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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next

Comments 61551 to 61600:

  1. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Jigoro Kano at 01:11 AM on 3 June, 2011 says

    Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft.

    What's your suggestion for a mitigation policy? (forgive me if I missed it in some previous post of yours. I did not follow your whole conversation.)
  2. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 3 June, 2011

    The variable price of electricity depending of demand is a great idea. FF subsidies are another thing I'm sure we agree to ban. I don't think that alone can balance the externality problem of GHG emissions, though.

    Good to know you admit the existence of some government. I've had less productive debates in the past. Paraphrasing Einstein, the solution to a problem should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that.
  3. Bob Lacatena at 01:25 AM on 3 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    197, Eric,
    And if you insist on making my "out of context" quote into an issue, why don't you defend the remarks that I left out? Do you really believe that funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime against humanity?

    Did you really say that?

    Do you really not get it?

    Can you really not see how you've twisted things?

    Go back and re-read the full Hansen quote, in context. If you need to, underline the parts you think are important.

    Then re-read what you said at first.

    Then re-read what you just posted.

    Can you not see the differences, and the point?

    Hints: No one ever said or implied anything as ridiculous as "funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime." You are either purposely or foolishly misunderstanding and twisting people's positions.
  4. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric the Red at 22:34 PM on 2 June, 2011

    Carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade: I agree. C&T looks beautiful in theory, but it's all too vulnerable corruption. The carbon tax is simpler to understand and enforce. Besides, it's a much clearer price signal to investors of renewables.

    Never heard of the idea of phasing it out. The idea would be to gradually increase it to garantee the complete phase out of fossil fuels. Unless we find a way to efficiently sequester carbon from the air, much of the coal will have to stay on the ground. I only see it happening if we keep it prohibitive.
  5. apiratelooksat50 at 01:19 AM on 3 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    DB at 192
    My statement in #2 was referring to the last phrase of the referenced paragraph. "starting points"

    And, thanks, I am in a walking boot and stitches are out.
  6. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom Curtis @ 193

    Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft. What then is the difference between me as individual redistributing your money to me, or having a third party (the government) do it on my behest. Carbon tax schemes simply facilitate this redistribution. By the way a de facto carbon tax is already in place. Looking at Exxon Mobil 2010 financial statements you will see $28.5 billion was collect as sales tax. Ostensibly, these monies are to cover road and highway maintains. In actuality, 1/3 of those collection support public transportation. So although I do not ride light rail I pay for it. Every public transit system, e v e r y one, in the US loose money every year. The sole occasional exception (twice is the last 13 years) is MTA (NY city transit).

    And all these transit systems are horribly inefficient. You need only consider the resistive breaking systems and idle waste.

    Making gas more expensive (carbon tax) will at best make us all poorer, at worst make us poorer and move oil company headquarters...redistributing an industry to a more friendly countries. Likely this move will increase the companies bottom line.

    Exxon's 2010 profits before income tax...$53 billion.
    Exxon's 2010 income tax liabilities...$21.5 billion.
    Exxon's 2010 profits after income tax...$31.3 billion.
  7. michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 3 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I still do not see why you insist that fossill fuel companies should get to pollute the air we all live in for free for ever. This pollution that will eventually kill millions of people should be stopped. The method Hansen has proposed to stop this unabated polluion of the atmosphere is to use a carbon tax. Why do you insist that FF companies should get to pollute my air for free?
  8. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Actually, it's not Exxon doing the release of the CO2. They simply provide the drug. Like illegal (and legal) drug operations, they'll buy the cops and judges, and they'll hit hard against anyone who threatens their market. But they will not take responsibility for the results of the addiction. After all, drug use is a choice--right? There is one of the core problems for the libertarian philosophy. The culture that normalizes drug use, smoking, and unlimited fossil fuel consumption starts in childhood. When do children become fully responsible ethical/moral agents capable of simplifying the world into a series of contracts? When do they begin thinking beyond mating (the drive that blots out all other concerns), into their long future? If a young adolescent engages in smoking in order to be cool (attract a mate), as I did (and everyone else I know who smokes), did I have the ability to make a rational choice, knowing the consequences? Tobacco companies and addictive drug suppliers depend on young adolescents not having the ability. Children are easy targets. And once the behavior is normalized, it's very difficult to stop.

    The tremendous growth of the last 150 years is largely based on easy energy and the productive engine of capitalism. Both have been used with very little concern for either the externalities or sustainability. Whose fault is it? Who developed the culture? How is the cultural momentum maintained? When responsibility is subdivided and allowed to be bought and sold like any other commodity, then there is no responsibility.

    Whose responsibility is it, Eric (skeptic), when your carbon escapes your private space and enters mine? Get it out, or I'll start litigation. You'll have another, more complex lawsuit coming when your carbon redirects a third party's infrared heat and causes me discomfort. Ridiculous? It is, but it all lies on the same slope of private property relations.

    Garethman, the "right wing" is not "fringe"; it is currently the cultural norm in the U.S.: capitalism and Christianity. I'm not saying everyone wants or believes these features, but they do dominate everyday cultural reproduction.
  9. Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 3 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric the Red, yes we are different and I agree with you. Alexandre, my ideology is to have the government put the least amount of restriction on market efficiency. For example, I am unable to save money by using less peak power in my not-smart grid despite having lots of energy flexibility, some solar and batteries, etc. The problem is not particularly government but often local governments will run electric monopolies into the ground by preventing rate increases that would allow smart grid or even basic reliable service (in Maryland for example). On the Federal level, almost every Federal energy program is a waste, the Feds should stick to basic research. Many Federal policies work against energy efficiency, for example irradiation of food used mainly to promote long haul shipping. In contrast my local flea market has a ton of wholesome food without any way to spend food stamp money which has to be spent at the large supermarket.

    Tom, property rights with unlimited taxation are hardly rights. And if you insist on making my "out of context" quote into an issue, why don't you defend the remarks that I left out? Do you really believe that funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime against humanity? If so, I disagree most strongly. If not, please explain if Hansen meant something else.

    Utahn, the tobacco analogy is too stretched and is now broken. The science and economics promoted by CATO is not the same as denying the tobacco-cancer link, as the paper JMurphy linked above shows (property rights + rigorous analysis = good policy). CBD: very humorous, but that bar would soon go out of business.
  10. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
    Well, the words before the start of the quotation you give are, "...analysis of model results suggests that...".

    Basically, they found that 'slowdowns' in upper ocean warming similar to what has been observed recently also show up in many model runs... and when they do the reason is consistently that the heat has been deposited deeper in the oceans. That is suggestive but certainly not definitive.
  11. Bob Lacatena at 00:30 AM on 3 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    192, apiratelooksat50,
    On another website...
    People being rude and angry on the Internet? What a shock! Who'd have thunk it?

    So look at a site (like some you have mentioned) where the regulars routinely gang up on and belittle anyone who disagrees with the site's party-line (i.e. WUWT), and treat it as you should when you were the recipient of the vitriol, i.e. get the heck out of there.

    By contrast, look at a site where the conversation tends towards logical dialogue. Because it is a controversial subject with passionate participants, you must expect a fair degree of frustration and anger to eventually get through. But I would point out that if you read most comment threads (not this one, because the subject is so not-science) you will find that the little, subtle digs and the nastiness tend to come from the deniers, and that the number of purely abusive comments is nothing compared to the threads on Watts' or Nova's sites.

    [On those sites, when you start to make incontrovertible scientific points, a legion of people descends with nothing more to do than cast aspersions on the commenters themselves.]

    Most of what you see here is [snip]s and complaints about moderation from deniers who want to be able to unilaterally bypass the comments policy, because they're right so they deserve to get the word out. At the same time, they perceive the gravest personal insults themselves in others' comments (because they literally can't see the difference, they are so blinded by their own anger and personal opinions).

    Sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on with a complaint about either behavior, or moderation, if you think WUWT is a great place to visit.

    ...WUWT and SKS are both good places to start...
    WUWT is not a good place to start, it's a travesty of misinformation, misrepresentation, conspiracy theories, vitriolic anger, and quite simply time wasting.

    Anyone who goes there to do anything but laugh at it is going to come back confused, and anyone who thinks that it is a worthwhile place to go is confused.

    Go to serious places, and study harder and learn more. The moment you see invective -- accusations of fraud or dishonesty, conspiracy or the word "money," anger at professional scientists for doing their jobs (right or wrong in their conclusions) or the implications of the results -- move on. That's not to say that such invective does not have its place. There are definitely dishonest scientists somewhere in the mix, in my opinion, but what the true skeptic should be doing is to develop the understanding, knowledge and skills to be easily able to identify those personalities themselves, without being told by trumpeting ideologues like certain bloggers or blog commenters.

    I agree with the denier statement, but that does not and should not cover skeptics.
    The day I meet an actual skeptic, I'll let you know. Until then, IMO, anyone who thinks they are a skeptic needs to wake up and admit to themselves that they are a denier (yourself included). Until they do so, they are closed to the truth, avoiding the actual facts and science, and fooling themselves by clinging to a belief in what they'd like to be true.

    [Actually I have met true skeptics... that would be anyone who believes in climate change now, because they must have been appropriately skeptical, and appropriately open minded, at some time.]

    The reason that I make those last statements so adamantly is because the science is very, very clear (contrary to denial efforts to portray it otherwise). There are fringe gray areas, where there is room for doubt in degrees, but overall, anyone who actually has studied and understands the science should be very, very afraid. Climate change will not obviously kill anyone in the next decade or two, but our actions are irreversible, and what we do in the next decade or two will almost certainly have dire effects on the lives of our children, grandchildren, and many generations thereafter.

    If you are able to find convenient reasons not to accept that fact, then you are not a skeptic, and you need to study more.
  12. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric (sceptic) wrote: "The paper's argument is that the owner of the establishment owns the air inside of it..."

    Ownership of air?

    Good luck with that.

    "Hey! That's my air you're breathing! There's a $0.25 cent charge per lungfull!"
  13. michael sweet at 00:13 AM on 3 June 2011
    The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    JimHansen draws a conclusion from 6 years of Argo dat abecasue that is all the data that is available. As more comes in it will be added and the result will be more robust. When you add the pre-Argo data you get a longer record.

    As for you wanting to know when China will stop buying coal I agree it may be a while, that depends on the politics. On the other hand, eventually the coal will run out and China will have to stop burning it. It seems to me that you are suggesting that if the time the Faustian bargain comes due is after you are gone you do not care. Some of care about what our children and grandchildren have to deal with.
  14. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric(skeptic): "Exxon is simply protecting their rights to their property." I have not met many libertarians who go to this extreme, so of course they may not be "true" libertarians. So tobacco companies are within their right to deceive the public in order to protect their property too? The tobacco scientists told their companies the same thing, "we have a problem", and their companies did the same thing with that information.

    Garethman: "So for every extreme right wing believer, there will be an extreme left wing ideologue, for every barking mad right wing religionist there will be an evangelical atheist." Really? Is there actual evidence of this fact? I would think it depends on the decade or era you are in, the topic being considered, etc...

    For example, with regard to global warming action, what is the center of belief? Are there more libertarian viewpoints (no regulation of C02) on this issue, or more communist viewpoints (complete government control of C02 emissions)? In my view, the centrist view "some government regulation" exists, but outside the center, far more people take an extremist libertarian view, than take an extremist communist view...
  15. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    EricSkeptic @184,

    1) Hansen does not want to confiscate any property, SFAIK. He wants to tax certain emissions, but taxation is not theft, and is not confiscation of property. At its simplest, any person holding a property right holds that right from the state as societies agent. They hold that right conditional on those conditions imposed by the state in granting the property right, and one of those conditions is the right of taxation.

    Hansen also wants the state not to grant some particular types of property rights in the future, ie, rights to mine coal, oil shale, tar sands, and so on. But these are not property rights currently held, and no person or corporation has a right, of can have a right to compell the state to grant them property rights they do not possess.

    Finally, Hansen also wants the state to not continue granting permission to various entities to continue dumping their rubbish in to the commons, ie, CO2 emissions into air. But the air, as commons is not the property of any individual or corporation, so no individual or corporation has a right to use it as a dumping ground as part of their property rights in any other property.

    2) It is extraordinarily hypocritical of you to first raise Hansen's statements in a misleading way, and then to condemn an explanation of them as "inflammatory". If you read my comments again, I accused nobody of any crime. I said I doubted one of Hansen's premises, and that further doubted a prosecutable case could be made in any event. I clearly stated that a fair minded person could disagree with Hansen on the factual basis in this issue. There is a real question as to what could be considered inflammatory in my 168, except by one keen to take offence and not particularly concerned if the remarks warranted the offence taken. Or perhaps you are defending your right to quote out of context and not be picked up on it?

    3) I quite agree that motivation is a key issue, and did not draw any conclusions about any other funders of CATO for that reason among others. I do not even draw Hansen's conclusion about the fossil fuel industry because I am uncertain about their motives. And frankly, I don't care how carefully you claim to have studied the issue; you daily prove on SkepticalScience that your study has been sloppy, cherry picked or ideologically driven.
  16. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    scaddenup #19 Bern #20

    I have not read the latest Trenberth paper - but I will study it over the weekend. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

    The ocean heat story was done to death here:

    Pay attention to the KL and BP posts - most informative.

    I did not claim 'zero' heat buildup. I said "Other OHC constructions approach zero".

    As far as I know VS is the only 0-2000m Argo analysis. K&D found little or none in the 0-700m layers. P&J found about 0.1W/sq.m in the deep oceans below 2000m. To be pedantic, 0.1 is closer to zero than 0.9.

    e - I never said 'statistically significant in referring to Hansen. I said "Maybe he thought it was significant."

    Would "Maybe he thought it was important" do?
  17. apiratelooksat50 at 23:24 PM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom Curtis @ 138

    1) While the vitriol may do poorly influence the casual reader, the fair minded casual reader will probably be more concerned about the side that sends death threats along with a torrent of vitriol both by email and in blogs;

    Response: I would rather not wade into finger pointing. It accomplishes nothing and only inhibits progress. Both sides are guilty of ill-mannered behavior. On another website I've received death threats and was even accused of "being a Christian", as if it were evil.

    2) While possibly concerned at the frustration so evident in Sphaerica's comments, the fair minded reader would have been more concerned by the casual accusations and insinuations of fraud by scientists which have been posted by deniers on this site over the last two days, and which can be found in overwhelming numbers on denier sites, often accompanied with self congratulating posts about how high a standard of debate, and how polite the debate is on those sites. It is noticable that those accusations and insinuations pass without censor from you, while you argue that the websites that started those accusations are good sites for students to use as sources when studying science.

    Response: I never said such. I stated that WUWT and SKS are both good places to start, but the true sources of information should be the ultimate goal (NASA, NOAA, University of Colorado, etc...).

    3) Any chance of reconciliation between climate science and deniers is entirely illusory and has been for some time. This is because the scientists insist on reporting reality, and its reality that the deniers have a problem with.

    Response: I agree with the denier statement, but that does not and should not cover skeptics.

    [DB] "Response: I never said such."

    Actually, you were counseled against committing such behaviour here.

    BTW, I hope your Achilles tendon is feeling better.

  18. GuillaumeDrapeau at 23:15 PM on 2 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (Part 3: 2005 & 2010 droughts)
    Dear all,
    an article by Espinoza et al. presenting the conditions that led to the 2010 drought just got accepted for publication in GRL. You can find a preprint draft following the link below:

    Another paper by Marengo et al. was accepted in the same journal as well.

    Best regards,

    [DB] Hot-linked URL.

  19. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
    Follow-up ...

    It looks like the missing heat in Earth’s energy budget has been found. Apparently, it’s in the deep ocean. The paper below concludes “the ocean has absorbed considerably more heat than reported by observations, particularly below 700 m”.

    Tracking Earth’s energy: From El Niño to global warming
    Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    May 15, 2011

    Tracking Earth’s energy: From El Niño to global warming
  20. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric(skeptic): what makes you think the fossil fuel companies actually own the carbon they peddle? They are permitted to dig it up and sell it in return for giving the state a cut, but it's not theirs to begin with. If the state (or the majority of voting citizens of the state) decides it doesn't want them to dig it up any more, what legal right do they have to do so?
  21. Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    Eric the Red wrote: "In such a scenario, temperatures would continue to rise as CO2 increased, but the climate sensitivity would be low as only 30% of the observed increase was a result of CO2."

    I've been trying for several minutes now and I still can't get the above to make any kind of sense.

    How much warming is caused by CO2 vs solar vs UHI and so forth is irrelevant to climate sensitivity.

    Climate sensitivity refers to the response of feedbacks to forcings. The only feedback you listed was 10% of warming being due to albedo changes.

    Ergo, the scenario you set up has extremely low climate sensitivity because the only feedback effect which exists is changing albedo and that is generating much less warming than the three forcings and one internal fluctuation you list. You could change your numbers to 90% CO2 / 10% albedo or 0% CO2 / 90% solar / 10% albedo and the climate sensitivity would be exactly the same... determined by a single 10% albedo factor.
  22. Eric the Red at 22:34 PM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    First note that I am not teh same Eric.
    A direct carbon tax may be efficient, as long as it is not set up similar to the European cap and trade. The net result is no net change in CO2 output, with vast profits made by middle men (not to mention abuse). Remember, it was Enron who first proposed a cap and trade, because they wished to make billions off the trading market similar to their profits in the sulfur market. Some argue that they bet their future on the cap and trade market, ultimately leading to their downfall (of course the company was basically a house of cards waiting to fall anyway).
    Going with the assumption in your last paragraph, a combination of government taxes and credits may work best, gradualy phasing out as new technologies become common.
  23. Eric the Red at 22:17 PM on 2 June 2011
    Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    Thanks Ari,
    Other posters seemed unable to comprehend the hypothetical situation, they seemed to get caught up in the actually numbers that I pulled out of the air. I purposely chose a situation were CO2 was the largest factor, but did not predominate, which was my main purpose. In such a scenario, temperatures would continue to rise as CO2 increased, but the climate sensitivity would be low as only 30% of the observed increase was a result of CO2. I would tend to classify papers which portray a low climate sensitivity as pro-agw also, although on a different thread running, I have seen people who believe this called deniers. Interesting dichotomy.
  24. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric (skeptic) at 20:26 PM on 2 June, 2011

    It seems to me that libertarians, in its over-individualistic approach, end up ignoring some emerging properties of collectivities. Diffuse externalities are something that become a problem only when done collectively by large groups. Coase's theorem is rendered useless by the practical impossibility of individual negotiation of rights, even if the externality as a whole is huge and undesired by virtually everyone.

    I see the carbon tax as an efficient way to internalize these externalities. It is also a fine compromise between the need to manage the externality and keeping individual rights as much as possible - it allows much more freedom than direct regulation of who can do what, for instance.

    I understand the Cato approach very similar to Heartland's (feel free to explain some difference I'm failing to grasp): since you cannot solve the problem simply by laissez-faire, the way out they're left with is to deny the problem itself.

    I suggest an exercise of imagination: consider for a moment AGW is real, and the scientific consensus is there just because the evidence points that way. What would be an acceptable policy to tackle this that would respect your ideological beliefs?
  25. Eric the Red at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Definitely. From about 1977-2005, El Ninos predominated. It is too early to extend that trend past 2005. Prior to that (back to 1950), La Ninas predominated. Most publications maintain a cyclical nature to the ENSO index, with a period of about 30 years.
    Much has been written about whether global warming is causing the El Nino increase, or whether the increase in El Ninos has resulted in warmer temperatures. Either way, the connection cannot be denied. Several predictions have been made recently that globally cooler temperatures will prevail this decade due to La Ninas. Stay tuned.
  26. Eric (skeptic) at 20:26 PM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    The paper's argument is that the owner of the establishment owns the air inside of it and his customers can decide whether their health is being risked by being there. That argument and the paper have merit and I support CATO's publishing of it.
  27. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Is anyone else surprised, considering previous examples of AGW deniers also being Smoking/Cancer deniers, that CATO should have published this :

    The Case Against Smoking Bans
  28. Eric (skeptic) at 19:25 PM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    scaddenp, in the actual case of CATO being unacceptably silent on a libertarian issue (bank bailouts in 08) I wrote an email and got a full reply and there was some change eventually. I would do the same for disinformation. Dana, you missed my point, I didn't deny that Exxon funded CATO and I welcome their support of one of my favorite organizations. CATO's support of individual rights is outstanding.

    Tom, is it true that Hansen wishes to confiscate the property of fossil fuel companies or not? I don't see it anything other than true, his proposed fossil fuel tax does not refund any monies to the owners of the fossil fuels. Another point you may not realize is that your 401k is probably invested in some fossil fuel corporations that are not very well known as such. As for my comment being snippable, yes you are basically correct; it violates the policy against inflammatory comments. I made it because of your comment 168 which is also inflammatory. You would probably disagree and I don't envy the moderators, a no-win situation on threads like this that are inherently political and especially this thread which directly speaks to the question of motivation.

    My basic point is this: the difference between deniers like Exxon who funded CATO and myself (whatever label people use) is primarily motivation. Exxon is simply protecting their rights to their property. I defend libertarian principles having carefully studied the lack of direct evidence for CAGW (vice AGW) as well as the practical aspects of policy such as international trade (exporting our carbon emissions to China, etc)
  29. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?

    And what does "complete belief in climate change models" mean, anyway? No modeler holds that view. No serious student of the subject holds that view. Yet, they've proven themselves useful”

    To say no “Modeler?” holds that view is to deny their humanity and give them some sort of quality not usually seen in H.Sapiens.
    I’m looking at the people side of the debate. Humanity covers a wide field of beliefs. Most are not radical. but the fringes are covered in all directions. So for every extreme right wing believer, there will be an extreme left wing ideologue, for every barking mad right wing religionist there will be an evangelical atheist. I note there is the use of the word denier here to describe posters who reject current accepted thought. They could be also called dissidents, dissenters or lots of other titles, but deniers being generally used only in holocaust or climate related subjects is a powerful term. If we take the idea that beliefs in humans are at the end of the day spread out like a bell curve withe majority in the centre and the radical at the fringe, deniers must have an opposite group. I note in reading many passionate responses from pro and anti proponents of established science and belief, but only the anti appear to have been named and quantified. Hence my question. To doubt such a situation exists with regard to how people view the world and this subject could be described as denialist in itself. So how do we describe the mirror image of climate denialists? Posters may feel that the science is objective and largely proven so these theories are not relevant, but humans are still subjective with their own beliefs, especially when all agree there is room for doubt.
  30. Ari Jokimäki at 16:45 PM on 2 June 2011
    Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    Few responses:

    Eric the Red: "For instance, where would you classifiy a paper which concluded that global temperatures were influenced by the following factors in the given percentages? CO2:30%, solar: 25%, UHI: 20%, ENSO: 15:, albedo: 10%."

    As the CO2 is dominant factor, and without knowing anything else about this hypothetical paper, I would put it to "pro-agw" bin.

    The Skeptical Chymist: "1) It would be good to be able to suggest deletion of articles or movement of articles between categories."

    You are welcome to do it here. I have moved the American thinker paper to "online articles" instead of "peer-reviewed". Thanks for the note.

    The Skeptical Chymist: "A paper listed in the 2010 skeptic articles is "Marine Reserves Enhance the Recovery of Corals on Caribbean Reefs", which is also listed under the myth "Corals are resilient to bleaching".
    Having had a quick look at the abstract and introduction it seems this paper is not skeptical about AWG or the threat of coral reef bleaching, but has identified a mechanism which can help reefs recovering faster from bleaching events. IMHO this paper belongs in the neutral section."

    Agreed. I have moved it to "neutral" bin, but if someone disagrees with this, please say so (with justification - simple indication of disagreement doesn't help much).

    Barry: "Hey Ari, nice to see you posting here."

    Thanks. I have actually made a couple of posts here before. One was on deep ocean warming and other one was just recently on a new cosmic ray research. I don't remember if there were other articles too. There's also one in the works right now.

    Pete Dunkelberg: "Your very first word is "Database". I don't know if you mean that, or if you are using a spreadsheet."

    This is a SQL database we're using.
  31. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    John Donovan 181
    That something cooler (an igloo's ice wall for instance) can make something warmer (the igloo's inhabitant), is nothing new, but the article unfortunately attempts to prey on the reader's lack of preparedness on this subject.

    As far a the diagram on back radiation, it shows vectors of equal length pointing up and down, whereas there should be an overall preference for those pointing upward to be greater, for even though the CO2 molecules will in principal want to radiate isotropically, there is a higher probability for this energy to emanate towards "something" cooler (i.e. skyward). This is not unlike resistances in a parallel circuit. As you increase the number of passive resistors in parallel, the resitance decreases.
    Moderator Response: The appropriate thread is 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory .
  32. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    ( -SNIP- )

    [DB] You have been counseled in proper posting here at SkS numerous times now, yet you persist in posting the same ideological off-topic comment that has not passed moderation yet.  If you persist in this endeavor, your participation privileges here at SkS will be rescinded.  Your call.

  33. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Just one note for the fair minded casual reader:

    You will notice that Eric(Sceptic) in his post 169 does not acknowledge that deliberately deceiving people in the full knowledge that it will probably result in hundreds of thousands of deaths is in fact criminal. That should put into context this (as dhogaza puts it) faux outrage.

    You will also notice that in his outrage that anyone should libel anyone, he slips in an utterly baseless accusation that Hansen was motivated in statement because "...he wishes to confiscate the property of those companies...". He even, again without basis accuses Hansen of using a contrived method, ie, of lying about his claims of fossil fuel funding of deniers.

    This clearly puts into context the contrived outrage of the deniers regarding the vitriol from a poster on this thread. Their outrage is entirely without self reflection. Frequent commentators on this site are used to fresh new deniers coming on, posting a screed of nonsense complete with accusations of fraud or worse, including the most belittling language - ie, of treating it as though the standards here are the standards of WUWT. They are then outraged to have their post snipped. Even many long term denier contributors (all for all I know) habitually include sly imputations of fraud, or insulting language on a regular basis, and complain if it is snipped.
  34. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    J Bob, right. How come it looks a lot less terrible complex non-linear if you assume that climate will conform to known physics and is thus a function of total forcings?

    If the warming is coming from some natural cycle, then where is that energy coming from ie - how is 1st Law maintained?
  35. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric, that is an interesting statement. Would you continue to fund CATO if you became convinced that it was funding disinformation?
  36. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric(Skeptic) makes false statements about Hansen in order to promote his faux outrage at being indirectly libeled.

  37. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    KR @ 102 & 127,
    Interesting history of climate4you, but as I noted, I use them as a convenient source of basic data. sites (Hadley, HadCRUT, GISS, etc.), since I prefer to do my own analysis. In the long term temperature plots presented above (J. Bob @ 52), data from Hadley, Debuilt and Rimfrost formed the basis of this ~300 year analysis view.
    Rimfrost was picked up from WUWT, as I have no problem using sources that provide quality information, be it WUWT, RC or whatever.

    The above mentioned figures are only part of a more extensive set used to evaluate long term measured temperature changes. But those figures, seem to sum it up for me anyway, that there is a long term upward trend stretching back to the 1700’s, with various up’s & down’s (including ~50 year almost periodic cycles) along the way. But I don’t see a prominent effect of man induced CO2. What I do see, is a terribly complex non-linear system, that we are only beginning to scratch the surface on, and have a long way to go.

    Hence my feeling is that were are probably in a natural cycle, with some, yet to be qualified, effect do to human intervention.

    Your thoughts.
  38. Poleward motion of storm tracks
    And of course this isn't an isolated phenomenon though relevant in our latitudes... a small tornado observed just yesterday at ~62N.

    Hadley cell response:
    storm intensification over southern ocean:
  39. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric(Skeptic) @169, I'll pause for a moment to ponder the irony of your accusation that Hansen libelled the CEOs of fossil fuel corporations. It is ironic in that it is itself a libel, and (as I understand the law) Hansen's testimony to Congress cannot be a libel even if it were false, for it is protected by privilege. (I'm not a lawyer, still less an American lawyer, so I may well be wrong on that point).

    More importantly, Hansen's claims are not libellous because they are true. In particular, various fossil fuel companies have funded the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Patrick Michaels. They also funded the Global Climate Coalition, and in doing so, it turns out, they acted against the advise of their own scientists.

    As to your criminal status, are you claiming that you are knowingly obfusticating the issue? In this case ignorance of the facts, while puzzling, and irrational, is a defence.
  40. Bibliovermis at 13:33 PM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric (skeptic) / Dana1981 (#169),

    Exxon openly admits that it funds CATO and climate-specific public policy organizations, such as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (

    ExxonMobil: Public Information and Policy Research Contributions (pdf)
  41. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you only interested in baiting rationalists?
  42. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    e 171

    Got it e...I'll make adjustments which meet your approval...I think. But cyber stalking, what the "heck" are talking about?

    [DB] Try reading the Comments Policy, which spells that out for you.  Focus on the science, not the individual.

  43. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Sphaerica, DB, e,

    Lets see:
    Skeptics are Holocaust deniers, L.J. Ryan will believe in climate change when you pry the gas can from his cold, dead fingers. To be very clear, it is not the production of fossil fuels alone which potentially makes the CEOs of fossil fuel companies guilty of crimes against humanity, rather, it is the deliberate and knowing dissemination of misinformation the probable, and subsequent consequence of which is mass deaths.

    And my comments are too controversial (-SNIP-)...or do you fear loosing the undecided readers?

    Which of the Comment Policies did my deleted posts violate?
    Moderator Response: [e]

    Accusations of deception, idealogical rants and comparisons to religion, as well as cyber stalking.

    In general this thread has a bit more leeway due to the subject matter, but your deleted comments crossed the line. Note that cyber stalking is especially frowned upon, and typically results in banning. Please use this as a guideline for what is acceptable in the future.

  44. Eric (skeptic) at 11:51 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom, the parts of Hansen's quote that I left out and you put back make a case of libel by Hansen even stronger. The "crimes against humanity" include funding for textbooks. Does he have factual examples of such funding?* Otherwise it is not his first amendment right to accuse people of crimes, it is simply libel (calling it "opinion" was not deemed a defense by the Supreme Court). HIs motive is clear, he wishes to confiscate the property of those companies for what he deems to be a greater good. His method is clear: accuse them of nonspecific crimes using guilt by association with the tobacco companies.

    * I consider a reply such as "Exxon funded CATO" is a direct accusation against me to be either a small-time criminal or a useful idiot, since I am a long-time CATO sponsor at $100-200 per year.

    [dana1981] Um, Exxon has funded Cato.  That's not an accusation, it's a fact.

  45. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    Ken, if you're a genuine sceptic, then you will have skin thick enough to ignore comments such as SouthWings (which I expect the moderators may soon notice & perhaps do something about).

    On the other hand, your call to 'address the numbers' is quite appropriate. The post above yours, by scaddenp, does just that, and asks you for the OHC reconstructions that you're referring to in your earlier post. I'd like to see them too, because claiming there has been zero OHC buildup over the past decade or so is an extraordinary claim, and I'm sure you know what that requires.

    Note that we're interested especially in deep ocean heat, not just surface waters, as per Trenberth's paper that dana1981 linked in the reply to your post up above.
  46. Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
    RyanStarr @7, if you look closely at the red line on the graph, you will see small circles indicating each decadal average. The 10 year difference, and the additional extension on the graph compared to that printed by Lungqvist is the range between the last circle, and the second last circle, or about 0.35 degrees C.

    The error in Lungvist's reconstruction in the final decade, as is easily determined from the NOAA data, is only 0.332 degrees. It should be noted that the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval peaks at 0.377 in the middle ages (950-959). That is 0.011 degrees less than the instrumental record for the 1990s, and over 0.4 degrees less than the instrumental record for the 2000s. Even allowing an allowing an error in the 950s as large as that in the 1990s, the temperature anomaly (reconstructed plus 1990s error) is still only 0.528 degrees, still around 0.3 degrees below the level of the 2000s. The probability that any decade in the last 2010 years has been hotter than the 2000s is very remote.

    I do not know where to find the Hadcrut 90 to 30 degree index, but out of curiosity I compared the 1990-1999 average with the 2000-2009 average. The difference is 0.243 degrees. As that includes the tropics, which are noted for much lower increase in temperature, the 0.35 degree increase for the extratropics is very plausible. If you doubt it, the onus is on you to look up the extratropical data and make a comparison.
  47. Bob Lacatena at 10:49 AM on 2 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    13, 20, Michael Hauber,

    Trends are very, very sensitive to end point selection. As it turns out, the late seventies through about 1989 saw an extended period of El Nino activity, so any starting point in that range is going to make it look like a flat or negative trend (i.e. you're starting warm). At the same time, 2010 began with an El Nino and ended with a La Nina, so it matters whether you pick the 2010 calendar year, or something else.

    For example, try this link to see the trend for 1975 (a mild La Nina) to 2009 Nov-Oct, which would end prior to the 2010 El Nino, and shows a mild but clear warming trend.

    I'm not saying that's the right trend to pick. I'm saying it's sensitive to end points, and as such maybe looking at sea surface temps isn't the right way to do it at all.

    Looking at pure ENSO graphs might be better (but you still have to understand what you're really looking at, of course):

    or this

    But the trend towards more El Nino's in the last 30 years seems pretty clear (which explains your level or dropping temperature trend... if it's always El Nino, then it's going to look flat or negative).
  48. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    KL - I missed something. As far as I know, Von Schuckmann and La Traon is the only published estimate of 0-2000 OHC for the Argos period, and that was a discussion paper on precision of ocean indicators. What other OHC constructions are you referring to and have they been published yet? I know of older 0-700m estimates.
  49. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric(Skeptic) @145, I think a fair minded casual reader would recognise that it is unethical to use a quotation out of context in order to attribute to a person a more extreme view than that which he actually holds. Hansen testified before Congress that:

    "... Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.

    Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated,
    including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

    (My emphasis)

    A fair minded person would recognise that deliberate deception which probably will, and subsequently does result in death is, or should be a crime. If I knowingly advise you that a nearby acid bath is in fact a pool of water, and encourage you to dive in, should you dive in I am ethically responsible for your death, and should be tried for murder. The probable consequences of global warming include hundreds of thousands, potentially billions of premature deaths. Deliberate and knowing deception that leads to hundreds of thousands of deaths is mass murder, ie, a crime against humanity. That the deaths will probably occur decades after the act is of no consequence.

    Hansen believes that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies know that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and that it will cause the death of thousands. I am not certain that they do know that, and doubt such a claim would stand up in a court of law in the absence of revealing internal documentation as was found in the tobacco companies.

    What I do know is that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies have no excuse for not recognising the possible consequences of fossil fuel use from 1990 (publication of the IPCC First Assessment Report) and its probable consequence by 2001 (the IPCC Third Assessment Report). I also know that they have funded organisations which are major disseminators of denier misinformation, and several cases the same organizations that disseminated (and where paid to disseminate) misinformation for the tobacco lobby. There is at least a prima facie case that the fossil fuel industry has acted in the way Hansen describes. Therefore his opinion is rational, if probably unsustainable in court.

    To be very clear, it is not the production of fossil fuels alone which potentially makes the CEOs of fossil fuel companies guilty of crimes against humanity, rather, it is the deliberate and knowing dissemination of misinformation the probable, and subsequent consequence of which is mass deaths. A fair minded person might doubt the evidence is sufficient to conclude the CEOs have acted in this way, but they would not doubt there is evidence to suggest that they have, and nor do I believe they would doubt that such activity should be criminal.

    What the fair minded reader also would conclude is that, apparently, you have truncated the context of Hansen's quote in order to make his opinion seem more extreme. They would consider that unethical, because plainly it is. It is possible, of course, that you have merely made the accusation against Hansen without checking the context. The fair minded reader would probably find making accusations on partial information also unethical.

    Finally, the fair minded person would probably consider making accusations of crimes against humanity against people for accepting, and acting on the consensus of 97% of experts in a field, with no forseeable consequent deaths is unacceptable. They would probably be even more appalled when such accusations are made to an audience, a significant number of whom are known to be sending death threats to prominent people whose opinions they disagree with. They might consider such accusations a form of incitement. But that is exactly the accusation that Christopher Monckton has made against former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.
  50. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    Ken >"Why would Jim Hansen draw a conclusion from a 6 year period at all? Maybe he thought it was significant.",

    The problem arises when you blindly extrapolate short term trends to draw conclusions about the long term without considering the underlying physics. That does not imply that one cannot analyze short term periods at all, which would be a ridiculous claim.

    You are also confusing "statistically significant" with "significant" as in important or noteworthy. Six years are not enough to establish a statistically significant long term global trend, and Hansen never claimed otherwise. That does not mean that those years are unworthy of study or discussion. You are conflating two distinct concepts and arguing a strawman.

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next

The Consensus Project Website



(free to republish)



The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2016 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us