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  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  1292  1293  1294  1295  Next

Comments 64351 to 64400:

  1. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    RobertS - Fair enough, I have perhaps not been sufficiently clear on the terminology. However: Are you asserting that a trend line cannot be determined (as a statistical evaluation, within stated and computed limits of uncertainty) from the data? I ask because that is the apparent direction of your recent comments. And if this is not what you are asserting - then what is your issue with such statistical analyses? Quite frankly, I'm finding difficult to ascertain your point...
  2. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Pirate: "Ultimately, any reviews of books on AGW (whether from the skeptic viewpoint or the believer viewpoint) are going to be heavily biased." Oh, absolutely. Some reviewers will say that the peer-reviewed consensus science is very likely to be correct, and that it mandates an intelligent response from reasonable people. And others will say that Michael Mann is a lying communist stooge who was sent by George Soros to destroy capitalism, depopulate the world by 80 percent and leave a handful of cave-dwelling survivors to gnaw twigs by the light of phosphorescent lichen. So yeah, these views are equally biased and we can write 'em both off. That's just common sense, right?
  3. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Dale, But since the book looks to be more about Mann's sob story than any real science, I wouldn't have read it regardless. So you don't know what the book is actually like, and you're not at all interested in finding out. Very illuminating. Thanks for sharing.
  4. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    RobertS @124, tell me the last time you saw a temperature. Indeed, we cannot even detect temperatures with our sense of touch. What we detect is the rate of heat transfer through the skin, and that in non-quantifiable terms.
  5. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    RobertS @121:
    "I believe Briggs overall point is that the frequentist interpretation of confidence intervals is not intuitive, which begets confusion.
    I don't know if that is Briggs main point, but if it is, well yes (obviously), but they do not introduce anywhere near the confusion Briggs has with his comments. And speaking of which:
    "And that confidence/credible intervals of observables is preferable to confidence intervals of model parameters.
    The distinction being made here is arbitrary, and without any justification in epistemology. As Briggs (and you) are using the distinction, the temperature at a specific time and location is an observable, but the GMST (Briggs) and the linear regression of the GMST over a period (you) are not. However, respectively, the GMST is determinable by an (in principle) simple calculation. It is rendered difficult not by any fundamental issue, but by limitations in the available observational data set. And once you have a time series of the GMST, determining the linear trend is an even simpler calculation with no in principle difficulties. Your distinction appears to be, therefore, a distinction between data obtained by "direct" observation, and data derived by mathematical manipulation of data obtained by direct observation. But as has been noted previously, there are no direct observations of temperature. Rather, we directly observe the length of a column of mercury or alcohol. Or we directly observed the degree of bending of a bi-metal strip. Or we directly observe the current in a circuit (by observing the position of a needle). Converting any of these "direct" observations into temperature data involves calculations just as much as determining the linear regression of a time series. At the most fundamental level, all that is actually observed (visually) is progression of patterns in colours on a two dimensional field. If you are going to make a distinction between observing temperatures, and observing slopes, there is no in principle distinction that will keep you from limiting "direct observation" to that simple descriptions of that visual field (and good luck developing any physics on that basis). In practice we do not make the distinction between what we observe, and what we can know from what we observe except pragmatically (and because pragmatically, based on the needs of particular situations). Briggs appears not to recognize that, and wishes to reify a pragmatic distinction. To which the only appropriate response is, more fool him.
  6. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    KR @122 Model parameters like slope are, by definition, unobservable. That is, they cannot be measured, observed, detected, identified, and thus, verified in the real world.
  7. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    In case you haven't seen, Briggs had previously attempted to quantify the credible interval on the observables for the BEST record here, with the result being greatly increased uncertainty in temperature estimates.
  8. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    RobertS - "Slope in a linear regression of either temperatures or GCM output, however, is still an unobservable parameter" What, in the vast world, are you talking about? That's complete nonsense. Slopes are a completely observable quantifiable (including uncertainties) value (see Tamino on this very topic). you're sounding as bad as Rumsfeld with his "unknown unknowns"... Spatial correlations of temperatures ("a place on the Earth where we haven't sampled") are extremely well established (Hansen et al 1987), and Briggs is simply arguing semantics, not numbers. You have most certainly not presented evidence to the contrary. I look forward to Brigg's further posts. Although, based upon what I've read so far, I don't expect anything beyond a confirmation of his biases, poorly supported excuses, and misinterpretations...
  9. Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
    skywatcher - Agreed; Greenland is a prime candidate for steady increases in ice loss/sea level rise, while Antarctica is a risk for jumps in sea level due to grounded glaciers cutting loose. Either way, folks (are you listening, Steve Case?) rises on the order of 1mm/day are entirely possible, given that warming is something like an order of magnitude faster than anything in the paleo record. And hence, so are the possibilities of sea rise rates. Personally, I'm not encouraging coastal real estate investments for anyone I know...
  10. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    Muoncounter @107 "In this case there are physical models and they predict a slope that is verified by the observables." When I say "slope", I mean the b quantity in a simple linear regression model y=a+b*x+e. If you want to argue that climate models skillfully predict actual temperature - something your source doesn't attempt to show - or that the slope in a linear regression of temperatures is insignificantly different from that of climate models, that is one thing (exactly what the latter means I can't say for certain). Slope in a linear regression of either temperatures or GCM output, however, is still an unobservable parameter - it's not a measurable, identifiable feature of the data itself, but of your particular model - and cannot be verified. Unobserved observables are quantities which can be measured, but haven't been. So that could be the temperature measured at a particular station some time in the future, or simply a place on the Earth where we haven't sampled. Tom Curtis @108 I agree that a "classical predictive interval" would be similarly wide as a Bayesian interval, and Dikran has indeed shown the credible interval of the regression to be comparable to the classical interval, but I believe Briggs overall point is that the frequentist interpretation of confidence intervals is not intuitive, which begets confusion. And that confidence/credible intervals of observables is preferable to confidence intervals of model parameters. Briggs is part-way through a new series of posts about time series analysis, model selection, and how to treat uncertainty. Maybe it will help clear up some confusion about his position.
  11. Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
    #58: West Antarctica is buttressed by two great ice shelves, the Ross and the Ronne-Filchner. As we have already seen on the Antarctic Peninsula, ice shelves can spectacularly collapse in very short spaces of time, leading to great armadas of icebergs (Larsen A & B, Wilkins - video). If the main ice shelves go, sea levels will suddenly rise much more quickly as the grounded glaciers that are buttressed by the ice shelves accelerate. An interesting paper on a past example driven by warming seas. Ultimately, gradual acceleration is most likely with Greenland (and is observed), while West Antarctica has the potential for more sudden acceleration, but isn't presently losing mass so fast.
  12. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Thanks for writing this, John. Mike M. is a true science hero, and deserves support.
  13. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    pirate#18: "Books of this nature are not going to sway the other side, but may recruit lukewarmers." Consider these January 2012 US poll results: A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 64% say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, including 30% who say it’s Very Serious. That suggests that 34% are in the 'somewhat serious' camp; you might call them 'lukewarmers.' If that large a population might be reached by Mann's book, it is very worthwhile effort. It is also a worthwhile effort to publicize the vile tactics in use by the deniers. "nothing on this issue will be resolved by any amount of posts here. It is an exercise in futility." I am sure there are quite a few folks who have learned a lot from posts here. Is education an exercise in futility? If so, why are you a teacher?
  14. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Just wanted to post another reminder to those folks who will be in Southern California next week -- Dr. Mann will be speaking at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach (in the greater LA area) on Feb 15. Details here General public admission is only five US bucks. That means that you will have plenty of money left over to buy a copy of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" for Dr. Mann to sign. Just think of it -- your very own signed copy of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars".... occupying prime real-estate on your coffee table, just waiting for your favorite denier in-law to see it. Then when your denier relative starts ranting about Mann's "hockey-stick fraud", you can open the book and say to him, "Look at this: It's even signed by the author." Then grab a bag of popcorn and watch the show!
    Response: [JC] converted your URL into a hyperlink, it was stretching out my web design.
  15. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    apiratelooksat50@18 "Ultimately, any reviews of books on AGW (whether from the skeptic viewpoint or the believer viewpoint) are going to be heavily biased." Belief is not required when evidence exists. True Skeptics draw their conclusions from available evidence. True Believers dont require facts to base their beliefs on. in other news... I wish I had time to read the book before I go and see him speak at the Long Beach (California) Aquarium next Wednesday. Any other locals planning to attend?
  16. Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
    Fred Staples @30, are you suggesting that the Hadley Center did not use the data in constructing the graph? Regardless you are using a very simplistic analysis. By eye, the weighting function above 10 Km of the TMT channel represents approximately one quarter of the channel weight. I will use 0.2 to be conservative. From 1979-2002 the positive trend over the altitude range of 0-10 Km has been 0.1 C per decade according to HADAT. Over the same period, the average over the range 10-20 Km has been around -0.5 C per decade. The effect is then that over the whole channel the trend is (-0.5 x 0.2) + (0.1 x 0.8) = -0.1 + 0.08 = -0.02. These figures are of course very inexact. They merely serve to show that looking solely at the relative area of the weighting function to determine the effect on the trend is a gross distortion. It may require 22 years to find statistically significant cooling at 15.75 Kms, but it is still a cooling trend, and a larger cooling trend than the warming trend in the troposphere. Therefore it significantly distorts the TMT channel as a measure of tropospheric temperature trends. Pretending otherwise is nothing but wishful thinking.
  17. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    "In the end, nothing on this issue will be resolved by any amount of posts here. It is an exercise in futility. Energies could be better focused elsewhere. " If "by this issue" you mean "is the book any good?", then I agree. If you mean "is our theory of climate valid", then posts here help those who want to find out what the science says. It wont help those who have made up there minds on an issue from ideological or other biases that are immune to data.
  18. Daniel J. Andrews at 14:37 PM on 9 February 2012
    Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Glad there's a Kindle version. I'll be able to read it while away. John, I did find your review helpful so indicated that on Amazon after I bought the book.
  19. Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
    Skywatcher #55, thanks Mean annual rate of ice mass loss Greenland: 200-300 Gt Mean annual rate of ice mass loss Antarctica: 70-210 Gt Permafrost warming: 0.5°C to 2° Freshening of part of the Arctic Ocean: 2006–08 increase 8400 ± 2000 km3 http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Goni_etal_2011.pdf I am prepared to worry about either or both but I still don't quite see why Antarctica should be favoured eventhough the WAIS is indeed perhaps more prone to melt at its base. Is there evidence (yet)? In favour of "Artic worries" might be the the permafrost melt run-offs draining into Arctic waters. Am I being obtuse?
  20. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    Working link. Comparing the Cost
  21. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    This is the best place I found for this. In the Resources>climate graphics http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=11 the link to Watkiss et al (2005) link does not work on the graphics page. It does work on the graph on this page. Please delete this.
    Response:

    [DB] The correct link is:

    http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/docs/final_report2_en.pdf

  22. Still Going Down the Up Escalator
    Hi Dikran Marsupial -- does your Bayesian analysis correct for autocorrelation? What you've done is really cool, and is something I should learn how to do! But I wonder if autocorrelation in the series would widen your credible interval.
  23. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Note that there is also a 'Report Abuse' link for each review on the book's Amazon page. Several 'reviews' are indeed abusive and will be removed (eventually) if enough people click that link.
  24. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Dale, I don't see the book as a sob story and that's not what I took from it. I see it as an insight into the tactics of those who oppose climate science and an eye-opener at the sheer weight and longevity of the attacks. You have to read the book in detail to fully appreciate the anti-science campaign that is currently being waged and it is in the public interest that we are all aware of what's happening here. Considering all the crap he's been forced to withstand, Mike Mann is remarkably up-beat and chipper.
  25. apiratelooksat50 at 13:54 PM on 9 February 2012
    Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Dana at 9 and Rob at 7 My apologies. I should have written my post more clearl. I was commenting on this statement from you: "I strongly encourage people to follow John's link to Amazon, read the reviews for yourself, and rate them as you feel appropriate to try and counteract the WUWT behavior." It seemed like you were encouraging people to read and rate reviews and not read the book. If that is a misinterpretation - my apologies again. Ultimately, any reviews of books on AGW (whether from the skeptic viewpoint or the believer viewpoint) are going to be heavily biased. The same reviewers can be found on either side of the demarcation line giving 1 or 5 star reviews depending on their personal views. And, in many cases the the book is never read, or only partially read. For instance, Professor Mandia negative 1-star review on Laframboise's anti AGW book was the following: "...After reading about 50 pages, and it was a struggle to go that far,...". He may have read further, but we honestly don't know. His 5-star review on Mann's book was obviously extensive and glowing. The point is this. People are going to believe what they believe on extremely polarizing subjects like this. Books of this nature are not going to sway the other side, but may recruit lukewarmers. Both sides appear to be actively recruiting positive/negative reviews and helpful/unhelpful ratings. In the end, nothing on this issue will be resolved by any amount of posts here. It is an exercise in futility. Energies could be better focused elsewhere.
  26. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Dale - have a good look at the title of the book. "The Hockey Stick And the Climate Wars" and the sub-title ..... "Dispatches From The Front Lines". And you were expecting a science textbook? Or what?
  27. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    And bill, it's pretty obvious from @12 that I haven't read the book (and don't intend to due to Mandia's review). If you didn't see that in my post, maybe you need to go to specsavers as skywatcher so eloquently put.
  28. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    jzk @69, I was about to ask you to pay closer attention to the actual argument made above, which focuses on comparing the regional distribution of the MWP warmth, compared to the global distribution of the warmth in recent decades. That is, I believe, a valid comparison, and a valid point to make from that comparison (with caution). However, on rereading the article I noticed the concluding sentence, which while correct, is not supported by the figures shown. So not only does the article not caution against the invalid conclusion (from the evidence presented) that you caution against, it appears to implicitly draw that conclusion, and needs to be revised. Having said that, the final sentence is well supported by other evidence, notably by Mann et al 2008, which shows these figures in the supplementary data: You should notice that in all three series, the temperature in 1998 (the highest shown in the instrumental series) is greater than the upper confidence limit for the highest decade in the MWP. Therefore, the concluding sentence above (intermediate) level, while not supported by the figures in the article is well supported by scientific evidence.
  29. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Totally agree with Albatross and Bill. I won't post opinions on the book until I have read it. Anything less is not critique, its advocacy.
  30. Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
    Oamoe, One should look at all the metrics and consider the big picture. But given that people have been speaking about OHC. Here is the 0-700 m and the 0-2000 m OHC data from NOAA-- note this represents the analysis from one of about seven groups who analyze the OHC data. Nevertheless, these figures refute claims made by Pielke and fake skeptics that the oceans have not been accumulating heat in recent years-- global warming continues, albeit it at varying rates (as it is expected to do). It is interesting Pielke Senior insists that THE metric for quantifying global warming is the OHC (well that is when he thought it supported the argument that the warming had stopped and by cherry picking a short time window). In contrast though, Michaels is using the error plagued satellite estimates of lower tropospheric temperature and he too has had to cherry pick a statistically insignificant short time window starting with a super El Nino and ending with a moderate/strong La Nina to hide the incline. So the fake skeptics cannot even decide amongst themselves which metric to use to quantify global warming. What they they are consistent in doing and what they are in agreement on is cherry pick those data which at any give time support their ideological agenda and cherry picking statistically insignificant short time windows. With error bars for 0-2000 m: With error bars for 0-700 m: [Source]
  31. Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
    Steve Case, your argument from incredulity is just that. Just because you have a hard time imagining the collapse of an ice sheet, and the resulting pulse of sea level rise, does not negate the plausibility of it happening. Meltwater Pulse 1A had 20m SLR in ~200 years, a mean of 0.26mm/day for two hundred years. Assuming a sigmoidal curve for the pulse, which is certainly reasonable, the peak sea level rise was quite possibly close to, or even larger than, 1mm/day. This is a matter of palaeoclimatic record, and we presently have two ice sheets (Greenland and West Antarctica) that have been known to be a great deal smaller in global conditions with this much CO2 in the atmosphere.
  32. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Dale - evidence for the following, please.
    It's obvious that both "sides" are going in and contaminating the waters. The negative reviews slamming Mann and the book in my opinion are the same as the positive reviews literally fawning over Mann like he's a deity.
    Oh, I see -
    the book looks to be more about Mann's sob story than any real science,
    No, you really haven't read it, have you? I put it to you that what we have here is "Fake Skeptic Adopts 'View from Nowhere' Strategy in Unconvincing Attempt to Claim Evenhandedness" tone-trolling! Anyone shocked?
  33. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    So Dale, did you read the reviews? Did you notice the difference between the comprehensive and thorough reviews giving it 5*s by people who evidentially had read the book, and were even not afraid to critcise aspects they didn't like. On the other hand you have 1* reviews that compare Mann to a "turd", usually a short paragraph, giving no indication they'd actually read the book. If you can't spot the difference between the two, I suggest you go to Specsavers...
  34. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Composer99 @71, it is true that some fake skeptics of climate science argue explicitly or implicitly that it was warmer throughout the MWP than it has been over the last two decades. Such a claim is implicit, for example, in any claim about the vikings "growing vinyards in Greenland". Leaving aside the fact that that claim is false, and conflates two true claims (there where viking settlements in Greenland, and wine was grown in the MWP in England); farmer and particularly medieval farmers did not switch cropping practices on an annual or even decadal basis. They where very conservative because a failed innovation literally meant starvation. Therefore, for the vikings to have grown crops in Greenland, Greenland must have been warmer than current temperatures not just for a decade or two, but for centuries. In fact, the comparison above (intermediate level) does show that that Greenland was as warm as the current decade for centuries in the MWP. Of course, some of that time, it would have been cooler, but some of that time it would be warmer. But the implicit claim that the MWP was globally warmer than the last two decades for the entire period of the MWP is refuted by the same comparison. Never-the-less, the more informed fake skeptics (and some uninformed or misinformed genuine skeptics) are arguing that because decades within the MWP where warmer than the last two decades, there is a prima facie assumption that the current warming is natural rather than anthropogenic. The conclusion is a non-sequitor, but the premise is not refuted by the comparison above for exactly the reasons jzk gives. We need to recognize that and not make the erroneous argument that the comparison between three centuries of data and one to three decades could show that no decade in the three century period was warmer than any decade in the two to three decades. That argument is not made above, although it has been in comments and it is an invalid argument. Because the argument has been made in comments, it is clearly a misunderstanding people are prone too, and the intermediate article should be revised to explicitly caution against it.
  35. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    As a reader of both sites (SkS and WUWT) and having read the Amazon reviews, I must admit to being disappointed by both sides. It's obvious that both "sides" are going in and contaminating the waters. The negative reviews slamming Mann and the book in my opinion are the same as the positive reviews literally fawning over Mann like he's a deity. To be honest, if I were looking to buy this I would be ignoring all of the reviews as it's obvious posturing by both "sides". But since the book looks to be more about Mann's sob story than any real science, I wouldn't have read it regardless.
  36. Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
    Hi Barry, nice to see you here. #52 Barry
    That's right, Dr. Hansen is not saying the 5 meter rise is the likeliest outcome, he just says it's plausible. I've run the numbers on his 5 meter every ten years rate doubling scenario and have determined that sea level would be going up at a rate of nearly one millimeter per day by 2100. Further comment is not necessary, it stands as its own testimony.
  37. Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
    Oamoe @7: Afterthought, no - I agree with both you and KR in that OHC is an important metric of heat accumulation. If I can offer the narrative that was going through my head as I wrote this: 1) Dr. Michaels presented surface temperature data (actually, he presented a satellite temperature record for the lower troposphere), and as such the surface/atmospheric record should be addressed first; 2) Michaels gave the data implying that the warming had abated, but provided no sort of even basic analysis, instead citing a paper from Susan Solomon that came based on HadCRUT temperature data only up to 2009 (which John has discussed at the link below); 3) the surface and atmospheric temperature records cannot be properly evaluated in such short time intervals without accounting for exogenous factors; 4) and not as an afterthought, but as a key point to whether warming has abated, the surface record doesn't tell the full picture. I can see though where the way I phrased the section may have seemed like the point wasn't played up to the role it could have been, and thanks for that feedback. (FWIW, the graph from von Schuckmann is scaled more or less how it appears in the paper. However, thank you for the link to that very useful source at NOAA). http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=129
  38. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Given the assault on the Amazon page from those who obviously didn't read the book (note all the 1-star ratings occurred on the same day as the Watts post) it seems to confirm much of what Dr. Mann is saying.
  39. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Its appears that Anthony Watts and his fellow fake skeptics are taking lessons in "Guerilla Internet Tactics". I recommend watching the video, it is quite an eye opener. Unfortunately, the climate system does not care one iota about fake skeptics trying to fix opinion polls. It will just keep responding to the ever increasing radiative forcing from adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as dictated by the physics.
  40. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    apirate - as Rob @7 notes, I did. Unfortunately some people who haven't read the book are posting 1-star reviews just because they have personal issues with Mann.
  41. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Yes, Bill. The fake-skeptics seem to think they can opinion poll away the physical laws of nature.
  42. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Pirate - check out the Amazon link, Dana's review is there.
  43. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    NB in saying 'one of our problems' I'm not suggesting we should adopt the same tactics, I'm saying we're at a distinct disadvantage in a truly trashy propaganda war. In the short-term, anyway. Also, Albatross is right: all the stampeding klutzes are virtually assuring best-seller status for the book...
  44. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    I'm reading it in the Kindle version, and thoroughly enjoying it. I also note the complete absence of 'Mann the fanatical Activist' as portrayed by the Denier camp. All the uncertainties of his research are made very plain indeed. One of our problems is, I believe that we're substantially less inclined than folks like the WUWT mob - and I use that term deliberately - to unfairly review material we actually haven't read and devote a lot of time to trashing the reviews of others. It all feels undignified and rather 'dirty' for most of us, I suspect. George Monbiot has had something interesting to say on this phenomenon generally recently.
  45. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    What the fake skeptics at WUWT fail to understand (besides the science) is that spamming the Amazon site is going to only generate a controversy and controversy sells :) Additionally, the vitriol, rhetoric and conspiracy theories that they are filling their "reviews" with in their zeal to dismiss this book will set off reasonable peoples' BS filters. It is also going to show that they are frantically swarming and spamming the site without having even reading the book. That is a pretty desperate and disingenuous ploy, but I suppose such desperate antics are all they now have given the vacuity of their scientific arguments. Sadly, it is altogether completely unsurprising that they would stoop this low. Finally, the WUWT followers and fake skeptics swarming the Amazon site only goes to demonstrate one again that this is yet another episode in an ongoing ideological and zealous attack on Dr. Mann by fake skeptics.
  46. apiratelooksat50 at 12:06 PM on 9 February 2012
    Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    Dana at 2 How about reading the book itself and then posting reviews? I first learned about this book from a post on WUWT and wouldn't dream of reviewing it without reading it. I won't spend money on it, but I am first in line at my local library.
  47. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    It really is a very interesting book. It's a shame the fake skeptics are writing bad reviews without reading it, and rating all positive reviews as unhelpful. I strongly encourage people to follow John's link to Amazon, read the reviews for yourself, and rate them as you feel appropriate to try and counteract the WUWT behavior.
  48. Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
    As my research deals with the AMO, I was always under the impression that Rich Kerr coined the term [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5473/1984.full] - interesting...
  49. Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
    Though I've not read the paper, I'd suggest it is that it is because, of these two ice sheets, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (almost a physically separate entity from the East Antarctic Ice sheet because of the Transantarctic Mountains) has a great deal more potential for rapid melt/collapse than the Greenland Ice Sheet. Both contain broadly comparable potential sea level rise components, but Greenland has a lot of mountains round the perimeter to buffer the ice sheet, which the WAIS does not have. The WAIS is also grounded well below sea level, and so warmer sea water can readily melt it from the base (Greenland also, but sea water access is mostly limited to the narrow fjords). If the WAIS begins to go, there's a lot less to stop it, and a consequently rapid sea level rise. Having said that, I think Greenland has more melting on its surface, and an observed flow acceleration already, so is not immune to significant melt!
  50. Pete Dunkelberg at 10:49 AM on 9 February 2012
    NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
    OK, clicking on the image goes to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Description of page you're linking to which is not helpful. But right click / copy image location works: http://64.19.142.13/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/Images/sst_depth_1-97.jpg http://64.19.142.12/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/Images/sst_depth_4-97tn.jpg http://64.19.142.12/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/Images/sst_depth_7-97tn.jpg http://64.19.142.13/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/ It looks like an old but good NASA page that IanC found somehow.

Prev  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  1292  1293  1294  1295  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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