Sentences with phrase «see skeptical science»
How dare they talk about glaciers in the 1850's (um, see Skeptical Science), or that «impacts claimed by the IPCC to be likely in the distant future are claimed to be already evident.»
https://wottsupwiththat.com/
For an easy to understand picture, see the Skeptical Science escalator.
Other feedbacks include forests, and most importantly, water vapour, which as the temperature of the atmosphere rises increases in the atmosphere (think tropical rain forest), and water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas (but it is not the «controller» of our climate because it does not accumulate in the atmosphere, only gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide do this) See Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
See the skeptical science site, beginners series.
See Skeptical Science's profile of John Christy for a through explanation of why he is not a credible voice in the scientific community studying climate change, using peer - reviewed climate research as refutation.
Not exact matches
I have seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever «science says,» become skeptical when they realize that the scientists actually do seem to think that variations in finch beaks or peppered moths, or the mere existence of fossils, proves all the vast claims of «evolution.»
Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.
«By the way, if you go to the Skeptical Science trend calculator (https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php), you'll see that almost all the data sources show 2015 as no warmer (usually cooler) than 1998.
CRV9, re the meme that «temperature didn't seem to increase / change in last 10 ~ 15 years», see the post http://skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-continued-global-warming.html at Skeptical Science, which shows that is simply not true when you allow for the natural variation of El Nino / La Nina and volcanic eruptions.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is).
GCMs have oceanographic components — see Kate's Skeptical Science post for a useful and accessible discussion of the architecture of climate models — which surely include currents as part of their «dynamical» modelling.
# 110 (Hank Roberts), as you can see from the previous comments on this topic, the reference to Lockwood 2001 was provided by Skeptical Science, and not by people that one might refer to as skeptics.
«When the data is available in its original form those skeptical of climate science can then do the temperature math themselves out in the open where everyone can see their work,» Dr. Pielke wrote on Sunday.
Even people who don't agree with me on everything and are somewhat of a skeptical bent should see some advantage in making common cause to get rid of the junk science arguments being made by a lot of the skeptics.
Richard Lindzen's contribution included testimony later rebutted by R. Gurney (also see CO2 lags temperature at Skeptical Science): [25]
The point made in the skeptical science article is that there is good quantitative agreement between ocean heating and satellite measurements of the radiation imbalance which is what one would expect to see.
The Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator was created by Kevin C. See here for more information.
Many people on the skeptical side of the climate debate see Jerry Ravetz» «postnormal science» as part of the problem, indeed the man himself as responsible in large part for formulations such as those of the late Stephen Schneider regarding making a judgement about the balance between truth and effectiveness.
According to the Skeptical Science trend calculator, using RSS data, the trend for the last 20 years is: QUOTE: Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011) Trend: 0.028 ± 0.153 °C / decade (2σ) β = 0.0028079 σw = 0.0018535 ν = 17.142 σc = σw √ ν = 0.0076741 UNQUOTE
Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.
2013 was a productive year for Skeptical Science, which also saw the number of followers on its Facebook page grow rapidly and surpass 16,000, and its Twitter page to over 8,500.
In my email correspondence with the lead author (appended), you will see that I noticed the missing Skeptical Science survey and requested items 1 & 2 from him, in July 2012.
I just want to see how many responses came from Skeptical Science, there appears to be no blog post, and no forum link either from SkS As far as I know Cook just tweeted it.
Hi Peter I've seen some of your videos at Skeptical Science.
We see, in this new era, only the beginning of the additional necessary independent (skeptical) science now.
Carrot Eater can sell you a terrific Rabettese translator, but somewhat more clearly, as Eli said over at Skeptical Science: Assume Eli accepts Roger and Humanity's (see comment 1) argument.
Thus, John Cook's reasonably even handed and often understated site, skeptical science, which gives example after example after example — based upon the actual science, and vetted science papers — of the multiple fundamental myths that drive the great bulk (if not to some extent, ALL) climate change naysaying, is thus dismissed (and Cook himself — see some of the other anti climate change sites, for instance — repeatedly denigrated).
I'm glad to see you linking to Skeptical Science.
That was - in a matter of a few tens of seconds, climate myths 1, 170 (possibly - see below), 39, 46, 27, 1 again, 4, 45, 9 and 37, as listed in the Skeptical Science Most Used Climate Myths database that appears on the left - hand side of all Skeptical Science pages.
Oh and please, if you can't see what is wrong with the skeptical science page on it then there is no hope for you.
Finally, commenting at Skeptical Science works best if you first limit the scope of your comment to that of the thread on which you post your comment and then follow up on those threads to see what respondents have said in response to you.
See e.g., Skeptical Science, Skeptical Science (again), number 3, Deltoid, and myself.