Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


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


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...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 38:

  1. Staggering stupidity. I bet Mr Rose will be the first to write an article on the "infinite" recovery of ice once we do have an ice free summer.

    0 0
  2. Please forgive me for continuing to flog this particular dead horse, but an interview with Wieslaw Maslowski from December 2007 which reveals the sort of things he was actually saying at that time can be heard here:

    Needless to say Prof. Maslowski's views were not accurately reported by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday. Hence we are attempting to persuade the Mail to recant this and the many other inaccuracies they have recently put into physical and virtual print with the aid of the UK's Press Complaints Commission. How far we'll get remains to be seen, but please feel free to inform any of your friends and acquaintances who might be interested in following the developing story.

    0 0
  3. Superb - I liked the London temperatures analogy!

    0 0
  4. I have an idea.  Would it be a goer if this website or another provided the easy where-with-all for people (including myself) to make an official complaint each time a factually inaccurate, misleading and/or biased article appears in a national newspaper (whichever nation)?  I've made a few complaints to editors and to the UK Press Complaints Commission (as a UK national) and would find it much easier if there was a set of text available in the appropriate language for me to use.

    That way the number of complaints could be increased, the complaints would be more effective, they could be tracked for success ratios (e.g. better to make a lot of complaints about different specific issues relating to an article, or to make a single complaint about the whole article describing each error?).

    If this sounds like a good idea, I'd be happy to help set it up, including contacting other organisations such as the Climate Reality Project, to help make it happen.

    0 0
  5. Jubble @4 - If you have some experience with the PCC would you mind getting in touch? We're in the throes of making such a complaint as we speak! There's a contact form on the site linked to @2. Perhaps we might compare notes and then mutually develop such a resource? TIA

    In the meantime here's our very own video hot off the presses down here in not so sunny South West England. We rather hope it will prove to be music to the ears of David Rose and his ilk!

    The Great White Con - Episode 1

    0 0
  6. Jim & Jubble, anything which can be done to hold reporters accountable for false reporting should be pursued.

    I have long felt that this is the biggest problem facing the world today. The strength of the global warming denial bloc is just one of the many problems caused by the fact that there are 'journalists' reporting from alternate realities and no way to stop them. What is 'true' has become a matter of personal opinion because there are no consequences for vigorously promoting fiction as 'fact'. People follow the 'news' they want to believe and reject contrary reporting as 'biased'. Without some final arbitration of actual truth this can go on indefinitely and prevent any kind of real progress... because large portions of the population are making decisions about the 'best course of action' based on fiction.

    I wish there were ways to get more of these issues into court. Michael Mann's defamation suit is going well precisely because lies don't usually work in the legal system (poltical rulings of the SCOTUS and some other higher courts notwithstanding). If there were a way to sue Rose and the like for 'false reporting' they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but usually it seems like all you can do is complain to the 'news' organizations that hired them to lie in the first place. Even where things like the UK Press Complaints Commission exist, they always seem to be nearly toothless self-regulation. The very real need for 'freedom of the press' to print unpopular opinions has unfortunately been perverted into 'freedom to lie'.

    0 0
  7. Jim @ 5 - I'll give it a go.  "Some" experience with the PCC would be strictly true but a little misleading, ironically.

    0 0
  8. Here's the thing, IMHO. We might have won this small battle, here, (with a video that many will not see), but we may be losing the mainstream media war.

    See this article from Joe Nova (prominent Aussie skeptic).

    Many may not like what she is saying but she has a valid point. Skeptics are getting airtime on 'big stages' so to speak, WSJ, Washington Times, Finacial Post, Daily Mail, etc. We can laugh at them and call them deniers but is the "rebuttal" message really getting out there as strongly as the skeptic talking points?

    0 0
  9. hank_ - It's my impression that 'skeptics' (aka climate science denialists) are currently blitzing every venue they can reach in anticipation of the IPCC AR5 report. I would consider this due to their (quite justified) fears of being dismissed.

    A rather significant difference between the current situation and, for example, the 2007 AR4 release is that there are now many in the media who recognize issues of false balance and lobbyists (see, for example, Fareed Zakaria pushing Pat Michaels to admit that 40% of his income is supplied by the petroleum industry). Five years ago that kind of reporting clarity was not to be seen. 

    We'll have to see how things play out, but it is my perception that the 'skeptics' and their myths are losing media traction no matter how hard they pedal (or peddle)...

    0 0
  10. @ hank #8:

    On the other side of the coin, there are many MSM outlets who stive for objectivity when reporting on climate change matters -- see recent postings of the SkS Weekly News Roundup for a sampling.

    What goes on inside the bubble world of Jo Nova and her ilk matters little in the real world where the vast majority of people live. 

    At the end of the say, it's pulbic opinion that matters the most. That is the metric we need to focus on.

    0 0
  11. The deniers could not resist painting themselves into a corner with regards to this years uptick in minimum extent. The great thing about that is that the mainstream media will be all over them, exposing their failed 2013 predictions of lasting recovery when we break the 2012 record (likely some time before 2016). Then pigs will fly.

    0 0
  12. Actually, I think JoNova is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.  It's not like they're getting any more airtime than they have for the past decade.  These are all people who have published hundreds of OpEd and articles trying to reject AGW.  

    They're currently in a major push in advance of AR5, essentially because they know the key phrase is going to say that AGW is now "extremely likely."  And that's coming from a body that is, by design, presenting a watered down version of the science.  

    It's interesting to read through the comments on her site.  I'm sorry but they're (like her) just not a very bright bunch.

    0 0
  13. @Rob Honeycutt #12:

    The "major push" by climate deniers is not a figment of our imagination. The international propaganda campaign is documented in detail in:

    Ahead of IPCC Climate Report, Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign by Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News, Sep 18, 2013


    0 0
  14. John...  My point was more that, these are people who have continually received lots of exposure in the media.  Nova seems to think this is some sort of sea change.  The sea change is her wishful thinking.  It's merely a coordinated effort ahead of AR5.

    What Nova sees as a sea change is likely to get clipped pretty severely with the release of AR5.

    0 0
  15. @ Rob #14

    Joe Nova's perceived "sea change" has alot to do with the major changes in the Aussie governments. Labor was defeated in a historice rout. The new leadership is promising to dismantle the hugely unpopular Carbon Tax and are already closing down Climate related departments everywhere.

    It's not just a push ahead of AR5. 

    0 0
  16. Now that one is disturbing.  But it's going to bite them in the butt long term, I think.

    0 0
  17. @hank #15:

    Do you happen to know what percent of Australians currently believe that AGW is happening now?

    0 0
  18. I become discouraged by questions such as how many lay people believe whatever. When a population has been saturation-bombed by biased media, asking who still believes in AGW does not determine what is true. Truth is a casualty of propaganda.

    Having got that off my chest, Most Australians think the Government should do more to tackle climate change

    0 0
  19. Jubble @ 7 - OK. Here's a very quick first draft:

    Anything essential I should add in the first instance?

    0 0
  20. Jim @ 19 - impressive site.  A useful starting point.

    I was wondering whether a site could be set up (or part of this site) that could be used for any biased, misleading or inaccurate newpaper article, which would contain:

    - Guidance as to how to raise a complaint.  (you've given this a shot on your excellent website).

    - For each article nominated by users, an expert-written example of complaint text that would have a chance of success.  There would be one of these written for each article - not a great extention from what is already posted on this site.

    - Step-by-step instructions as to how to take the example, personalise it and submit it to the relevant body (including to the editor of the newspaper if that would make sense in the first instance).

    - Ability for people to sign-up to hear about each article as it appears.

    This could be part of or link to the Reality Drop, possibly.

    0 0
  21. @ Doug Hutcheson #18:

    There seems to be a dsconnect between Astralian public opinion about climate change and Tony Abbott's election as Prime Minister. Why is that?  

    0 0
  22. @Rob

    Jo's no dummy, but ideological blinkers can turn anyone into a crank.


    I don't have a precise answer for that but as far as I understand, Australian opinion on climate change is much like that found in the USA.

    0 0
  23. Not sure if this is same article but i've just seen an astonishing Mail on Sunday article which seems to be making same sorts of wild statements - eg 2007 IPCC report 'exaggerated' extent of warming, no warming for past 16 years etc. Its only when you look in more detail at few 'scientists' it quotes and their affiliations (eg Global Warming Policy Foundation - the UK's biggest climate denial thinktank) that you get an idea of just how abhorrent a piece of blatant political propaganda this feature is. On the lighter side, however, it does contain a few clangers which would make any stand up comic proud. My favourite is this: -

    '..This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall'

    So about 2 years ago, when a rather large hurricane ripped through the heart of New York (Katrina was it?), this was some kind of illusion was it? Staff on this particular UK paper are clearly recruited on basis of their short, though highly selective, memories.

    0 0
  24. Only someone who is totally au fait with all the complexities of the science of Anthropomorphic Climate Change could fabricate such fallacies as these so called journalists. They know quite well what they state is absolute rubbish that has no basis in evidence or logic. The uninformed mass of disinterested people that is their intended target are too naive to see through the emotive lies and misrepresentation of the facts perpetrated by these criminals.

    Fortunately these crimes against humanity are forever written in digital data. When the great reckoning comes, as our species have shown throughout history, the same uninformed masses will come for them with sat nav pitchforks. This being the peak of mechanical technology in our near future! Bert

    0 0
  25. Leedsjon1, the hurricane was Sandy and it was not a Cat3. Indeed it couldn't be, it had grown in size way too much to remain a high category (which is dependent on the highest wind speed generated), considering it was something like 800 miles in diameter. The barometric pressure and storm surge were still worthy of notice, as New York residents can attest. Cat 3 or not, it flooded the New-York  Subway just the same.

    0 0
  26. leedsjon1 @23.

    You actually refer to a second article from the Rail on Sunday that appeared the week following the Sea Ice "story". (It is thus probably off-topic but what the heck.) This second article was also substantially revised (with a new headline) the following Tuesday.

    In this second article, the genuine scientists quoted (except I wouldn't place Judy Curry in this category) are as manipulated-beyond-credence as is the scientific analysis. CarbonBrief has contacted a few of those who's words were so corrupted by don't-let-the-truth-spoil-a-good-story journalist* David Ruse.

    The Tuesday ammendment shows the measure of the Rail as a news outlet. The original headline on that second story was:-

    World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said.

    This assertion was based on Ruse comparing the future model projections of 0.2ºC/decade rise with the rise 1950-2012 of 0.12ºC/decade, none of which has changed let alone halved. The story promised apples but delivered poisoned potatoes.

    Perhaps this was a step too far even for the Rail, or perhaps they felt they had missed a trick, because following Tuesday's revision the headline reads:-

    World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

    The comparison used now is with the temperatures of the last 15 years which apparently rose by 0.05ºC/decade.

    Whilst this ungrammatical "...just QUARTER what..."quote should be considered as a jaw-dropping statement, I would point out that it is in reality jaw-droppingly welcome from a serial miscreant like Ruse. Last October he was telling the Rail's readers*:-

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

    So within the last eleven months, according to the incisive analysis of invetigitive reporter David Ruse, the world's temperature must have risen at a rate in excess of 0.5ºC/decade.

    * These words are used in a sense beyond their normal meaning. A journalist is normally expected to write fact-based copy and the word 'readers' would usually imply more than looking at the headlines and grind their teeth.

    0 0
  27. Jubble @20 - Keep in touch, and we'll do what we can. Please bear in mind however, that Richard Lawson who has recent experience in these matters told me recently that:

    The PCC has less teeth than an edentulous blobfish that has been to a obsessional dentist for a total dental clearance, then spent 10 minutes in a food mixer on its highest setting, followed by three days in a bath of concentrated sulphuric acid.

    Whilst we wait and see what the PCC can come up with, if anything, we're continuing to take matters into our own hands on video (if this works!):

    The Great White Con - Update 1 from Jim L. Hunt on Vimeo.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Reduced Video Player width to 450.

  28. John @ 21, why is there a disconnect between Astralian public opinion about climate change and Tony Abbott's election as Prime Minister? I assume it is due to few people making this a single-issue election. IMHO, Labor was so on the nose that voters abandoned them. Tony Abbot did not win on his own merits: Labor lost on its disunity. I do not hold the opinion that Abbott has a mandate to trash every public global warming agency, as he has already done. Vote Compass clearly showed that most of us want more action, not Abbott's anemic Direct inAction Policy. Come back, Malcolm Turnbull, you are needed!

    0 0
  29. David Rose is not only a climate change denier, he is also a (-snip-)

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Respectfully, this conversation needs to stay focused on the specifics related to climate science and the denial of it...and not to matters of personal failings.

  30. David Rose's twitter feed Bob Ward of the LSE is also intending to take the Mail on Sunday to the PCC.

    0 0
  31. I would have thought that if a journalist can be shown to have deliberately made erroneous statements on a topic that is very likely to do great harm to their country, it is not the PCC that should be called in to investigate, it is the Crown Prosecution Service, unless treason has ceased to be a criminal offence, of course. 

    0 0
  32. I have some modest success to report at long last. We have contrived to persuade The Mail to retract the most outrageous of the headline numbers concerning Arctic sea ice that they published on September 8th. They have of course endeavoured to blame the NSIDC for their own shortcomings:

    Next we'll try and persuade The Telegraph to follow in the Mail's illustrious footsteps. Then of course there's all those other inaccuracies that they both still need to make amends for!

    0 0
  33. The latest enstallment from David Ruse of the Daily Rail complete with 'apology'. I did wonder if his "60% ice loss" story resulted from such a typo (2.38 sq km not 1.38 sq km). He is of course entirely innocent  He blames it all on the evil NSIDC.

    In this latest installment, Rose is very strong on the "It was the Rail wot done it," it being them who exposed the 17-years-without-a-rise and also that the start date was before the El Nino of 1998. You have to ask though - if it was 17 years, how come the Rail only managed to spot it last year?

    And his HadCRUT data, as well as being cherrypicked are also not very accurate. "David, it is 0.405 for June 1997 & 0.514 for July 2013. And your claimed start-date for the pause (January 1997) was 0.204."

    However Rose has reined back on some of his nonsense. Back in March he told us the temperatures were "about to crash out" of the "95%  degree of certainty" zone. Today it is only "very likely that by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the ‘90 per cent probability’ range." So who knows. By the end of the year it might be only an outside chance that Rose is within 1 sd of reality.


    0 0
  34. I heard a garbled newspaper review of today's Mail revision (as highlighted by MA Rodger) above, so I visited the article to see what it actually said.

    In addition to the blaming the NSIDC for the previous error, I noticed an interesting slight of hand with the images that accompany the article.  There are two comparison images, the first captioned "NASA satellite images showing the spread of Arctic sea ice 27th August 2012" and the second captioned "And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013".  Yes, it was an image from 2013, but the image itself bears the date of August 15th.  Now, what do you suppose happens between August 15th and August 27th?

    Take a look at the side-by-side comparisons on the UIUC Cryosphere Today Site.  Here's August 15th and here's August 27th.  Of course they both show a story of greater ice area in 2013, but - especially the 27th comparison - is not the story that Rose tells in the article.

    0 0
  35. AnotherBee - We covered that point here.  We are continuing to pursue that issue and many others with both the Mail and the PCC.

    In case it's of some interest, here's our latest video report, hot off the presses, which covers the Mail's recent "revision" and also touches on the mismatched dates issue:

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Reduced Video Player width to 450.

  36. The Mail on Sunday's "retraction" yesterday didn't amount to the proverbial hill of beans, so here's our latest report deconstructing the recent "Shock news!" about "And now it’s global COOLING!":

    0 0
  37. The Mail on Sunday's erroneous Arctic sea ice headlines were repeated by The Sunday Telegraph, amongst numerous others. We have now extracted a similarly grudging "correction" from The Telegraph too:

    However we are far from satisified with the responses we have elicited thus far. Watch this space!

    0 0
  38. The Telegraph are playing hard to get when it comes to further "corrections". They've literally turned the World on its head in their more recent Arctic sea ice coverage! Here we berate their "Head of News" for that and other "inaccuracies" and "misrepresentations":

    There's even a video revealing a yacht happily sailing through David Rose's "unbroken ice sheet":

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Reduced Video Player width to 450.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

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