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  811  812  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  Next

Comments 40901 to 40950:

  1. Climate Science History - interactive style

    Tnx for this excellent "table - toy" - I got some of the presented issues by the excellent book of Archer/Pierrehumbert "The Warming Papers" ...

  2. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    BillyJoe: Your most recent comment was deleted because it was both a Moderation Complaint and Off-Topic -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

    Please read the SkS Comments Policy and adhere to it. 

  3. Free computer game - World at the Crossroads

    Limits to Growth is now available online:

    www.donellameadows.org/the-limits-to-growth-now-available-to-read-online/

    It is still a very good read. 

  4. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record

    I too sigh with relief that the permafrost is not belching yet. The article repeats the common assertion that CO2 will remain high even if we stop CO2 augmentation immediately: It seems that natural consumption could increase substantially, especially with the help of civilization. Perhaps it is foolish, but our book, Pluvinergy … proposes that if we eliminate CO2 augmentation and increase uptake we can adjust the concentration back down within the century. Our hypothesis proposes working at the scale of the atmosphere to both eliminate CO2 augmenting fuels as well as directly cooling the planet. Thus, the theory proposes that we can have a chance of fixing the mess. Is our work that far off? I hope not.

  5. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

    dvaytw, in my experience the fact that Lomborg wrote something is in and of itself a solid indicator that it is unlikely to be true.

    More specifically on the IPCC, see this article on how the leaked draft of the impact report actually shows dire consequences indeed, rather than the low impact being falsely claimed by Lomborg and other climate fiction writers.

    Unfortunately, I haven't seen a point by point rebuttal of that particular article. However, all his claims are all fairly generic denier talking points which have been debunked on this site and thus rebuttals can be found in the 'most used myths' or via the search box.

    My suggestion would be to ask your 'skeptic' to quote the IPCC report itself saying that there is a scientific consensus that AGW is not increasing extreme events.... rather than Lomborg falsely making that claim. There is no such conclusion in the IPCC reports. It's fiction.

  6. Free computer game - World at the Crossroads

    This sounds very interesting. I'd love to see some of these concepts adopted into mainstream simulations (e.g. Sid Meyer's 'Civilization' series), for developments up to the present, as a way to teach more people about the interactions.

    However, I have to wonder how accurate predictions of future technology can be. It is possible solar power prices will drop to a fraction of fossil fuel prices in the next couple decades... or that some new process for extracting fossil fuels will allow them to remain the least expensive form of energy. I think what happens in the future has a lot to do with which technologies achieve these breakthroughs... and there just isn't any way for a simulation game to know how that is going to play out. Technologies we spend more funds researching have an advantage, but no guarantees.

    In any case, by tying player choices to results determined by historical measurements and demonstrable processes this is a fantastic teaching tool. It also seems to have some economic policy elements... which is another area where belief and reality are often very very different (e.g. 'cutting spending during a depression will revive the economy!').

  7. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

    Has anyone seen Bjorn Lomborg's latest:

    Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather

    He makes a lot of claims allegedly based in the IPCC's 600-page report, 

    Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation

    ...basically saying that the benefits of AGW will outweigh the costs until pretty far down the road.  I don't have time to verify his claims myself; has anyone seen a rebuttal to his argument?

    This
    No, climate change will not be good for the world

    and this
    NY Times Says Earth Has Unlimited Carrying Capacity, So Forget Climate Change and Party On, Homo Sapiens!

    are relevant, but I'm specifically concerned with his claim that it is the IPCC itself which is saying these things.  I'm getting attacked by a guy in a debate who says, "You've been talking all along about how a skeptic must accept the scientific consensus... now you're disagreeing with it when it doesn't suit your ideology!"


  8. A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming

    gdcox, look at the second figure in the article above. The jet stream is found in the Ferrel cell (aka Mid-latitude cell)... which is constrained between the Polar and Hadley cells.

    Basically, there are 'walls of wind' running westward at the northern and southern extents of the northern hemisphere. The jet stream flows eastward between these two 'walls'. You cite river flow, but this is more akin to the meeting of ocean currents moving in opposite directions. The fact that air and ocean currents will go up is another decided difference from rivers. Where rivers are defined by gravity and contours, air streams and ocean currents are mostly defined by temperatures, density, and the rotation of the planet. Countours and gravity also play a part, but are not sole determinants as they are with rivers.

    The weakening of the northern Polar Cell, as the Arctic warms faster than the rest of the globe, has allowed the jet stream to meander more. Basically, the Polar Cell is getting smaller.

  9. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45B

    On the matter of Haiyan and the discussion of its strength, can anyone quickly explain if it is possible to compare cyclone energy for different storm events by integrating the physical nature of the wind and pressure surges over space and time?  I know that accumulated cyclone energy is usually scored using wind speed as a measure but I'm curious to know how well surge might act as a proxy.

  10. A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming

    Excellent paper thanks.

     

     But in this and other sources I still can see no explantion of why the jet stream is so tight.

     A river is confined by gravity and the contours...what confines the jet stream so well ?

     

  11. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A

    Agree with Paul Price above, can we have some commentary on Anderson's worthwhile thinking?

  12. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record

    To clarrify a point of potential confusion, the 32% increase between 1990 and 2012 is an increase in the change in the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance due to Well Mixed GreenHouse Gases (WMGHG) relative to 1750 (the "radiative forcing").  That is, of the total change in radiative forcing since 1750, approximately 25% has occurred in the last 20 years.

    The change in radiative forcing should not be mistaken with the total greenhouse effect of well mixed greenhouse gases.  The total greenhouse effect of CO2, for example, is about 30 W/m^2.  Relative to the total greenhouse effect of CO2, radiative forcing of greenhouse gases has only caused a 2.2% increase over the last 22 years.

    A confusion between "radiative forcing" and "total greenhouse effect" is invited in the article by describing the "radiative forcing" as "... the warming effect on our climate" whereas it is the change in warming effect on our climate.  As I can easilly imagine AGW "skeptics" arguing for the small total effect of CO2 based on this confusion - ie, arguing that the total greenhouse effect of CO2 is at most 2.2 W/m^2 because the 0.7 W/m^2 increase since 1990 is 32% of the warming effect - I thought the clarrification may be usefull.

    As another point of clarrification, that increase is the increase from WMGHGs alone, and does not include the negative effect of aerosols.

    Finally, for anybody interested in exploring the data in more detail can find it here. 

  13. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record

    I am not as comforted as you, Steve. Levels of methane in the Arctic remain among the highest in the world, sometimes over vast areas. In general, there is a clear overall increase in CH4 concentrations as you go from the equator to the pole.

    Why should this continue to be the case if there aren't high emissions coming from that region?

    Your question about isotopic identification is a good one. I'll have to look at the report to see if they have addressed it. Of course, if a main source in the Arctic is from deep deposits of fossil methane that have come free due to slope failures from permafrost melt, the signatures may not be much different than from fracked fossil methane.

    Fo all of our sakes, though, let's hope the conclusions are right on the origin of this methane, since the sources proposed are at least in theory controlable.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Unnecessary white space eliminated.

  14. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45B

    The profits of Big Oil isn't the issue, I think, it is the gross expenditures on energy.  The U.S. spent $1.2 Trillion on energy in 2010. Almost all of that was to purchase non renewable fuels.

    Imagine if we redirected that spending and invested in renewable infrastructure.  The American people could own a 100% renewable energy system for five years worth of carbon spending, instead of flushing our money out tailpipes and smokestacks.

    The beauty of renewable energy, of course, is that once you have paid off the capital cost of infrastructure, the resulting energy - decade after decade - is virtually free of cost.  If we owned our own National Renewable Energy Utility, we could all be enjoying unlimited free energy very quickly.  Oh, yeah, it would reduce our CO2 emissions to nearly zero as well.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Unnecessary white space eliminated.

  15. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in Atmosphere Reach New Record

    Good article and good to know that methane from Actic permafrost isn't rapidly increasing (current growth rate still quite a bit lower than in the 80s).  I'd speculate that methane from northern mid-latitudes is mainly from increased fracking.  Can this not be determined isotopically?

  16. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45B

    Thanks for not linking, Rob. Let's not add to their hits count, shall we. These people really are the dregs of humanity, imvho.

    Climate Central has a good, if somewhat cautious imo, rundown on the latest in attribution of such storms to influence of GW--still officially unclear so far, but increases in intensity are expected.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/super-typhoon-haiyan-a-hint-of-whats-to-come-16724

    The aerosol story is some much needed moderately good news. At least efforts to clean up the air won't immediatly lead to a jump of 2 degrees C (the higher limit of earlier assessments of the masking effect of aerosols), apparently.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Unnecessary white space eliminated.

  17. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45B

    Will... And while people are experiencing real suffering, WUWT is spinning conspiracy theories about reported wind speeds. They're suggesting this wasn't such a big cyclone. I'll not link to their site, on principle.

  18. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45B

    Latest on Haiyan: 10,000 estimated dead just in one town. The storm created a tsunami-like ocean surge, inundating the Talcoban, a town of over 220,000, in up to 40 feet of water. There are reports of piles of bodies so grotesque that news stations are refusing to post pictures of them. I could post links, but I'm sure people here know how to 'oogle.

  19. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    140 characters: "Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc."

  20. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    It's not possible to say anything of value in the 140 character limit in Twitter. Scientists and serious bloggers should avoid it for this very reason. Michael Mann is not the first notable person to fall victim to its limitations.

  21. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    "the agnostic left wants to preserve gods bounty"

    An agnostic does not even hold a belief in god(s), so why would you characterise his or her objective as preserving god's bounty. 

  22. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    "I consider myself to be a fairly good catholic and no scientific knowledge bothers my faith"

    How about population genetics?

    Our most recent common female ancestor lived about 160,000 years ago (mitochondrial Eve). Our most recent common male ancestor (y chromosome Adam) lived about 60,000 years ago. There never was a time in the past when the world's population dropped below a few thousand.

    That would tend to conflict with the story of Adam and Eve, and therefore Original Sin, and therefore the need for Redemption, don't you think? It would seem to me that science has actually caused serious damage to the very foundations of your faith.

    Moderator Response:

    [PW] These posts excoriating various religious isses wrt climate change, interesting though they are, are off-topic for this thread. Lert's ratchet down the religion-bashing (Full disclosure: I am an atheist.) and get back to the subject of the thread.

  23. Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study

    It cannot be said with confidence that present rate of OHC is greater than during the MWP because the hundred year intervals in the proxy record is too course to make a valid comparison with the rate of increase in OHC over the past sixty years.

  24. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    as per mankind understanding which degree of woe we accomplish so far such as distracting ecosystem? and what would be the most respected wise people input towards house or upcoming household in Mankind!
    Wish to know about home, please educate me!

  25. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    Along the lines of Funglestrumpet's remarks, I know a couple of authors w/the AR5 WG1 both of whom are fairly jaded about the continued utility of certain parts of the IPCC effort. The gist of their feelings is that the research most significant for communicating the IPCC's basic message is long done, and the continued effort of repeating themselves every few years is pointless. Doing the shovel work of producing the report is exhausting*, enough so that unnecessary repetition isn't appealing. Let alone that, it's also a major drain on time that could otherwise be spent doing new research, rather than repackaging already-published material.

    Not to say there's a lack of fascinating research to continue pursuing, just that the public and hence policy makers have been told what the problem is and what needs to be changed in order to fix it. 

    Dinner is done, but nobody seems to have an appetite. A metaphor rich with possibilities. :-)

    There's continuing use for the IPCC, along the lines of bringing the dessert menu. Or a bucket.

    *Look at the details as recorded by the IPCC and you can see why.

  26. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    Perhaps all that there is left is for the scientific community to do is to wash its hands en masse of the IPCC, while expressing the sentiment that there is no longer any point in informing a political class that clearly has no intention of behaving in a responsible manner as far as climate change is concerned.

    If they refused to attend any congressional or parliamentary hearings, ignored all requests for interviews and only continue their scientific exploration of climate change in order to provide future generations with an measure of what was known and therefore the enormity of the irresponsibility that the failure to act represents. In addition, they will see the enormity of the crime collectively committed by Inhofe, Monckton, Lawson and their like. The archives will show the almost complete failure of the media to behave responsibly and do what society rewards them handsomely to do, namely inform the public. They can have no defence when public opinion is so divided on the issue while there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. While these people might escape public opprobrium today, I imagine their heirs would be subject to some attention by those most afflicted by climate change as Mother Nature gets into her stride in turning up the thermostat. Who knows, they might even be stripped of their inherited wealth, especially if there is good reason to suspect that that wealth has at least in part been funded by the fossil fuel industry. One thing we can be sure of is that society will not be genteel in the conditions that it seems are inevitable.

    Or we can carry on with the 'same old same old', wring our hands, gnash our teeth and achieve about as much as has been achieved thus far, i.e. precious little. Let’s be honest with ourselves at least. We know where climate change is headed, we know what needs to be done and we know that without something very dramatic happening, that our heirs are in for a very poor time of it because nothing is going to be done.

    Perhaps an en masse resignation from the IPCC might be a step too far, but a week long strike on the part of all climate scientists would grab the attention of the politicians, especially the threat of longer strikes if the politicians continue to only give lip service to the problem. I suspect that it would come as a surprise to the general public to learn just how much they rely on climate science for their day to day needs, especially weather forecasts that are based on exactly the same science that climate forecasts well into the future also rely on. The public need to be made aware of the commonality between the two.

    The fossil fuel industry has shown a ready willingness to play hard ball. Perhaps the time has come for the science community to do likewise. In fact, perhaps there is no perhaps about it.

  27. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    I just don't understand the right wing of various countries and especially those in the US of A.    By and large, the Republicans and their nutty fringe, the Tea Party, seem to contain a huge proportion of religious fundamentalists.    By contrast, the Democrats, the left wing, seem rather rich in atheists and agnostics. I mean, can you imagine someone like Bill Maher in the US or Richard Dawkins in the UK belonging to the right wing. Not on your Nelly.

    In the good book that the Religious right constantly harks back to, god gave us dominion over the beasts in the fields, the birds in the Air and the fish in the sea. Dad was passing on the family business to us. He didn't specifically say, "take care of it" but I think we would be justified in assuming that was his intention.

    Why is it then that by and large, the religious right that wants to drill, mine, log fish, and exploit the environment with no thought for the future while the agnostic left wants to preserve gods bounty.

    *Senator Joe Barton of Texas just tried to deny climate change by saying that the biblical flood was an indication of climate change before there was any significant increase in CO2. Jeeessssh!!

    **Read Farley Mowat's book, Sea of Slaughter.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Correction. Joe Barton is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is not a member of the U.S. Senate. 

  28. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize

    Congrats from Ireland, John, to all the SkS team!

  29. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
    Strengthening pledges will do nothing to reduce emissions. Only actions can do that. I see no evidence of any likelihood that governments will even begin to take the actions necessary. When you add to that that 2C is probably too high of a limit (as Kevin Anderson has mentioned) and 450ppm is probably too high of a limit (as James Hansen has mentioned), we had better prepare ourselves (individually) for a huge change in the future. The best I can hope for is that the deterioration isn't too great for the next 30 years, which would likely see me out) but my kids (and theirs) are going to get it in the neck.
  30. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    "relationship between the small generator and the big power company". The trouble I think is in expectations. Why should a power company be expected to buy from the big generators at one price but have to pay effectively much higher retail price when buying from home producers? And yet, this is often what grid-feed solar installers often seem to think is their entitlement. Furthermore, the network provider is more or less forced to take the power since home producers dont participate in the generation market bidding.

    Given the large proportion of electrcity from renewable sources in NZ, home solar power isnt as environmentally friendly as in say Germany (where the alternative is nuclear, gas or coal). At least until electric cars are common.

    What would make sense for encouraging more solar power, would be targeted rates available to people wanting to install solar and in situations where there is say 3000-4000 hours of sunshine a year. This ties the capital cost (and its repayment) to the house rather than the person.

  31. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    It is weird to see religion get so involved in this anti-science fight. My hunch is that this is mainly a by-product of anti-regulation lobbies that end up using religion to manipulate people against science.

    I'm no fierce defender of my homeland Brazil - plenty of dumb problems and avoidable errors here - but here there's no debate, for example, whether evolution should be taught in schools. It simply is, as it should be. In general, science does not bother the Church (mainly Catholic here) and vice versa. I consider myself to be a fairly good catholic and no scientific knowledge bothers my faith.

    Religious right-wing politicians here (in turn mainly protestant) usually lobby against things like abortion, or gay marriage, or noise restrictions (because of loud services...) I'm not with them on these issues, but at least I think they make sense - I think that's what concerns religion.

    Religious people should not let their causes be hijacked by destructive, selfish, and utterly non-religious motives. Man, religion against environmentalism? Really?

  32. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    The sagebrush rebellion itself was for the most part a genuine grass-roots movement.  It lost steam after ronald reagan was elected in part because of his endorsement of one of the goals of the movement: the ceding to the states of most federal BLM grazing lands.  Unfortunately for the ranchers involved in the sagebrush rebellion, Reagan embraced it partially for economic reasons: getting rid of federal grazing lands would lead to an end of federal subsidies to ranchers who graze on federal lands.  And western states, for the most part, weren't (and aren't) nearly as generous in doling out public funds to ranchers who graze on state lands.  Once ranchers understood that winning their battle against federal control of most of western grazing lands meant they'd lose their substantial subsidy (by various measures federal grazing permits were priced anywhere from $2 to $6 per "animal grazing unit" (cow-calf pair) under market value, it's even more extreme now), their interest in seeing the feds shed these lands waned.

     

    The "wise use" movement has largely been an astroturf affair, as mentioned.  Lots of money from large mining companies, in particular gold mining (fighting looming regulations on cyanide heap leach technology, which was mostly unregulated in the 1980s).

  33. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    The only way we are going to reduce carbon emissions is if/when renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuel energy.  We are very likely there already with solar-electric but what is missing is a legislated relationship between the small generator and the big power company which is fair to both and for governments to stop trying to milk the adoption of solar energy for revenue.  Wind power is also there but here the governments must give a hand proving or disproving the allegations of the anti-wind loby and if any true negative effects are found, help to mitigate them.  We are at the point where the problems are human/political/greed, not technical.

    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/solar-power-and-ratchet.html

    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/solar-electric-not-worth-it.html

    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/solar-electric-whats-missing.html

  34. Dikran Marsupial at 03:43 AM on 9 November 2013
    Hans Rosling: 200 300 years of global change

    He says: "There is a myth that humans used to live in ecological balance ... they died in ecological balance".

    I think Malthus addressed that myth some time ago!

    The point about us having reached "peak child" is not completely good news.  As the population becomes more heavily skewed towards the old it means that either the elderly need to work to support themselves, or those of working age will have to work harder to support those who can no longer support themselves.  As pension funds are already under strain, this is bad news even for the west.  It is a good thing if global population is kept within the bounds that the Earths resources can actually support, but the transition would not be comfortable even in the absence of climate change.

  35. Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist

    Speaking from his uniquely, ironically qualified perspective, Richard Lindzen:

    "When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue."

    Dr. Lindzen liked the sound of that piece so well that he offered it to two different publishers, with each accepting it. One of those publishers appears to have made an exception to accomodate the duplication, taking it on over 2 years after it was originally published.

  36. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    There's certainly much that can be done, but the elephant in the room is the collection of vested interests who have no desire to see such action and who have an unfortunate and disproportionate influence on what happens.

    From Pricing carbon: the politics of climate policy in Australia:

    The politics of climate change in Australia, its carbon pricing politics in particular, is subject to complex and interrelated influences, with political and economic interests largely shaping the policy agenda over the last two decades. The objection of the carbon based industrial lobby to carbon pricing has long been a significant obstacle to the adoption of a carbon tax or an ETS, as has the influence of neoliberal and conservative politics. Normative shifts have been achieved at times, however, providing fleeting windows of opportunity to act, under the Hawke and Rudd governments in particular. However, neither government was able to withstand industry pressure or to provide the leadership required to achieve change. Ironically the most successful government in terms of achieving carbon pricing was the Gillard Labor minority government, which needed to act decisively in order to honor its written agreement with its Green political supporters. The MPCCC process established as agreed between Labor and the Greens, brought in the independents, who were then involved in shaping and agreeing to the carbon pricing mechanism and its passage through parliament. The fragile politics of minority government, with its distinctive uncertainty and bargaining opportunities, has therefore led directly to carbon pricing in Australia by providing for institutional processes that were secure against industry lobbying. However, these processes cannot guarantee that the government withstands industry lobbying during the implementation of carbon pricing nor that it ultimately achieves effective emissions abatement.

    (WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:603–613. doi: 10.1002/wcc.239)

  37. Hans Rosling: 200 300 years of global change

    More Rosling quiz questions here at the BBC.

    Can you do better than a chimp? Can you do better than an educated Briton? 

    (Chimps outperform even educated Brits, apparently.)

  38. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    doug_bostrom@17,

    Well said. hank_@7 brought our attention to sensationalism of twitters (often distorted when re-tweeted in blogosphere) that have nothing to do with science, or even with scientists' integrity, but something to do with knee jerk reaction of eccentric people. I don't follow such stuff.

    But in this case (because I called hank_ "baseless troller" which I'm backing up) I looked it up found out the "sensational" facts to be:

    1. Wilson publicly called Mann's recent work "a crock of shit"

    2. Mann responded by tweeting: "‘Closet #climatechange #denier Rob Wilson, comes out of the closet big time. #BadScience #DisingenuousBehavior’. But hw has deleted this twitt since.

    That looks like an engagement in a "pig wrestling fight" from Mann's part, a fight started by Wilson. Everyone, including Mann, is subject to strange knee jerk reactions and I don't comment on that. When Mann realised the inappropriateness of his knee jerk reaction in public, he backed off silently. Here at SkS, we should also back off our cheers on the pig ring. Wait until the news  about a validity of  Wilson's critique.

  39. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    All:

    Doug Bostrom and Rob Honeycutt have both reponded to hank_'s most recent comment. Please resist the tempatation to chime in. Dogpilling is also prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. 

  40. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    Hank_ @7...  "He seems too petty..."

    That's a fascinating comment considering the organized storm of perpetual pettiness that has be directed toward Dr Mann for a decade or more. 

    Why would you not be more critical of the attacks on Dr Mann? I mean, people who have little to no understanding of his research (people who've never read his papers) are still ragging on MBH98/99 when the research is now almost 15 years old. And since then his work has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies.

  41. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    Pardon me, Hank. I found myself suddenly realizing that-- as is so often the case-- we found ourselves discussing Mike Mann's character. 

    I guess in a twisted way it's appropriate; Mann's entire book hinges on what happens when we stop talking about facts and go instead to discussing the character of the person who happens to be reporting. 

  42. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    First book I downloaded to my Kindle last year.

    Great read, however Kindle does not do do a great job of the charts.

    So buy the paperback if it just a few extra dollars or euros.

  43. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    "Come to think of it, Hank, why did you bring it up at all?"

    I'm expressing my opinion, bro, as you have expressed yours. Is that not what we do here in the coments section?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You've expressed your opinion. Please move on.

    BTW, Excessive repitition is prohibited by the SKS Comment Policy.

  44. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    Fair enough, but why try to score points on twitter by publicly spanking a collegue when an email would suffice?

    Fellow A publicly calls fellow B's work "a crock of shit" but fellow B is expected to respond only privately?

    That's a ridiculous proposition.

    Wilson set the tone, Mann only followed the rules of the game as Wilson made them. Wilson calibrated the Golden Rule: hyperbolically denigrate others as you would have them do the same to you. 

    To talk about this imaginary problem at all is to buy into and feed the synthetic, expedient, fake outrage some people are desperate for us to feel against Mann.  Come to think of it, Hank, why did you bring it up at all?

  45. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    widescale installation of specific and highly subisidized efficiency products can reduce national residential electricity consumption by over 40%.  Japan is projecting to install over 30 million micro Combined Heat and Power units by 2030 in preperation for a shift to a hydrogen-based economy by 2070.

     

    The average u.s. residential solar installation is 7 kW.  Typically a home can produce enough electricity to provide its entire average annual demand with a 3.5-4.5 kW system.

    By shifting to comprehensive residential solar, community-sourced and municipally sourced solar, wind, micro CHP and efficiency, the u.s. carbon emissions profile can be reduced by over 80% in the next 20 years. 

    Europe Micro CHP trial

    The Era of Air-Sourced Heat Pumps is Here

    The U.S. Solar Market

     

  46. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    "I couldn't help wondering what the attackers thought will happen"  By 'making an example of someone', you teach the population to avoid 'going there' on certain topics.  Certain (Conservative) people are being taught, by example, that its OK to bully those who are concerned about Climate Change.  And those who ARE concerned are taught not to vocalize their concern.  Frankly, this is a highly effective tactic that is responsible for the lack of progress on a RANGE of issues, if that progress would upset someone's profit stream, not just Climate Change (Healthcare in America, Gun Control in America, Income Inequality, etc).  

    In Hitlers Germany, the Fascists couldn't just disagree with the communists: they had to make an example of them by attacking them in the street.  Thus conditioned into silence, the population could be herded more easily into what came later.

  47. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    @doug_bostrom

    "The conversation between Mann and Wilson is a mundane academic spat.." Fair enough, but why try to score points on twitter by publicly spanking a collegue when an email would suffice? It looks bush league, imo. Righly or wrongly, he has been placed on an academic pedastel, at least in the AGW sector. And like anyone in the public eye, things like that are given added weight because of his high profile. Is that ridiculous? Maybe. But such is life in the internet age.

    To many out there, Mann's Climate Wars book is one long attempt to document how others have disrespected him. IMO, if he wants respect he should exercise more care on the front lines of Twitter.

  48. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    Everybody's perspective of Mann is distorted, through particular fault of his own beyond being curious about a particular thing at a particularly sensitive point in time. A baying pack of cranks have chosen to elevate him to demigod status and now all of us-- cranks included, of course-- expect him to behave like a saint or use his lack of saintliness as a propaganda weapon.

    Mann is still the person he was before he blundered into the thing for which we chose to make him famous. Despite his peculiar circumstances Mann doesn't walk on water, he's just another person with foibles. Is he supposed to behave according to our model of his ideal, keep mum to make us happy? That's not reasonable, even if Mann had not been hounded beyond all patience. 

    The conversation between Mann and Wilson is a mundane academic spat that we have chosen to make important.  We don't have the right to expect Mann to follow our rules. Should he not have a Twitter account, because we're afraid he'll disappoint us? 

    "We like it when you write a book excoriating our enemies, Dr. Mann, but you make us squeamish when you tweet rudely." Good golly, how ridiculous we've become.

  49. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    @vrooomie - Thank you, you've explained it much better than I could have.

    FaceBook is one thing, you can write a whole article there. Twitter, with it's limited text space and hair trigger response time, requires some thought before posting for those who lash out too quickly. It's beneath someone of Mann's stature to be petty on Twitter and he needs to realize that he isn't helping his image by doing so.

  50. 2013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap

    "increasing the need to rely on faster energy-efficiency improvements and biomass with carbon capture and storage"

    Yes, of course, we have to push ahead on every efficiency and alternative energy program that can realistically help reduce our carbon footprint. But all these things take time, and time is what we have least of. Fast reductions now will be much more crucial than gradual reductions over years and decades for keeping atmospheric CO2 levels from skyrocketing.

    It is only the demand side that can change as fast as what we need. We have to give up the idea that we have the luxury to continue to use energy (from whatever source) at the levels we are now using it. Cutting energy (and other resource use) of the wealthiest 20% in the world (who use about 80% of the same) by about 25 %, and you suddenly have a situation that looks much more favorable for scaling up renewables and efficiency fast enough to replace nearly all ff in the next few years, which is what we have to do.


    Note that energy and resource use above a certain minimal level has not been shown to greatly increase happiness, so on one level this does not even require sacrifice, though it may feel like it at first.


    Of course the eternal question is "Who will bell the cat."

     

    For more, do see one of Kevin Anderson's talks. He really does seem to have gotten it mostly right.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KumLH9kOpOI

    Or his opinion piece in "Nature: Climate Change" here:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1681.html

     

Prev  811  812  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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