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  980  981  982  983  984  985  986  987  988  989  990  991  992  993  994  995  Next

Comments 49351 to 49400:

  1. Bert from Eltham at 10:17 AM on 29 January 2013
    Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome
    Thanks Dana. From what I understood their model is just curve fitting without any Physics that constrain their wild speculations. The fact that the so called temperature hiatus since the El Nino years has so much effect on their models predictions is proof of this weakness. It is so predictable that a computer model that affirms the denialists worldview is acceptable but one that does not, that is based on real Physics, is considered a fiction in their Dunning-Kruger minds. It just like modelling the trajectory of a single electron due to unknown influences and predicting its future path without knowing what EM fields were. Let alone where they are at! Bert
  2. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    At least Dikran Marsupial gave me a reasonable response to my 2 questions asked, and I do appreciate your answer. Thank you. To Danial Bailey.... The correct answer would be: Is that an African or European swallow? Ni!
  3. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    gnuplot does nonlinear least squares fits sidd
  4. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    The cartoon is outstanding! The submerged houses take a second look to see. The contrast between the sails of the hull-down proas and the touristy westerner's outboard motor add more to the impact. I kinda expect to fine «Mene, mene, tekel upharsin» in there somewhere, too.
  5. Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome
    Have updated the first paragraph of this post - Carbon Brief confirmed that the study being discussed has not yeet been published, or even accepted by a scientific journal.
  6. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    That should have been: "So, duh, that's why we DO want to minimize the deviation from the optimum temperature"
  7. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    I agree with those that say a valid response to the "skeptic" asking "oh yeah, well what is the optimal (average surface temperature) temperature of planet earth anyway, huh?" is to note that it is the abruptness that is problematic. But it would be fun to to have a pithy comeback along the lines of "well, I like 55 degrees F, because if it was 60 degrees it would be a real pain in the a*s". I don't know what the best value for a retort is -maybe someone could help me, but the point is that it would maybe stump the "skeptic" that smugly asks this question in the expectation that it can't be answered. Then if the conversation warranted, one could follow up with, "because, at several degrees warmer than optimum it will be a real hassel for us to grow our food, live on the coastlines like we have over the last thousand years or so, and it will be a bummer to have to try to cover the costs associated with the resulting increases in flooding and/ or fires. So, duh, that's why we don't want to minimize the deviation from the optimum temperature." just a thought
  8. Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome
    Can confirm that it just was a translation from an earlier post in Norwegian. No new study published... however the group ofc continue to try to publish new research. What that will say, we do not know...
  9. Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome
    Goodie. I was hoping that you guys would discuss this one. Little doubt that aerosol emissions, particularly from China, has had a rather significant effect. So the deniers all of a sudden agree with computer models and agree that CO2 causes warming now. Funny. We should get that in writing, as within a few weeks, it will be back to the "CO2 is an insignificant trace gas" chant from that camp.
  10. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    As usual, a contrarian comes along with a "silver bullet" against reality, only for it to end up being a can of Coors Light.
  11. Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome
    Thanks for clarifying this Dana-- what a mess. Sadly Revkin's initial report on this and his apparent bias towards lower climate sensitivity papers did not help matters. Fake skeptics also seem to be afflicted with climate model "syndrome". The following comment posted at The Guardian explains it nicely (H/T JohnM): "One other thing: I'm amazed at how many deniers have suddenly found computer models to be accurate, considering how many years they've been telling us they are utterly crap. Don't suppose this epiphany has anything to do with liking the results of some models ("good") while hating the results from others ("bad")." Yet another example of the logical fallacies and contradictory arguments used by fake skeptics and those in denial about AGW. Revkin, should know better than to actively enable this sort of obfuscation. Or is he perhaps trying to deal with his own cognitive dissonance?
  12. Dikran Marsupial at 02:50 AM on 29 January 2013
    NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    snafu wrote "What is the 'optimal' temperature/climate of Planet Earth?" A reasonable answer to that would be "the climate to which our civilisation (and especially agricultural practices) has become highly adapted". It is the change in climate that is the principal problem, as adapting to change has costs. It seems likely that mitigation will reduce the cost of adaptation, so that would appear to be the rational strategy. It isn't rocket science.
  13. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    Rather on par with
    "What's the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
    With the proper answer being
    "Depends on if he's carrying a coconut."
    The most irritating thing about such parsimonious lines of rhetoric is that the asker of the question truly isn't interested in the answer or even capable of understanding it in context even if it is answered (as they never would have asked such a question had they the knowledge and understanding needed).
  14. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    snafu @26... Regarding "the optimal temperature of planet earth." I've seen this question proposed dozens of times and it's really rather meaningless. The issue at hand is whether an abrupt, human caused shift in the earth's climate will cause massive disruption for humanity and other living species.
  15. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    @ Bernard J., comment #17....ONLY! Since you are such an expert and above NASA astronauts/scientists, can you answer the following questions? 1) What is the 'optimal' temperature of Planet Earth? Bearing in mind that it has been warmer, cooler and has had more and less CO2 than today. 2) What is the 'optimal' climate of Planet Earth? Bearing in mind that it has been warmer, cooler and has had more and less CO2 than today. @ A Change in the Weather, comment #21....ONLY! Please repeat your statement...: "I'd say they're pathetic if I felt sorry for them. But I'm sure they're an arrogant, self-satisfied, and unself-aware tribe of jingoists, impressed with their own ability to find the tiny inconsistencies in the data trees. Meanwhile, they ignore the forest, the obvious and overwhelming evidence that, ironically, can be seen from space: the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap. It's the idiot light at the top of the world. Not to mention all the satellite data NASA collects. NASA should firmly rebut them and categorically disavow any ongoing relationship." ...to the families of: (-snip-)" (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints and inflammatory tone snipped. Future comments constructed thusly will be deleted in their entirety. You are not doing well.
  16. citizenschallenge at 01:06 AM on 29 January 2013
    Meteorologists, Climatologists Featured in New ’2013 Climate’ Video
    Yup, great video, the last two minutes when they explain reasons behind 2012's modest Tornado season is first class info to have on hand for the next phony skeptic who tells ya scientists don't know what they are talking about because Tornado counts aren't increasing linearly. And, since we've been talking videos here lately. NASA has come up with the best review of our Global Heat Distribution Engine to date. At one and half hours, no commercials; it goes into space and time and below the oceans with Computer Graphics based on actual data that will blow you away. Our Global Heat Engine ~ from space and within the ocean - a five star video Although they just call it "Earth From Space (HD)" Published on YouTube Aug 20, 2012 ~ sasijayaram ~ playtime: 1:31:32 Cheers
  17. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    I was hoping for some kind of canned program such as Origin or Sigma Plot. I have Origin, and it does linear regressions, but I don't think it does regressions of non linear functions, though I am not sure. I have heard of something you could get that works with excel. I don't want to learn a new programming language, for sure....I mean I know Fortran, Basic, and assembler language for the old Digital Equipment 8 kilobit DEC, and the IBM 1600 that used card stacks! (That DEC pre dated the Wang Calculator, which was the size of a suitcase, had a NIXE tube output, and could..da te de da te dahh - compute sines and cosines).
  18. Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:18 PM on 28 January 2013
    Video on Climate Change Lines of Evidence by the National Academy of Science
    These videos are very good for genuine skeptics who are prepared to be open minded - and I'd include thousands of people who have been fed misinformation in that description. It is very U.S. centred - but that is probably a good thing. I'd like to see something similar come from the Royal Society.
  19. Non-English climate science
    Michael, I think IPCC summarizes the latest research which largely is in English. However, I think I have seen a few references from non-English languages in IPCC reports, but I should check that.
  20. Non-English climate science
    Perhaps I should have emphasized the historical aspect of this issue more. I agree that the modern situation is such that mostly the relevant science is available in English (although it would be nice to know the situation of Chinese journals). But we just established that the meteorology and hydrology journal is only available in English from 2005 onwards. Also, if we continue with Budyko, he published both in English and in Russian. For me it would be nice if his Russian output would be available too in some format. One (or several) example where results were caught by English world doesn't prove that there are no important results hidden in non-English journals. Gladly scientists have largely both published in many languages and picked up results from other languages, so the situation might not be that bad either. This needs further study.
  21. The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
    Plantman: The sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean are measured going back to 1880 or before. Why does Tisdale start his graph at 1938? Could it be related to the well known fact that temperatures increased from 1880 to 1940 and then decreased from 1940 to 1970? If we saw the entire record the result would certainly be different. This type of cherry pick is why Tisdale is an unreliable citation. This graph is exactly why you should cite peer reviewed science to support your points. It would never be allowed in a peer reviewed publication since it is clearly cherry picked.
  22. Doug Hutcheson at 17:35 PM on 28 January 2013
    Meteorologists, Climatologists Featured in New ’2013 Climate’ Video
    Another excellent video from Peter Sinclair. I will be sending the link to many people I know.
  23. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    curiousd... You know that a large amount of climate work is done in the R programming language. Is that what you're looking for?
  24. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    By burning much midnight oil I got that Zhong - Tung devolcanized, de ensoed, data into excel and got so I could do a kind of manual regression, where I use the entire range of data and use the proper log function for the CO2 contribution from 1863 to present, and manually tweak weighting factors by hand for long periods of time. I used the Zhong - Tung version of the AMO index. I can do well enough by such fiddling to convince myself that the C.S. is no longer 1.9 something (as I get above on post 101 here by a simple log straight line fit), but by regressing this AMO is indeed a lower C.S., maybe 1.3. There is another definition of the AMO index I found on Wiki - "Oldenwhatever's methodology???" - that gives a much different AMO index and it looks to me like it would give a larger C.S. So would like to compare these results. But now I need something which has the computer, not me, systematically doing the prowling around in parameter space to give the smallest residual, then give a goodness of fit parameter. I want to buy such a program and learn to use it. Suggestions on what to purchase?
  25. Subcap Methane Feedbacks. Part 4: Speculations
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Andy (and even more for the series of articles on this important subject). As Shakhova and others have pointed out, the area has been warming steadily for millennia. At this point it likely will not take a large increase in temperature to destabilize the clathrates. I don't see how we can know exactly how that will happen--quickly or gradually. It strikes me that all three of the methane sources you so ably discuss are likely to interact with each other directly and indirectly in various ways. My hope would be that as one source destabilizes, it will somehow stabilize the others, perhaps by cooling the surrounding area. Somehow, though, I think that it is likely that in many cases the destabilizing of one of these sources will result in the further destabilization of the others, which in turn will prompt further destabilization of the first...in the kinds of vicious cycles we have been seeing acting out in the Arctic and elsewhere. And this is just the direct effects. There is no question that the added warming caused by all these sources of methane will further warm the area and the planet leading to the eventual warming and release of the other sources. The slow release scenario, if it ends up being inexorable, is deeply saddening in its own way, because it extends our very short-term forcing--over the last couple centuries and the coming few years or decades--for millennia or even millions of years into the future as far as I can see. It is all, obviously, worthy of further study. But mostly we just have to stop loading more and more chambers with bullets as we click away at the gun pointed at our children's heads.
  26. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    Chuckle, snafu. It's ok to accept money to perform science. It's not ok to accept money to misinform the public in order to delay action on a serious, global problem. Your analysis is too simple to be useful.
  27. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    So.... ....it's OK for the UEA - CRU to accept funds from BP, Shell & the Sultanate of Oman. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history ....it's Ok for Stanford University Global Climate & Energy Project (GCEP) to accept funds from ExxonMobil & Schlumberger since 2002 ($155million so far, with more to come....expected $225 million). http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/sponsors.html ....it's OK for BEST to accept $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/ (-snip-)!
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy before constructing comments that adhere to it in the future. Comments that do not will be moderated/deleted.
  28. The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
    If Bob has a contribution towards the "search for truth", then there would be no problem publishing it in lines with scientific norms then would there?
  29. The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
    And Plantman... I would also point out that linking blog posts and news reprints from someone who is not a researcher in the field in which he's commenting holds very little weight. My suggestion for you would be to spend more time reading peer reviewed literature and comments from scientists who actually work in the field you're trying to understand. You might not get the answers you want to hear that way, but you are far more likely to get an accurate understanding of the science.
  30. The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
    Plantman... No one is claiming a monopoly on science. We do claim that science needs to be comprehensive and accurate, both of which tend be lacking in Tisdale's work.
  31. The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
    There is no monopoly on "science". Science is the search for truth, not the assertion that you have a monopoly on it. Consider these opinions on the Sandy issue: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/11/did_a_warming_sea_intensify_sa.html and http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/october-2012-sea-surface-temperatures-and-anomalies-along-sandys-path-were-not-unusual/
    Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. Also note: All caps are against policy. Please review commenting policies before continuing to comment. All caps changed to lower case and italicized.
  32. Subcap Methane Feedbacks. Part 4: Speculations
    Killian The large areas of ocean methane bubbling up that have been observed in the atmosphere are in the shallow (10's of metres) shelf areas such as the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, not the much deeper (hundreds of metres) ocean basins where methane hydrates are observed (on seismic data) and sampled (by dredging and drilling). I did not claim that the gas chimneys in the Laptev Sea were fed by biogenic methane, quite the contrary. The Cramer and Franke reference at the top of the page concluded that this methane is "thermal gas", that is to say thermogenic or "fossil" methane. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you believe that Archer is "just off". I am sure that he has read most, if not all of the literature since 2007, in fact he has written about a dozen papers between 2008 and 2012 according to his web page. I don't dispute that destabilization of methane hydrates will likely have a significant negative impact on the climate, just that the impact will more likely be spread over centuries or millennia rather than decades. But there are obviously many unknowns and I look forward, somewhat anxiously, to future research being published.
  33. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    Trunkmonkey: Just to be sure I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that the deviations of the 'human contribution' (or more correctly the ENSO/solar/volcanic-removed temperature) from linear (or more correctly from anthropogenic forced response) are due to variations in the rate of heat transfer to the deeper ocean? If so, then I think there is another mechanism to consider. A while back Kevin Trenberth was answering questions on a post here, and I asked about the nature of the unaccounted-for radiation imbalance since 2003. If I remember correctly he attributed part of the answer to anomalous cloud response during an ENSO event. In which case it could be that clouds can play a significant role on short timescales. I suspect these two mechanisms account for much of the deviation, but I wouldn't like to guess in what proportion.
  34. There is no consensus
    Jeff, I don't know where you're attending university, but at the university I teach at, the professors drive students to question them. Any student who produces a useful method or discovery is going to be helped into publication by the professor(s). Your comment strongly suggests you believe a hoax is being perpetrated, and that strongly suggests you have no idea how the scientific process works. And, btw, I've talked with plenty of meteorologists who do not understand the basic theory of anthropogenic global warming. Joe Bastardi leaps to mind.
  35. Video on Climate Change Lines of Evidence by the National Academy of Science
    The radiative forcing is indeed greater than the observed temperature rise. This doesn't necessarily mean that the radiative forcing is in error. It could easily be that Giai's feed back mechanisms are "fighting" against the radiative forcing. The possibility is that this is a 'light switch' phenomenon and that when forced far enough, we will see a step change to a warmer world in keeping with the level of radiative forcing. An ice free Arctic ocean in, say, July might be when we will see such a lurch upward.
  36. Video on Climate Change Lines of Evidence by the National Academy of Science
    The video is excellent. These are exactly what is needed to help educate the ignorant. I think non-emotional professionally done videos like this have more potential to turn a contrarian-bias mind. 2/3 of these people are nearly a lost hope anyway, and a passionate, overbearing or spiteful message will only further entrench them. For the other 1/3 (who still have a thread of true skepticism), they will only be receptive to these sorts of very educational and fair-balanced, non-polarizing messages. This is the way to go! Unfortunately, there are too FEW of these available. Why is that? In my opinion, the climate change collegiate are, sadly, a dis-organized crew (understandably because their agenda isn't based on contrived cooked information). But, a little more organization would still help a lot. That's what makes this SkS site so good (a clear organized light in the abundant sea of conflicting messages). One obvious omission is a conservative (low-end) projection to 2100 based on BAU, or better yet, a moderate reduction in GH emissions (starting in say 2025). Even a conservative projection like this would be a big eye-opener for many. ... I will be sharing the youtube site. ... Thanks for sharing here!
  37. CO2 is just a trace gas
    The article simply debunked the idea that "trace" means it cant possibly be a problem. The direct radiative effects of CO2 as well as the feedbacks are dealt with in other articles. If you have problems with this, then please see the article Sensitivity is low
  38. Video on Climate Change Lines of Evidence by the National Academy of Science
    Pretty nice video with well-produced graphics. I did notice, however, at about 11.5 minutes in, there was a small discussion about atmospheric methane that includes the assertion that its concentration has "leveled-off." The chart shown terminates at 2006. It should be noted that since 2006, atmospheric methane concentrations have increased steadily. More data here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
  39. Subcap Methane Feedbacks. Part 4: Speculations
    "However, most of the methane produced from dissociating marine hydrates will be consumed by anaerobic processes in the top few metres of sulphate-rich near-sea-floor sediments and all of the rest will be dissolved and oxidized in sea water and will not be released to the atmosphere as methane" And this squares with the large areas of methane bubbling out of the Arctic waters how? Also, are you claiming the large areas of methane seepage, including single chimneys more than a kilometer wide, are coming from bacterial activity and not hydrates? Studies have found that methane hydrates are destabilizing on the ESAS, around Spitzburgen, and even down the US East Coast. So, huh? Oh, and Archer's stuff at RC is just off. Way off. I'm frustrated every time he posts on the subject. It's as if he's only read the literature from pre-2007.
  40. NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
    I haven't gone through all of them, but many of the reports list on the TRCS page http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/StudiesReports.html are actually quite rational. I especially liked the notation "'skeptical' climate scientists in TX = zero" on one of them. ps - I retract saying I was banned on WUWT. My last comment there was delayed, and did not show to me as 'in moderation', but has now appeared.
  41. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    Enthalpy is transferred almost exclusively from the surface to the atmosphere.Oceans constitute 70% of the surface and oceans have continued to warm (albeit very unevenly)over the past 16 years.I suspect the residual shown in the graph above represents the baseline inevitable transfer of energy from a warming ocean to the atmosphere.If I get a minute I'll plot your residual against Reynolds "all ocean" SST's.
  42. Humidity is falling
    Judging from the draft, it seems likely the IPCC will report that there is no trend in atmospheric water vapor.
  43. 16  ^  more years of global warming
    Reply to scaddenp in 115: No I have no reason to discount GISTEMP (GHSN) land only index. And I thank you. As a retired professional physicist new to climate science, one of the many aspects I find bewildering is the "alphabet soup" of various temperature records. For anything new I delve into in the climate change area, I find it useful to check out my assumptions first at SKS. There is no one at my University who knows more than thing one about this topic, and therefore this site is for me an information godsend.
  44. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Jeff313, The article does not use the words "equate" or "equivalent" once. Instead it points to the similarity of the (false) "trace-only"-argument in giving examples most people can quickly relate to.
  45. Lessons From Past Predictions: Ridley vs. IPCC and Hansen
    IEHO it would be best to change "but they have almost all been far more accurate than his own" to "all the IPCC predictions have been much more accurate that Ridley's. The only one that has been worse was Hansen's 1988 model because of an assumption of a too high climate sensitivity, something that Hansen acknowledges and corrected in later versions of his model. Eli might add the later GISS model projections to the list, e.g. 1998.
  46. Humidity is falling
    Jeff313 @3, you make two substantive claims. The first is that +CO2 - H2O equals no change in greenhouse gases. Apparently this is regardless of the magnitude of the changes in each, as you express no quantities. That is an unusual form of algebra you indulge in, but one I feel no need to follow. The second is that "our graphs are misleading", but our graphs are just reprints of the graphs from Desler & Davis 2010. Further, the purpose of Desler and Davis is to compare all of the reanalysis products. Consequently you are complaining that SkS is misleading because they accurately report the data from a study that looks at all reanalysis products. Frankly, at this point your comment is not making much sense to me. Bad algebra, and an objection to showing all the data seems to be all the counterargument you can muster. You do, of course, claim that all reanalysis products other than NCEP use similar algorithms. Would you care to document that? Or should we add "truth by decree" to your other modes of irrational argument?
  47. Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
    I got quite addicted to Twitter, a constant stream of interesting stuff, but it's also sometimes like drinking from a firehose. I'm perhaps a bit over-considerate, and only tweet if I have something useful to contribute, and then only in moderation. It's great for having a chance of reaching an intended audience, as I'm tentatively doing now plugging my latest Arctic Sea Ice Volume animation, with soothing music: Arctic Requiem... (John, you're welcome to add it to the resources, as with the last video.) It's getting some interest and a few retweets, and ad revenue may even eventually cover the cost of the electricty used to render it!
  48. Humidity is falling
    "To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses, including newer ones with improved algorithms, that all show increasing humidity" Doesn't changing algorithms that give you what you want to see raise a red flag for anyone? Perhaps they are better algorithms, but the number of times " (-intimations of fraud, impropriety and malfeasance snipped-)". Also, (-intimations of fraud, impropriety and malfeasance snipped-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please review this site's comments policy (link adjacent to the comments box) before making further comments.
  49. There is no consensus
    Jeff313 @529, by meteorologist you mean "member of the American Meteorological Society". As not only academic meteorologists, but also broadcast meteorologists (aka, TV weathermen) can be members of the AMS, and do not require any formal qualification, or even study in meteorology to do so, I do claim that some members of the AMS do not have more than superficial knowledge of how the atmosphere works. As it happens, only 52% hold a PhD. Only 56% actively published in the peer reviewed literature in the last five years, and only 12.88% where published primarily on climate change. That is, of those participating in the survey, only 13% have a reasonable claim to be expert on the topic. As it happens, we know from Doran 2009 that around 88% of Climatologists (excluding broadcast climatologists) believe humans are the primary cause of global warming. A little albebra tells us that 45% of responses to the AMS survey where from climatologists with PhD's who agreed that there was global warming, and that humans where the main cause; an only 6% of them doubted any part of that proposition. That the vast majority of climate change "skeptics" in the AMS are broadcast meteorologists, who may or may not have skills beyond those required to look good on camera and read a weather map. Certainly Anthony Watts has repeatedly demonstrated that you can be a broadcast meteorologist (and member of the AMS) and be clueless about atmospheric physics. By the way, even the broadcast meteorologists aren't that fond of AGW "skepticism". 70% of respondents thing that humans have caused at least half of the global warming and only 6% claim global warming was the result of natural causes. Likewise, 76% or respondents think global warming will be harmful, with only 2.4% thinking it is beneficial. Consequently your consensus of the non-experts still falls firmly on the side of the IPCC, despite your best efforts to spin the surveys findings.
  50. Philippe Chantreau at 00:15 AM on 28 January 2013
    There is no consensus
    How does one being polled have do argue with anyone?

Prev  980  981  982  983  984  985  986  987  988  989  990  991  992  993  994  995  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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