Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


2012 SkS Weekly Digest #46

Posted on 19 November 2012 by John Hartz

SkS Highlights

Two articles by Dana, Fasullo and Trenberth Find Evidence in Clouds for High Climate Sensitivity and What the 2012 US Election Means for Climate Change and Denial generated the highest number of comments during the past week. In addition, the recently created Weekly News Roundup was expanded into a biweekly product.

Toon Pie Chart of the Week

2012 Toon 46

Source: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart by James Powell, DeSmog Blog, Nov 15, 2012

What say you?

In your opinion, was Superstorm Sandy a "Balck Swan" event for the residents of the US and Canada?  

Quote of the Week 

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree. 

Source: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart by James Powell, DeSmog Blog, Nov 15, 2012 

The Week in Review 

Coming Soon

  • New research from last week 46/2012 (Ari Jokimäki)
  • Wigley and Santer Quantify Human-Caused Global Warming (Dana)
  • President Obama's Statement on Climate Change (John Hartz)
  • 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly Digest #4 (John Hartz)
  • Drost, Karoly, and Braganza Find Human Fingerprints in Global Warming (Dana)
  • Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska (Andy S)
  • 2012 SkS Bi-Weekly Digest #4 (John Hartz)
  • DIY climate science: The Instrumental Temperature Record (Kevin C)
  • The Dirt on Climate (jg)
  • Grace under Pressure (Doug Bostrom)
  • Climate of Doubt Strategy #2: Exaggerate Uncertainty (Dana)

SkS in the News

John Cook was published by The Conversation regarding the IEA 2012 Energy Outlook.

SkS was reference and endorsed by Neil Dawe in a letter to the Parksville Qualicum News editor.

The German translation of debunking solutions was featured by Before It's News.

The Brad Blog endorsed SkS as an essential climate science website.

Kyle Hill Tweeted about his download and use of the SkS iPhone App.

SkS Spotlights

The methodology used by James Lawrence Powell to create the data summarized by the above "Pie chart of the week" is detailed on his website: Science and Global Warming.  

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 1:

  1. was Superstorm Sandy a "Balck Swan" event
    sarc I presume we are not talking about a Balkan Swan, which turns up quite a different set of links /sarc. Investopedia defines a Black Swan event as
    An event or occurrence that deviates beyond what is normally expected of a situation and that would be extremely difficult to predict.
    If that definition is acceptable, I would say Sandy was not a Black Swan event: any fool with the climate data now available should have been able to predict that such a storm was coming sometime. Equally, a devastating earthquake that dumps much of California into the Pacific is expected some day, so it also would not be a Black Swan. Failure to accept the inevitability of an event the data predicts does not make it a Black Swan, it makes the observer pathalogically stupid.
    0 0

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

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

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