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  580  581  582  583  584  585  586  587  588  589  590  591  592  593  594  595  Next

Comments 29351 to 29400:

  1. Climate's changed before

    @444, so, did you all have to pass that course first :)
    There is a lot of controversy regarding water vapor, there is the strong green-house effect, but there are also the clouds which reflect sunlight. Also, water vapor is mainly present in the low troposphere where the greenhouse effect is already saturated, above 10km there is virtually no water vapor, that's why there are no clouds above when flying with a passenger jet. And according to skepticalscience "It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface."

    www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

  2. Climate's changed before

    Skeptic1223, click on the links I provided.  Try not to assume that increased global water vapor means more rain for everyone.  I said "precipitation intensity" not "more widespread precipitation."  You might check out the observed and modeled expansion of the Hadley circulation as well.

    Why wasn't the "pause" in surface temp "predicted" by climate models?  Because climate models aren't designed to project sub-decadal trends.  The temporal resolution is getting better, and the "pause" has inspired focused science that's been quite fruitful, but the bald fact of the matter--and something that fake skeptics aren't willing to get--is that climate modeling isn't designed for accuracy over the short-term.  Do you understand why that might be?  


  3. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, just because glacial periods suck bad, that doesn't mean that periods of rapid warming are good.  Keep in mind that atmospheric CO2 hasn't risen this quickly in at least 300 million years, and arguably ever.  That could easily mean that the climate system is now warming at an unprecedented rate.  Remember that life has reached equilibrium with Holocene conditions, and more generally with Pleistocene conditions.  A rapid change to Carboniferous conditions (600+ppm) will put the current biosphere up against the wall.  Because the climate system is comprehensively integrated, it's not as easy as just popping up the carb-o-stat to 600ppm and popping the cap off a beer: "No problem, mate!  No more glacial periods!  Let's kick it!"  The problems that result from extremely rapid warming may make questions of glacial periods irrelevant.

  4. Climate's changed before

    @443, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence about the state of the surface temperatures for the last 15 years (that's why I put it only as a feeling and not a statement), if the mechanism is so obvious why it wasn't included in the climate models and they failed to predict it?
    About the precipitable water vapor I could of course counterargue with the drought in California and my child memories of heavily snowy winters during the 1970s dip, but again there isn't conclusive evidence in either direction, so I've put it just as a feeling and not a statement.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Your "feelings" carry no weight on this website. Please cease and desist from posting them. 

  5. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, your wild guessing about the possible catastrophic cooling effect of volcanic eruptions is, like your wild guessing about solar-caused cooling, wildly out of scale.  One way to start replacing your uninformed intuition with data is by reading John Mason's series.

  6. Climate's changed before

    @439, "Rising Carbon Dioxide Concentration Stops the Glacial/Interglacial Cycle." - that's exactly what I mean too, it seems we only disagree in the safe level of CO2. As I said in 441, just to be on the safe side it might be a good idea to increase CO2 by another 1-200 ppm to get to pre-ice ages epoch levels.

  7. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, amazingly, you wrote regarding ice and snow albedo: "unless there is some other major warming positive feed-back effect today."  Let's see... how about water vapor?!  You really should learn the basics.  I suggest you enroll (sorry, Aussies--"enrol") in the Making Sense of the Climate Science Denial course.

  8. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, when you say things like "Finally, the current slow down (if not reversal) of the warming and the last few winters of heavy snow are not very reassuring," strongly suggest a lack of understanding in the basics.

    There has been no slowdown in  the rate of energy accumulating in the climate system.  There has been a slowdown in the rate of surface warming over the last 8-10 years.  If you're having a hard time understanding this, there are plenty of threads to help.

    Why is heavy snow in some parts of the world at certain times of the year an indication that the climate system is cooling?   It is, rather, an indicator of warming, as warming puts more precipitable water vapor (pp. 201) into the atmosphere.  

  9. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, you are correct that at any moment a Vogon constructor fleet might accidentally or haphazardly or maliciously destroy the Sun, thereby inducing a glaciation.  But otherwise, solar changes within the empirically and modelled very well supported range of probabilities will barely and temporarily make a dent in the warming that our increased CO2 level is causing and will continue to cause.

  10. Climate's changed before

    @438, about the control knob, the past violent climate changes are due to positive feed-back effects, forcings only trigger the feed-back process. The major positive feed-back effect is the albedo acting through the area of ice sheets and snow cover. In an interglacial period the albedo is mostly a cooling positive feed-back due to the small starting size of the ice/snow cover, while in a glacial period it is mostly a warming positive feed-back due to the large area of ice/snow cover. So, unless there is some other major warming positive feed-back effect today, the current climate is more prone to a swing to cold than a swing to hot. It is of course entirely possible and even probable to continue gradually warming with the increase of CO2 if there is no cooling event to trigger the albedo feed-back. However, my worry is if there is a cooling event that we can not model reliably and the albedo feed-back gets triggered. So, just to be on the safe side it might be a good idea to increase CO2 by another 1-200 ppm to get to pre-ice ages epoch levels.

  11. Climate's changed before

    @435, I am not saying that abrupt glaciation is the norm, what I am saying is that abrupt glaciation is possible. The bibliography you mentioned discusses the normal process and relies heavily on models. Some events such as solar activity or volcanic eruptions can not be modelled reliably. As for the cherry picking, well, I don't have the actual numbers of the temperature measurements, and unfortunately the publically available graphs don't have sufficient time resolution to draw a positive conclusion, so I have to rely on other people who do have the actual numbers, and I thought that such respected institutions as the IPCC and GRIDA would be trusted with what they say.

    @437, yes, I googled it and found it also here

    www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/archer.2005.trigger.pdf

     

  12. Climate's changed before

    Ari also has a short but older-than-his-excellent-bibliography article "Rising Carbon Dioxide Concentration Stops the Glacial/Interglacial Cycle."

  13. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, your worry about climate instability is backward.  The past 10,000 years have been unusually stable compared to at least the previous 40,000 years, allowing the rise of agriculture (see also here and later here) and civilization.  Humans now have violently spun a major control knob of the climate all the way to 11. 

  14. Climate's changed before

    By the way, the link to the Archer 2005 paper (Archer & Ganopolski, 2005, "A Moveable Trigger...") is stale in the "Are We Heading Into a New Ice Age" post.  The full text of the paper is available elsewhere now.

  15. We're heading into an ice age

    Will somebody please add to the Further Reading section of this post, a link to Ari's bibliography of readings on future glaciation?

  16. Climate's changed before

    @434, You make some intelligent points yet I can't help but feel you conveniently neglect rates of change aka the time factor.

  17. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, you are cherry picking quotes to support your intuition, and explicitly rejecting the data-and-model-based conclusions of scientists who have carefully studied glaciations and backed up their conclusions with evidence.  Ari has compiled a bibliography of just some of the many other papers explaining that and why we have delayed the next glaciation for many tens of thousands of years.

  18. Climate's changed before

    @431,"The huge changes in past climate demonstrate the sensitivity nature of our climate. Small changes in solar output and minor variations in the distribution of solar energy across seasons (from minor changes in the earth’s orbit) have created climate changes that would be catastrophic today. Climate models can explain these past changes. And if we compare the radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2 with those minor variations we see what incredible danger we have created for our planet."

    I agree about all of the above except the last sentence. The thing is that in an interglacial period such as today, one of the major warming feed-backs is not present, ice sheets are small enough so that an increase in temperature would not decrease the albedo noticeably. The opposite, however, is much stronger, a relatively small drop in temperature may increase the ice sheets and snow cover sufficiently to trigger run-away albedo increase.

  19. Climate's changed before

    @430, I am not saying that an ice age is imminent, what I am saying is that with an unstable climate we can not really tell when an ice age would come. Surely ice ages have in general been triggered by drops in solar activity and orbital changes, but there are other events too, e.g. major volcanic eruptions, which are even more unpredictable than solar activity. In the past there have been events when glaciation occured unexpectedly and within decades, not centuries, see my post 428. Also, we do not really know the exact CO2 level vs solar irradiation drop that would prevent an ice age from happening. The author in Archer 2005 himself admits that the models are very sensitive to how the parameters are set and this is to be expected since strong positive feedbacks are involved. Finally, the current slow down (if not reversal) of the warming and the last few winters of heavy snow are not very reassuring.

  20. Climate's changed before

    @429, Surely there is some averaging in the ice cores resulting from compaction, and I am not an ice core expert, so I don't really know how much it is, but a quick search on the web shows it might not be that much

    This 19 cm long of GISP2 ice core from 1855 m depth shows annual layers in the ice. This section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers. From the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

    Besides, the fact that the ice ages started only about 3 million years ago still remains.

  21. Climate's changed before

    On the general topic of climate variability, Science of Doom has a series of interesting posts called Ghosts of Climates Past.

  22. Climate's changed before

    skeptic123, further to Tom Curtis's points, see the post "Are We Heading Into a New Ice Age," the Intermediate version.  Read the Archer 2005 paper referenced there. 

  23. Climate's changed before

    skeptic123:  Sorry, my mentioning of the spacing of data points obscured rather than clarified my point about temporal resolution of temperature records. The measurement techniques average across years, decades, centuries, millennia,....  For example, sediments and snow/ice compress over time so the years are not as physically separated, so a sample will be an average across a larger span of time, which will smooth across variations in temperature.  That lack of resolution is reflected in the sparcity of data points the farther back in time you look in graphs, because the placement of a datapoint in time is done at the midpoint of the estimated range of times for that temperature.

  24. Climate's changed before

    @427
    About 3) "The return to the cold conditions of the Younger Dryas from the incipient inter-glacial warming 13,000 years ago took place within a few decades or less (Alley et al., 1993)."

    www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm

    "Over the last 400,000 years the Earth's climate has been unstable, with very significant temperature changes, going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a few decades."

    www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

    While the overall slide into a full-blown ice age indeed could take a millenium, it does not happen smoothly but in a step-wise manner of a few decades with some steps spanning a few degrees of temperature drop. I am also highly suspicious that an increase of 20-40ppm CO2 could prevent the onset of an ice age, your graph from 1) is quite clear that a 20ppm increase had little effect.

    About 2) The estimates in that paper might be a bit too pessimistic, who would have guessed that plants would start eating more CO2 as concentration increased

    www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9576/20141014/global-warming-plants-absorbing-more-co2-than-we-thought.htm
    Also, past CO2 concentrations seem to show that levels could fall as quickly as in a few centuries

     About 1) The last 8000 years have indeed been quite uneventful, luckily for us, however it depends how much smoothing one applies to the data, for example

    An it should actually be worrying that the overall trend was still downwards despite the 20ppm CO2 increase.

    Finally, I would have been really worried if we were currently at preindustrial levels of CO2, but even at 400ppm we are still below the level when the ice ages started and with the current trend in solar activity and orbital cycles pointing downwards it might take just one major volcanic eruption to trigger the positive feedbacks.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] The David Lappi graph should be disregarded altogether for the mere fact that he states that GISP2 runs up to the year 2000. This is factually incorrect. The "years before present" represented in the GISP2 data uses 1950 to represent "present." Thus the data only runs up to 1855 (95 years before present).

  25. Oriolus Traillii at 23:28 PM on 10 May 2015
    Monthly global carbon dioxide tops 400ppm for first time

    Re: TomR: It seems likely, though, that fossil fuel comanies will finance their own research to stay competitive and stay alive for a while yet. Should oil production not be stopped by market forces in time, the softest route left open would be for governments to make giving up the oil business as financially attractive as possible (rewards would be easier than punishments), while dismantling the oil-specific infrastructure wherever an oil firm calls it quits and banning new wells. This might be unpopular and dangerous, because it would involve transferring money to the rich, but it's preferable to no progress at all and to sabotage by frustrated citizens.

  26. Climate's changed before

    skeptic123 @425:

    1)  The long term global temperature trend over the last 8000 years has been flat, or slightly downward:

    From this we would expect the CO2 concentration to have declined by about 10 ppmv from the early holocene levels of 260 ppmv of CO2.  Instead, it rose to 280pmmv - most probably due to preindustrial activities of humans:

    Arguably, even that rise was sufficient to prevent the Earth declining into a new glacial. Ergo your hypothesis is getting well ahead of the evidence even there.

    2)  More importantly, while restoration of zero net emissions will eventually result in CO2 concentrations declining to pre-industrial levels, it is likely to take much more than 10,000 years to do so:

    Indeed, even if we were to return to zero net emissions prior to 2020, temperatures would still be elevated above preindustrial levels by a degree Centigrade 10,000 years from now, assuming no major alteration in natural forcings.  Consequently concerns about targetting zero emissions are entirely misplaced.  (They may be valid concerns for aggressive CO2 sequestration programs that aim at negative net emissions.)

    3)  The ice core record is very clear that the slide into a glacial occurs, not over decades but over millenium.  Even were CO2 levels low enough for that to be a genuine risk, there would still be ample time to react to such an event by reinitiating the consumption of fossil fuels to raise CO2 levels by the 20-40 ppmv necessary to prevent the onset of the glacial.  So, even if you were not ignoring relevant facts (1 and 2 above), preventing anthropogenic global warming would still remain the priority issue, with concerns about the ideal post mitigation CO2 concentration being a third or fourth order issue that can be left to be dealt with several decades or even centuries from now, when our understanding of the science will also be that much better.

  27. Climate's changed before

    @423, The data points in this graph seem to be quite equally spaced and the trend of climate instability increase is still quite obvious I think

    LINK

    from wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

     

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link

  28. Climate's changed before

    @422 If we reduce the emissions to preindustrial levels eventually the concentration would follow too. Also, we don't know exactly what is the threshold of CO2 concentration that leads to unstable climate. Before the current ice age epoch started CO2 levels were above today's.

    The climate instability is not irrelevant, I think it is actually the most relevant thing. Unstable climates are unpredictable and swings from interglacials to glacials can happen quite rapidly in a matter of a few decades, for example

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#

    So, to summarize, in an unstable climate we wouldn't be able to tell if a new ice age is waiting for us just a few decades down the road, we wouldn't be able to prepare for it, and an ice age would have absolutely catastrophic consequences for us. The catastrophic consequences of rapid climate changes has actually been discussed by skepticalscience

    www.skepticalscience.com/Rapid-climate-change-deadlier-than-asteroid-impacts.html

     

  29. Climate's changed before

    @421, Surely the time resolution for more recent periods is better than for older ones, however statistics and probability theory tell us that even sparser sampling would still show large variations (the probability of the sparser samples all hitting similar values is miniscule). I hope you would agree that the trend in increasing climate instability in the last 3-5 million years is quite obvious
    LINK
    the graph is from wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#
    Also, the current ice age epoch started only about 3 million years ago and the difference in temperatures between glacial and interglacial periods has been quite significant, for 260 million years before that there were no ice ages and CO2 levels were relatively high compared to today's
    LINK

    again from wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened links that were breaking page format.

  30. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19B

    Chiskoz @1

    "unstitution"

    That really should be a word.

  31. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19B

    The reputation of UWA is very proud and if Lomborg got the gig at the insistence of a climate change denying Prime-Minister the laughter throughout the country would bring shame for a century. It was never going to happen.. Perth knew it would never happen as the students that go there only have it's flawless reputation separating them from the riff-raff of other very well educated university graduates around Perth and as we all know---> Perth has an overqualification problem.


    The mums and dads of said students are well connected: Perth is a bit of a round-about and the chancellor would have been reminded that this state floats the country and will not be sold a pup by a Liberal Party propping up old technology and foreign vested interests. The people of UWA realised we need our 'clever country' back and now that Tony Abbott has nowhere to hide his infamous flim-flam man I expect the election campaign will be strategically kicking into gear exactly now!

  32. Heartland takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level

    longjohn, I should have added that the problem I described is obvious, but that doesn't make it easy to solve.  The only way to solve it is through years of training in disciplined critical thinking, and that still doesn't always work (see the Dunning-Kruger effect).

    How much evidence should it take to convince someone that a proposition is true enough to act upon? Go to Las Vegas and you'll find thousands of people who doubt AGW yet spend tens of thousands of diollars on a crapshoot.  Wall Street preys on these types of people, people who just can't seem to apply consistent, disciplined thought and a mind not burdened with the bolted-down furniture of ideology.

    It's a mess.  The "drubbing" is not the fault of scientists.  The fault lies in a collection of social/cultural processes that has de-emphasized what's at stake in the arrangement of democracy.  Education is in the middle of those processes, but it's not the source of the problem. 

  33. Heartland takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level

    longjohn, you said, "Writing is such a poor way to convey ideas compared to orally."  If that were true, scientific journals would be audio based.  Oral communication requires simplification of complex ideas.  

    But perhaps you meant to contextualize your claim more than you actually did.  Perhaps you meant to say that oral communicators get their ideas across more powerfully than scientists with their gobs and gobs of paragraphs.  Regardless, the written vs. oral argument has little to do with the trainwreck that occurs when science is communicated to the general public. 

    There are two primary conditions that allow "doubt-mongers" to be highly successful in their work.  The first is that these folk can misrepresent the science without being held accountable in any meaningful way.  The second is that the general public, by and large, has no basis for judging the truth value of a claim about the science.  None.  And so they turn to heuristics.  There's simply nothing else to do, other than checking out the claim by working through the scientific context for weeks, months, years (I've done this — seven years now I've been working through the published science in my spare time).  

    A tiny fraction of the general public who accept the theory of AGW can actually articulate the basic theory.  They simply trust scientists and/or the theory fits in with their environmental politics, anti-capitalist politics, etc. And those of the general public who doubt do so for similar, if opposing, reasons.  

    Where oral vs. written does enter into it is through the idea that writing forces a greater responsibility on the reader, because the ideas are always present (one can stop and re-read) and the mode allows more complexity.  Yet misrepresentation is just as easy in writing as it is on talk radio; all one needs is an audience that doesn't understand the science but already always knows what is right.

  34. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, for example see Figure 5 in Zhang et al. (2013).  Note the circles that are the actual datapoints, and note how far apart they are in various time periods.

  35. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19B

    Ditching Bjorn Lomborg centre from UWA is the most positive, even celebratory news this week.

    If the centre had gone ahead, it would've undermined my faith in science progress, certainly in UWA.

    I do not believe chancellor Paul Johnson, who "defended the decision to appoint Dr Lomborg an adjunct professor" did so out of his genuine opinion. Far more likely Johnson was under serious political pressure. Thankfuly, the presure from "students" (I guess all academics afiliated with UWA if not the entire world are included in this broad term) outwieghed the pressure from the politicians.

    Note that UWA was not the first unstitution, the current australian government wanted to place Lomborg in. This article stipulates that it was ACU:

    The Australian Catholic University's Canberra campus was one of a number of locations considered for the controversial centre, before UWA was settled on.

    which is probably closer to Tony Abbott's heart. One can only stipulate why the attempts to place Lomborg in ACU have failed and if Tony Abbott dares to try somewhere else...

  36. Monthly global carbon dioxide tops 400ppm for first time

    It appears that the rate of CO2 rise took a larger jump this year of 2.73 parts per million than in the last several years.  In any case, recent claims that humans are putting less CO2 into the atmosphere appear untrue. 

    The victory of the Tory Party in the UK is a setback, since Labour had emphasized action against global warming in its campaign and the Tories have fought against land-based wind as unsightly and fought for fracking as well as reduced taxation of North Sea oil to improved the profitability of continuing extraction despite low prices. 

    At least China is cutting the amount of coal gasification they are planning.  The future continues to look very grim.  Hopefully, science will make batteries so good and electric transportation so much cheaper that gas and diesel vehicles will become comparatively expensive dinosaurs.

  37. Antarctica is gaining ice

    Arctic sea ice is 1.2 million square kilometers below average. Antarctic Sea ice is 1.7 million above average.

    How does a climate change advocate deny the reality of this?

  38. Climate's changed before

    @420, Who said we were trying to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels?

    Sure it's an interesting thought that 'low CO2 levels' could lead to unstable climates, I'll grant you that, but it's irrelevant.

  39. Heartland takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level

    Well DSL if that were even remotely true Science wouldn't be losing so badly to the Spoken Propagandists on the Right ...... They've been drubbing you guys for over 20 years and I just explained to you why that's true. 

     

  40. Climate's changed before

    skeptic1223, I believe you are mistaking the higher temporal resolution of the temperature measurements the closer to recent your linked graph shows, for more rapid changes in temperature.

  41. Climate's changed before

    Evidence about Earth's climate in the last few million years show rapid oscillations of the climate started about 3 million years ago when CO2 concentrations dropped from above today's level to about half today's level.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
    Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar activity can not alone account for these rapid changes because they have existed long before the rapid changes started. Variations of CO2 concentrations in the range of 100ppm can not explain it either, because such variations have also been present long before the period of rapid climatic changes started.
    It seems the only difference between the past 3 million year period of rapid climatic changes and relatively more stable climate before it is the average CO2 level. During the stable climate it was above today's level and during the unstable climate it was about half today's level.
    Is it possible that low CO2 levels lead to unstable climates due to the reduced green-house effect and therefore wouldn't we be shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to reduce the CO2 level to preindustrial levels and therefore risking a swing to a colder climate which would have a much more dire consequences than even the direst IPCC predictions?

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] I hotlinked your link.  In future please do that yourself.

  42. What if Climate Change is Real? Katharine Hayhoe TEDx at Texas Tech

    Video by the US National Academies of Sciences:

    Read more in "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes"

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Reduced size to fit page formatting.

  43. They didn't change the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

    According to the WORLD World Metorological Organization Climate is 30 year Weather average.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] The use of "all caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

  44. Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis

    Australia has been made proud again by the actions of UWA staff: this is a globalised election issue... this action by the staff of a proud university is of historical significance in my opinion and the mere politics of it is that of all human relations.

    Bring back the clever country I say. What say you?

  45. Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial

    OPOF @18, I certainly have no argument with your recommendations.

  46. Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis

    michael sweet @55, the story has been widely reported in Australia, including by the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, and of course The Gaurdian (Australian Edition) to which Romm links.  The Sydney Morning Herald story is echoed across the Fairfax media, as the Australian's version is echoed across the Murdoch press.  The only story additional to Romm's report is that Christopher Pyne says he is taking legal advise about the cancellation of the contract.

  47. michael sweet at 08:02 AM on 9 May 2015
    Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis

    Joe Rhom at Think Progress  reports that UWA has turned down the $4 million and declined to accept the Lomburg center.  Any updated from Oz here?

  48. Daniel J. Andrews at 07:08 AM on 9 May 2015
    What if Climate Change is Real? Katharine Hayhoe TEDx at Texas Tech

    Brendon, I think the paper for that is Attributing physical and biological impacts to antrhopogenic climate change by Rosenzweig et al in Nature May 15, 2008 (vol 453). They examined 29,500 biological indicators and 90% of them were in the direction expected from global warming. That gives 26,550 indicators of warming.  

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Added link to a full copy of the paper.

  49. SkepticalinCanada at 05:18 AM on 9 May 2015
    Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial

    @17  Sorry, I do not have a list, but a search for something like "lawsuits against us politicians climate change" will bring up a few, including an insurance company class action suit against Chicago area municipal governments. I assume that, as the list grows, someone somewhere will keep track for us, especially as the list of successful lawsuits grows. 

  50. One Planet Only Forever at 05:08 AM on 9 May 2015
    Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial

    Tom Curtis@12,

    I will try to clarify my recommendation.

    Do not presume an interpretation of a word like consensus when its interpretation is key to the message you are trying to convey. Try to explain what you mean whenever you use it.

    An additional recommendation is: Do try to tell people what they should have understood if you did not explain the intended meaning. Simply agree that there are multiple possible interpretations, but you meant what you clarify the intended meaning to be.

    The pursuit of things like convenience, expediency and brevity can lead to disasterous unintended and unnecessary consequences.

Prev  580  581  582  583  584  585  586  587  588  589  590  591  592  593  594  595  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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