...when I started with it nowbody did, as far as I know." Is this going to be like the paper you cited but hadn't read? 

    So far, without much effort, I've found similar techniques applied going back to 2016.

  17. The Big Picture

    Rob Honeycutt @143

    "...that implies that he took the idea from you."

    That implies that that was my thought. My site had a lot of visits from the US then.

    "If I'm not mistaken this is just a tool used when coding with R. All Hawkins did was apply the tool to global temperature."

    Of course it's an easy thing to do but when I started with it nowbody did, as far as I know. But it's OK for me, it's a good way to show climate change.

  18. Rob Honeycutt at 07:08 AM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart and Bob... Okay, I see now that you have to carefully select a small area on the map to get the temperature link to show.

    Bart... When you say, "Some month later Ed Hawkins presented his 'warming stripes'. Where did he get the idea....? Hmmmm" ...that implies that he took the idea from you.

    If I'm not mistaken this is just a tool used when coding with R. All Hawkins did was apply the tool to global temperature. 

  19. The Big Picture

    On Bart's European map, he says:

    "Here you find nice colourful overviews (PDF) of the temperature of many places in Europe, over periods of 40 or 42 years. Just click on the map to find out.

    "Here" is not the map you're looking at - it's in the images you will see if you figure out that "clicking on the map" means "clicking on the city names on the map". Likewise, the colours on what you see "here" (the map) are not temperatures - it's just elevation shading.

    You need to find a Bart-->English, English-->Bart dictionary.

  20. The Big Picture

    Rob @ 139:

    In spite of Bart's map stating (on the US one):

    "Please click on the map for historical temperature data and snow depth of places in the U.S. since 1974

    ...you actually need to click on the place names on the map to get a page showing data for that city. Clicking anywhere else on the map does nothing.

    Another case of Bart saying one thing, but meaning something else.

  21. The Big Picture

    Hi Rob @139

    Thank you for your comment. What do you mean "clicking on the map does nothing for me"? You should see things like this:

    logboekweer.nl/International/America/NYC%20(CENTRAL%20PARK)_Temp.pdf

    Where does it go wrong? Is it both US and Europe?

    How can you say that there is no temperature scale when the links don't work? As you can see the temperature scale is on the bottom of the page. 

    I didn't say that Ed Hawkins stole the warming stripes idea from me. Of course, he may have come up with the idea himself. He declares that it came from seeing a painting. But for me it was very coincidental.

     

     

  22. Rob Honeycutt at 05:10 AM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart @132/132... a) Your map graphics are pretty darned useless without temperature scales, plus clicking on the map does nothing for me. b) That's a pretty outrageous insinuation that Ed Hawkins, a well-known and respected climate scientist, stole the warming stripes idea from you. 

     

    Peppers @134... (sigh) Not even gonna read it, in either place you posted.

  23. The Big Picture

    Philippe @ 136 & Bart @ 137

    John Cook created SkS in 2007 in Australia which is why it's running on Australian time. After 4 years in the U.S. at George Mason University, John moved back to Australia 2 years ago and is now at the University of Melbourne.

  24. The Big Picture

    Ah thank you Philippe, I didn't know that.

  25. Philippe Chantreau at 03:41 AM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    SkS is originally an Australian site, still based in Australia as far as I know, despite John Cook now pursuing higher achievements in the US. 

  26. The Big Picture

    I read: "peppers at 02:50 AM on 21 March, 2023"

    There's something strange going on. In Europe it's still March 20. Do you read the same over there?

    Has the world started turning the other way round? Or is the internet mixing up times and dates? I didn't notice this before but is started earlier.

  27. The Big Picture

    HI One World, and also Rob made some sea level comments as well.
    Im sorry I don’t have more time, and some of you commit large swaths of time here and I appreciate that.
    Using NASA data, presuming they have the best resources and equipment, satellites and those argo sea probes et al. to gather original data, they show sea level rising since 1993 to be 3.8 inches.
    https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
    But what I think you are trying to indicate, and what the graphs show mostly, are that the rate of sea rise increases as the warming continues higher and higher. An exponential effect is presented. So taking past temperature increases will not explain future expected gains. It is either an exponential increase or the suggestion is that the increase is delayed so that as we go up in temperature, the rise happens decades later and there is a build.
    I think we have finished with the run away suggestions for nature. The train bearing down on a child and all that. I see that as tactics to get people to listen and pay attention, but nothing true in our environment. Nature balances. She reacts. This Co2 rise is a reaction and right now she is reacting to this human population boom, which is unprecedented in history. And all the energy use associated with all these new counts of people on earth, living longer and healthier than ever, this is increasing Co2 counts and enriching our surface world in all the ways Co2 can do that.
    Nasa used 4-5 scales to predict sea rise, 1. tracking if nothing is done, 2. some is done and 3. complete zero new emissions is achieved ( which cannot happen until the population levels out in 60 or so years ).
    By 2100 there is Nasa modeling of .4 to .8 meter rise, using the data set of 2. some is being done. Doing what we can will be instrumental in keeping high tide from being higher than usual in that future time. I’ve tries to stay with the median predictions, so this is not discrepancy conversation of the outer 5%’s.
    Science American believes no new storms are made but the severity of moisture based storms may increase by 2-4 miles per hour. The threat of sea rise is about the most serious threat.
    I understand better where you are coming from. I still have the higher philosophical orientation to grapple with.
    If mankind has finally achieved the goal of conquering the mission of dreams pondered throughout the pain filled ages, of solving misery and pain and finding medical success beyond any expectations. Is this worth it? A sea level rise?
    The highest gain has been with infant mortality, which has plummeted from the high middle ages at 400-500 per thousand to 5.5 infants per thousand today. Think of all the occasions of birth deaths which also took the mother too, to quantify misery. That and antibiotics alone have caused this phenomenon of Co2 rise. Life spans have increased 61%, living conditions have soared, medicine is in a wonderland of abilities and birth to adulthood stats are beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. The question is; is that worth a side effect of sea level rising a foot and a half, maybe 2 feet at high tide.
    This endeavor appears to goad and cajole and shame people using fossil fuel and I suppose that is the fastest way to get attention. But I do not believe it to be honest. This appears to be unwittingly human caused and one must decide if it is worth the subsequent consequences ahead. It is not from derelict and wanton people, it is from the results of scientific achievement, sought after for ages and finally achieved within the science that coincided with the industrial revolution. The origin of this is important to be able to consider context to this issue. If I were there and had the choice in my hands, I’d have us standing exactly where we were today. Reducing Co2 is still important, but I wouldn’t be bullying any brothers from any mothers over this. It is important, but not that important all things considered.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You have made this comment on two different threads. Here, and on the "It's not bad" thread.

    This is considered bad form. Pick one location. You can create a link to your comment on another thread (as I have here) if you want to call attention to it, but do not post the original content multiple times.

  28. It's not bad

    HI One World, and also Rob made some sea level comments as well.
    Im sorry I don’t have more time, and some of you commit large swaths of time here and I appreciate that.
    Using NASA data, presuming they have the best resources and equipment, satellites and those argo sea probes et al. to gather original data, they show sea level rising since 1993 to be 3.8 inches.
    https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
    But what I think you are trying to indicate, and what the graphs show mostly, are that the rate of sea rise increases as the warming continues higher and higher. An exponential effect is presented. So taking past temperature increases will not explain future expected gains. It is either an exponential increase or the suggestion is that the increase is delayed so that as we go up in temperature, the rise happens decades later and there is a build.
    I think we have finished with the run away suggestions for nature. The train bearing down on a child and all that. I see that as tactics to get people to listen and pay attention, but nothing true in our environment. Nature balances. She reacts. This Co2 rise is a reaction and right now she is reacting to this human population boom, which is unprecedented in history. And all the energy use associated with all these new counts of people on earth, living longer and healthier than ever, this is increasing Co2 counts and enriching our surface world in all the ways Co2 can do that.
    Nasa used 4-5 scales to predict sea rise, 1. tracking if nothing is done, 2. some is done and 3. complete zero new emissions is achieved ( which cannot happen until the population levels out in 60 or so years ).
    By 2100 there is Nasa modeling of .4 to .8 meter rise, using the data set of 2. some is being done. Doing what we can will be instrumental in keeping high tide from being higher than usual in that future time. I’ve tries to stay with the median predictions, so this is not discrepancy conversation of the outer 5%’s.
    Science American believes no new storms are made but the severity of moisture based storms may increase by 2-4 miles per hour. The threat of sea rise is about the most serious threat.
    I understand better where you are coming from. I still have the higher philosophical orientation to grapple with.
    If mankind has finally achieved the goal of conquering the mission of dreams pondered throughout the pain filled ages, of solving misery and pain and finding medical success beyond any expectations. Is this worth it? A sea level rise?
    The highest gain has been with infant mortality, which has plummeted from the high middle ages at 400-500 per thousand to 5.5 infants per thousand today. Think of all the occasions of birth deaths which also took the mother too, to quantify misery. That and antibiotics alone have caused this phenomenon of Co2 rise. Life spans have increased 61%, living conditions have soared, medicine is in a wonderland of abilities and birth to adulthood stats are beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. The question is; is that worth a side effect of sea level rising a foot and a half, maybe 2 feet at high tide.
    This endeavor appears to goad and cajole and shame people using fossil fuel and I suppose that is the fastest way to get attention. But I do not believe it to be honest. This appears to be unwittingly human caused and one must decide if it is worth the subsequent consequences ahead. It is not from derelict and wanton people, it is from the results of scientific achievement, sought after for ages and finally achieved within the science that coincided with the industrial revolution. The origin of this is important to be able to consider context to this issue. If I were there and had the choice in my hands, I’d have us standing exactly where we were today. Reducing Co2 is still important, but I wouldn’t be bullying any brothers from any mothers over this. It is important, but not that important all things considered.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] If you want people to read what you write, spending enough time to format it properly would help.

  29. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 129:

    "And I never said that the number came from the IPCC, that's what Bob Loblaw makes of it. "

    Once again, as you did in your first series of comments on the Antarctic thread, after a series of posts you are resorting to "I never said that", even though it is clear that what you did say left that impression. I stand by my statements in comment # 127.

    You are getting boring and predictable. If you want to avoid having people get the wrong impression, learn to write clearly.

  30. The Big Picture

    Link to the American temperature data (retry)

    logboekweer.nl/International/UnitedStatesTemperatureHistory.htm

  31. The Big Picture

    One planet etc. @ 128

    What exactly is youre question? Looks like you think that I'm only interested in climate change in The Netherlands. Well, not at all. 

    Years ago I posted an overview of the temperature data of many American and European stations on an American climate forum. When you click on the name of a city you find a whole range of temperature data, presented in stripes. Some month later Ed Hawkins presented his 'warming stripes'. Where did he get the idea....? Hmmmm. 

    logboekweer.nl/International/EuropeTemperatureHistory.htm
    https://logboekweer.nl/International/UnitedStatesTemperatureHistory.htm

    Unfortunately, the data of the US are not very up-to-date. I should make an update, but it's a lot of work. Europe is better (not everywhere)

     

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link fixed, as per comment 133.

  32. One Planet Only Forever at 01:29 AM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    This new BBC report on the "UN climate report: Scientists release 'survival guide' to avert climate disaster" helps understand what is going on.

    Tragically, it appears that the most obvious 'immediately available ways to reduce harmful emissions' are still not being discussed and prioritized.

    Reducing unnecessary energy consumption, and other consumption, along with focusing on rapidly transitioning the remaining 'essential consumption' to less harmful ways of living, has always been an available option. Reduced consumption by the people who have developed a liking for harmful over-consumption reduces how much energy system transition is required.

    The problem is when personal interests lead to regional leadership interests being governed by the pursuit of positive perceptions (harmful misunderstandings or distractions from learning about what is harmful) that excuse or dismiss the undeniable evidence-based need for people to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others (and the future of humanity is a massive number of 'Others deserving consideration').

     

  33. The Big Picture

    And again the discussion isn't closed yet. It's a bit boring now.

    I posted the figure of how the melting water from Greenland works out in the Netherlands. That's quite clear. The only question is the more exacte place on Greenland where the melting water comes from. There are differences in that from year to year, and between the sources (gravimetry, altimetry). But looking at the map below, I think my guess was not so very bad. It's the line through the middle of Greenland. And I never said that the number came from the IPCC, that's what Bob Loblaw makes of it. 

    Greenland contribution to sea level rise

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Tedium and argumentative snipped.

  34. One Planet Only Forever at 00:09 AM on 21 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken,

    In addition to Bob Loblaw's helpful comments (and the helpful cmments of many others), my comments, particularly my comment @99, may help people understand what is going on.

  35. Climate's changed before

    iv @892 ,

    Please forgive my intrusion ( I speak no Italian ) but in English conversation about climate and climate science, many people use heat and energy as identical terms.   Sometimes that is justified, and sometimes not justified.

    Perhaps the original translation intends to convey one meaning - or both meanings.   What is your own preference in translating ?

  36. The Big Picture

    Ah, I see that Bart continues to do revisionist history on the discussions in this thread.

    To start, Bart, the next time you make a "wild guess", please identify it as a wild guess.

    Your 12.5% wild guess first appeared in comment 44, where you said:

    "Do I have to explain basic geophysics here? When the ice in Greenland melts then only 10 - 15% of it will make the sealevel rise in The Netherlands.

    No qualifications there - Bart expressed this as a pretty definitive statement. The context (there is that awful word again) was with respect to Bart's attempts to justify his use of a simple extrapolation of current trends to predict sea level rise by 2100, introduced in comment # 27. He doubled-down on that extrapolation in comment #35., where he also mentioned Greenland.

    Bart refines the "10-15%" to "12.5%" in comment # 52, where he says:

    "Also according to IPCC the addition to the global sealevel rise by Greenland in the SSP5-8.5 scenario in 2100 is 13cm. 12,5% of this comes to the Netherlands, that's 1,6 cm. Not very much to be worried about.

    At this point, he is making it appear as if the 12.5% value is "according to the IPCC". Again, no qualifications to the statement, no indication that the context is changing from "according to the IPCC" to "according to a wild guess by Bart Vreeken".

    When challenged for a source, Bart posts a link to a diagram (in Dutch) that gives an incomplete explanation. Then in comment #84, he provide another figure with no caption and no source. Eventually he provides more diagrams and (after a request) the original source of the diagram.

    And now he finally admits that his 12.5% value was "a wild guess", after spending days trying to make it look like it was  a definitive value supported by various sources.

    Do you understand, Bart, that by leading these wild goose chases - as other try to understand where your wild guesses come from - you have largely lost credibility here?

  37. Climate Science Denial Explained

    MA Rodger @21 ,

    Yes, as I was addressing Foster @11 and @17 , it seemed reasonable to throw in mention of those two scientists who are "icons" of the science-denier crowd at WUWT .

    As you know full well, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are almost the only climate scientists having enough genuine track record in the field, as to qualify for worshipful attitude from the denialists.   (In their desperation to find a respectable scientist who is "on our side" . . . the denialists are reduced to a choice of slim-to-none , compared with the many hundreds of mainstream climate scientists ~ or many thousands, depending on how defined.)

    Dr Spencer's tendency is ( I gather secondhand from a Potholer54 video ) to take a religious fundamentalist viewpoint ~ to the effect that "all will be well with the Earth, thanks to divine protection".   And Potholer54 relates how - over many years - Spencer has had to repeatedly backpedal from his climate assertions, as the contrary evidence keeps proving him wrong.   Even so, at times Spencer gets a bit of flak from denizens at WUWT , because he is not quite politically-correct enough to deny Greenhouse Effect etc.

    Both Lindzen and Spencer demonstrate how some well-informed & intelligent men can get it so very wrong, owing to a pigheaded "motivated reasoning" directed by the emotional part of their brain.

  38. Climate's changed before

    i think ther is mistake in italian version:

    "I cambiamenti naturali del Clima del passato dimostrano che il Clima risente delle alterazioni del bilancio energetico. Se il pianeta accumula calore le temperature globali salgono. "

    The planet don't accumulate heat (because is only transfer), the planet accumulate energy , not heat , the heat is only conseguence of more energy in the system

  39. The Big Picture

    The first time I saw a graphic depicting " TEN SIGNS OF A WARMING WORLD" was in 2010, with this NOAA page.  It still remains relevant.

    NOAA - 10 Signs of a Warming World

  40. Climate Science Denial Explained

    Eclectic @20,

    The other denier you mention, Spencer, has been described as mixing religion with his science (eg by The Christian Science Monitor). As for him doing actual science, I remember hearing his 2010 book 'The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists' (thus implying he is not himself a 'top climate scientist') was published with the expectation that the paper presenting the scientific work underlying that grand title would be refused publication. However it was published but, I heard, it has been shown to exaggerated the effect he was proposing, an effect which does exist but as a very minor effect.

  41. Climate Science Denial Explained

    MA Rodger @19 ,

    there is much in what you say.  And sadly, the Iris Effect was a flop.  And Prof Lindzen's earlier predictions of only a very slight rise in surface temperature have been (in retrospect) a giant flop too.

    I base my "religious" comment on seeing a lengthy video interview of Lindzen (dated around 2006,  IIRC ).  The interviewer was very simpatico ~ and Lindzen did not hold back.

    Has my subsequent opinion of Lindzen been influenced by a confirmation-bias about his later public speakings ? . . . well, quite possibly so (but I do try to make allowance).   A mountain of motivated reasoning on Lindzen's part still seems evident to me.   As you yourself say, there is no logical basis for the denialist viewpoint.

  42. Climate Science Denial Explained

    eclectic @18,

    I don't see Lindzen's opposition to the science as being motivated by religion. I see it as a scientist of some repute who lost the conclusive scientific debate over AGW in the 1980s but refused to admit defeat. While such stubbornness is not to be condemed (skepticism being a big part of the scientific process), Lindzen 'crosses the line' and sets out unscientific messages. I still remember his rather ludicrous contribution to the 1990 film 'The Greenhouse Conspiracy' (YouTube) which actually convinced me of the opposite view that AGW was real and likely a big problem being politically kicked into the long grass. (The 'crossing of the line' into non-science is not a wholly climate denier thing but they do seem to spend much more time doing it.)

    Through the years, Lindzen did (indeed still does - see Lindzen & Choi 2022) continue work attempting to show that climate sensitivity is low and AGW not a problem for humanity, most famously his 'Iris Effect' which turns out to be a real effect but one having the opposite impact and one threatening significant increased warming.

  43. The Big Picture

    michael sweet @124, it's a discussion about nothing.

    I made an estimation of the part of the meltwater of Greenland that makes te sea level rise in the Netherlands. I showed a map where this estimation was based on. You showed a map with more melting on the westcoast of Greenland, so according to that my estimation was wrong. 

    In fact, this 12.5 percent was a wild guess, to show that only a minor part of the meltwater will influence the Netherlands. But the number kept coming back; Bob Loblaw wanted to know exactly where it came from and called it a 'magical number'.

  44. Climate Science Denial Explained

    Foster @17 ,

    I hope you found some amusement reading the Anthony Watts article.  And reading maybe a few of its attached comments  [best to look for ones with a high number of red-color "down votes"].    WUWT currently shows that article as having over 650 comments . . . a Platinum Medal score for a WUWT article, and demonstrating that it is doing well as a Hot Button issue for climate-denialists.   Whew !

    If you read the comments, you will see a lot of sniping & griping, but very little science at all.

    As MA Rodger has touched on, you find prominent denialists such as Dr Lindzen and Dr Spencer who are driven by "motivated reasoning" derived from their emotional religious beliefs that the Divine Entity simply would not permit Earth's climate to depart from the comfortable Garden-of-Eden range.

    However, most WUWT  regular denialists fall into 3 groups :-   the conspiritard/wingnut group ; the science crackpot group ; and the intelligent well-informed ones who neverthelesshave been captured by their own motivated reasoning (a sort of palace coup where emotions displace intellect).    But obviously there is some overlap between groups ~ mostly the 1st and 3rd groups.

    Foster , I would if I had my druthers, simply leave WUWT & similar sites to fester as they are.   Yes, there is an argument that such disinformation sites ought to be "stopped".   Undoubtably they deserve that fate.  However, they may do more good than harm, by localizing denialists into their own echo chamber where they can blow off some steam . . . and it keeps them off the streets, so to speak.

  45. Climate Science Denial Explained

    Thank you all for summing up and explaining why that recent blog on WUWT post by Anthony Watts is just again, more misinfomration. I'm no climate scientists but I often come here to learn more, research and hear from you all as I'm well aware climate change is a major problem and love to hear thoughts as to how we can all help combat it. A higher 

    I feel like something needs to be done to stop denier sites and the spreading of misinformation as it relates to climate change.  Thank you all again! I enjoy reading the comments and articles here and continue to be an active member here.

  46. michael sweet at 05:55 AM on 20 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken,

    Your post at 87 claims that "michael sweet @72 says my 12.5% was too low,"

    Looking at post 72, I make no claims at all.  I show a copy of ice lost on Greenland. I do not mention your claim at 12.5% at all.  I believe htat I have never mentioned your claim at all.

    It is poor argumentation to make obviously false claims.

  47. Rob Honeycutt at 05:48 AM on 20 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Gootmud @115... I think you might benefit from a better understanding of how the greenhouse effect operates to warm the surface. In one sense, you are correct that the "saturated" in the sense that from the surface IR is going to interact with CO2 molecules. But the effect continues up through the vertical profile of the atmosphere, and since CO2 is a well-mixed gas, this is occurring at every level. The effect continues until IR reaches "emission altitude." 

    We know the earth emits at 255K (-18°C). The point in the atmosphere where it cools to that temperature is the effective emission altitude for IR leaving the earth. Lower altitudes can be "saturated" but what matters is the thermal gradient. As you add more CO2 that effective emission altitude rises, and when it rises the surface warm. 

    And that is all a very critical part of the Big Picture, here.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Any further discussion of the saturation myth belongs here which also deals with the misconceptions in detail.
    Gootmod - I would ask you to please use the "search" function, (top left) or the Arguments menu option to find frequently discussed points rather than here.

  48. Rob Honeycutt at 04:58 AM on 20 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart @116... You asked, "Yes I do agree with most of that, so whats the point?"

    My point is, you're claiming that the Netherlands would see some level of benefit from the gravitational effects of the Greenland ice sheet melting, and that is demonstrably incorrect. Again, as your own citation states, the effect on the Netherlands is negligible. In other words, there would be little or no effect at all.

  49. The Big Picture

    Gootmud @118 ,

    I recommend you trust common sense.  Give it a try !

    No need to follow the alarmist contrarians at WUWT  & similar.  You have allowed yourself to be seriously misled.   (But why did you choose that?)

  50. Rob Honeycutt at 04:49 AM on 20 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart @116... The paper you're citing to making this claim says the opposite. It's saying there is virtually no effect on SLR in the Netherlands. The maps you keep posting from that paper confirm exactly this, that there is virtually no effect. It's at the zero point on the scale, so it is not taking away anything and not contributing anything.

Prev  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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