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  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  Next

Comments 52601 to 52650:

  1. Eric (skeptic) at 21:20 PM on 17 October 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    I've been reading Tisdale's ebook which blames recent warming on ENSO. While I disagree with his conclusion and some of his premises (e.g. his claim that back radiation does not really warm the ocean), his description of charging and release of heat is pretty good. Essentially there was a charging of Pacific ocean heat in the 80's and 90's interrupted by El Chichon and Pinatubo that was released in the 1997/98 El Nino. From trough to peak that raised world temperatures by 1C, with a lasting rise of about 0.3C using UAH satellite measurements which measure up in the troposphere and thus show larger swings. That late 1997 peak is an overshoot. It is accepted science that some AGW is stored in the ocean. I think it is also reasonable to assume that ocean heat is released unevenly and can result in large upward swings along with lulls in atmospheric warming especially when measured by satellite which highlights the swings.
  2. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Cornelius don't forget that UKIPs energy policy is primarily based on the idea that AGW doesn't exist or is minimal. Secondly Monckton is a member of UKIP and is or was their science advisor. So any logic in policy is based on the idea that low carbon energy is not needed.
  3. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    The first thing I noted when I tried to produce the articles graph was that while they spoke of "since the start of 1997", the graph started late in 1997. I presume this was to avoid a cold start to the graph, but there may have been other reasons (I just can't think of any though). A couple of years ago, someone forced Phil Jones to concede that there had been no significant warming since 1995, and the "skeptics" made a song and dance about it. I suggest that from now on we just insist that any "no warming since" statement must start in 1995. A fake skeptic is anyone who thinks Christopher Monckton is a member of the house of lords.
  4. Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:07 PM on 17 October 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Paul D @ 16 and John Russell @ 24 Thank you. I will be composing a response to the UKIP policy document and may ask again for help with a review.
  5. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    A "fake skeptic" is a person who is skeptical about anything they dont like but laps up anything they like without switching on any critical faculty at all. This is frankly normal human behavior but a decent science education should give a person the tools to avoid it (esp the scientific method). A true skeptic critically examines all evidence (eg most working scientists).
  6. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    If you want to know specifically what I think about Curry's post, I posted comments here and here. But I doubt I'll waste much more time there, because I feel as though I'm arguing with somebody who's criticizing an article she didn't even bother to read/understand.
  7. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    hank @36 - yes, I read Curry's post and was impressed that she criticized me as 'needing to raise the level of my game' while herself managing to ignore nearly all of the points that I made in my post. She focuses entirely on the one point in Rose's article that's almost technically correct - that global surface temperatures have been pretty flat over the past 15 years, ignoring the fact that he wrongly equates this with "global warming" - manages to miss the point that I already acknowledged that the warming of surface temperatures has slowed (and discussed why that happened), ignores the fact that global warming has continued as measured by global heat content, etc. etc. I'll put it kindly and say I was not impressed by Curry's response.
  8. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    @Albatross What on earth is a 'fake skeptic'?? @Dana Have you read Dr. Judith Curry's latest post? She urges Climate hardliners, such as yourself, to; "Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the ‘pause’, mentioned in my previous post (Candid comments from global warming scientists)" She goes on to quote Trenberth, Hansen and other prominent Scientists/activists who have acknowledged the 'pause'. Hank.
  9. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Apparently, like potato chips, one was not enough. But in the end, there can be only one.
  10. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    DB, are you suggesting that SA Dean returned with a mask? That's pretty lame.
  11. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    sceptical wombat @6 wrote: Curry has consistently argued that a great deal of the increase we have seen (not to mention melting ice in the Arctic) may be attributable to the AMO and the PDO. These are convenient because the AMO in particular goes for multiple decades so even 30 years of increase can still be attributed to them. I'm intrigued by this; surely for any kind of oscillation to increase (say) global surface temperatures, then some other part of the planetary system must be cooling: if it isn't then its not an oscillation of heat at all. Does Curry have a candidate for this - or is it just waffle ?
  12. It's not us
    " clearly we have no common basis for discussion" Sorry, you saying that your graph does not show a warming trend despite it being demonstrated that it does and that you believe the globe only consists of surface atmosphere? You are admitting that you prefer your preconceptions to reality? Not many people have been prepared come right out and say that.
  13. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    JosHag @28 - the IPCC (the basis of Figure 2) is the gold standard review of the best scientific literature to date, so it's hard to go wrong using that as your basis. Church does great work, but his is just one study, whereas the IPCC is a review of the body of literature. Neven @30 - wow, Curry calling Rose "thought provoking". That's rather appalling. More like thought diminishing.
  14. Climate sensitivity is low
    "we don't know the physical trigger process" How on earth do you deduce that? The physical trigger is change in insolation distribution in the northern hemisphere, which in a low CO2 atmosphere sets up a web feedbacks on albedo and GHG. Untangling this web quantitatively has been a slow process. Have a look at fig 6 of Hansen and Sato 2011 and tell me again that this isnt understood.
  15. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    (-snip-). The focus should be on getting accurate, unbiased results that will provide a solid base for future planning in regard to combating climate change.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Ideology snipped. SA Dean, Jennyg, please refer to the Comments Policy before posting further. Sock puppetry is "frowned upon, in this establishment".
  16. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    "Curry herself claims to have been misrepresented by Rose in the past. Maybe she should learn from these experiences and stop granting him interviews, because he clearly views her as an easy target to support his climate denial." But when asked Curry writes: "Re David Rose, he is writing thought provoking articles, even if I don’t agree with everything he says. I enjoy my conversations with him." I'm sorry, I think she enjoys being a target.
  17. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Albatross: "Do they really think that people are so obtuse as to not keep track of such things?" Yes, they do. They depend on it. If people had the time, energy, training, and/or means to fact check, opinion-makers like Rose and Watts would be doing something honest for a living. In general, it's not deliberate stupidity. It's just a lot of work to get to a point where one can be confident about the basis of one's beliefs. I'd argue that in the eyes of most people, Rose appears at least as trustworthy as government-supported scientists -- not very trustworthy. How many people have read Rose and followed up by going to the Met Office blog? How many then went to verify from a third party. And so on . . . ?
  18. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Great article, thanks! I have one question, looking at the figure 2 I see that the heat content of the atmosphere is 2.3%, based on a period of 10 years. Table 2 in Church et al 2011 gives 2.0/207.2 = 1.0% for the atmosphere over a longer period 1972-2008. Would it not be better to use the Church data?
  19. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Thanks for the heads-up Lionel. It's always a pleasant surprise when The Guardian reposts our stuff!
  20. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Good to see you in the UK Guardian . Poor 'ShuffledCarrot'is still confused about what Phil Jones said about temperatures it would seem. I don't think Judith will be much pleased with that picture either.
  21. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Interesting graphic and article JR.
  22. New research from last week 41/2012
    Perhaps I just miss the good old days when climate was all nice. Cursive rather than cursed.
  23. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    @Cornelius Breadbasket at 00:31 AM on 17 October, 2012 This might be useful to you. Infographic: What puts up your energy bill?
  24. Climate sensitivity is low
    @ Falkenherz
    "I ignored Milankovitch cycles (MC) because they are uncontested"
    Perhaps not by you (at this moment) nor by most scientists (some do) but there are those who deny this, daily.
    "nobody really seems to know the physics of the trigger for global temperature changes"
    You project here. Try reading this post (including the comments threads, which should be mandatory).
    "My research here is about climate sensitiviy, and specifically why consenus seems to be that it is high."
    Um, "consensus" is that climate sensitivity is bewteen 1.9 (or so) and 4.2 (or so) with a central estimate of 3.0 being strongest. That you characterize that as "high" speaks volumes.
    " if we don't know the physical trigger process"
    More projection, again. Suggestion: more research & reading (by you), less trying to shoehorn reality into the worldview you have chalked out for it.
  25. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    JoeRG @55 - MarkR @58 is correct. Fair point that it may be overreaching to say that the rise in global heat content has accelerated, and it's not something we said in the paper itself. P.T. @57 - NCDC and GISS use the same raw data, but each applies their own adjustments to that data in order to estimate the average global temperature. The only thing their datasets have in common is the use of the same raw data from the GHCN. See here.
  26. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    I have zero sympathy for Curry here. Rose is notorious for distorting climate science in every article he writes on the issue, and as others have noted, Curry herself claims to have been misrepresented by Rose in the past. Maybe she should learn from these experiences and stop granting him interviews, because he clearly views her as an easy target to support his climate denial.
  27. Climate sensitivity is low
    Philippe, I ignored Milankovitch cycles (MC) because they are uncontested and I assumed they would have a certain known impact on global temperature, thereby initiating ice ages. Reading through the links you provided, this assumtion is wrong. If I understood correctly, nobody really seems to know the physics of the trigger for global temperature changes, only that MC must be a trigger, and it is assumed that glacial changes on the landmass-rich northern hemisphere play a key role. In other words, there is no initial rise of global temperature as the initial trigger, but rather some severe local imbalances. This just in short, because there is that other article specifically on MC. My research here is about climate sensitiviy, and specifically why consenus seems to be that it is high. So right now I am puzzled why people assume a high climate sensitivity if we don't know the physical trigger process. After all, if I understood correctly, it seems like local insolation can peak at 600 W/m2, which would probably be a very strong trigger with only a low sensitivity required. I am unsure where to continue discussion. Maybe I best move on to the MC article. (I start feeling like a hyperlink nomad and comment-parasite. Do you guys maybe have a forum?) CBDunkerson, thanks for confirming no real strong TSI changes connected to the ice age cycles.
  28. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Talking above of internal inconsistencies with arguments used by fake skeptics. As I alluded to earlier, last year when the BEST project not-surprisingly corroborated the research of climate scientists. Scrambling, fake skeptics then declared: "Global Warming is Real" Delingpole went on to say, "It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend..." There you have it from the mouth of a prominent fake skeptic. Yet, only 10 days later (!), Delingpole penned a diatribe titled, "Global warming, yeah right". Fast forward to present and now the fake skeptics have reverted to recycling another old favourite myth of "no warming in X years", with suggestions that the UK Met. Office is trying to hide something thrown in for good measure. This is beyond a joke. Do they really think that people are so obtuse as to not keep track of such things? It is insulting and the public should be outraged that some "skeptic" scientists and media outlets are so intent on continually misleading and confusing them on this issue that is of utmost importance. This sad saga yet again demonstrates the inability of fake skeptics to mount a coherent, internally consistent and credible argument against the theory of AGW. What is especially egregious though is that a "skeptic" scientist is enabling them.
  29. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    ScepticalWombat @6, "Curry has consistently argued that a great deal of the increase we have seen (not to mention melting ice in the Arctic) may be attributable to the AMO and the PDO..." Yes it is very convenient, especially if one wishes to obfuscate. A blog post in the next day or two will speak to this myth. The fact of the matter is that researchers estimate that anything from 60-90% of the recent ice decline is attributable to anthropogenic warming. Additionally, other research has shown that the current loss of Arctic ice is unprecedented on a millennial time scale (e.g., Polyak et al. 2010, Kinnard et al. 2012). Both those papers are covered at SkS here. It is also odd that Curry appears to be of the opinion that uncertainty is always skewed in the direction of lower climate sensitivity, yet at the same time she argues that the same models with a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5 C global warming for doubling of CO2 are deeply flawed because they are underestimating the loss of warming. How can models that are underestimating the loss of Arctic sea ice and sea-level rise at the same time be claimed to be too sensitive to the doubling of 2xCO2? So the internal inconsistency of this argument is obvious, as it is with most of the arguments made by "skeptics".
  30. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    ScepticalWombat @6, ".. fairness to Professor Curry she does claim that she has been misquoted " That would ordinarily be a reasonable assumption. But there is a history here that suggests something else is going. Just under a year ago, BEST released their results and the fake skeptics were up in arms because the BEST results corroborated the warming in the land surface temperature record that climate scientists had been telling us about all along. At that time (October 2011) non other than David Rose interviewed Dr. Curry. She took exception to the fact that some of the statements that Rose had attributed to her and stated that she had been misrepresented. Tamino notes: "Judith Curry protests that she was misrepresented by the article in the Daily Mail, and several readers have mentioned that David Rose, the author of the article, is just the man to do such a thing." One has to wonder then why on earth Curry would elect to give Rose another interview given her recent experience with him? Oddly, Curry is again claiming that she has been misrepresented. So much back-peddling by CUrry, but in the meantime the horse has bolted around media outlets sympathetic to fake skeptics. Why would anyone again speak to a journalist a) who is infamous for misrepresenting people, and b) who has misrepresented you in the past? Now Dr. Curry is not that gullible. No, something else is going on here, and I'm sure that astute readers can figure it out.
  31. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    "Bourgeois Left-wing academics" That one really made me laugh It seems like something Watts would imply, but with a little more finesse I suppose.
  32. It's not us
    adelady: thank you for your comment. CBDunkerson: I agree - clearly we have no common basis for discussion. Ditto KR.
  33. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Many thanks for the article Dana, certainly helps me take the battle to the committed misinformers on the CBC. Mores the pity, similar to the trend Cornelius pointed to, there is growing criticism to turbines in Canada. Mostly, we Canucks seem to be in favour of the

    idea

    of turbines, but it is a "not in my back yard" sense. As more information is presented that warming is still occuring, green energy helps the economy, the non-climate related impacts of fossil fuel energy production are enormous and that the projected impacts of catastrophic climate change are not exaggerations, hopefully the trend of criticism will be reversed
  34. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Neven @ 13 - Wasn't Dr. Curry also "misquoted" during the recent PBS NewsHour dustup? It could all trace back to the same original quote, but if she is honestly having that much trouble getting her point across, you would think she may try a different approach.
  35. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Cornelius I think the increase in prices is due to a number of factors, including low carbon energy and grid investment etc. but not solely. Regarding the UKIP doc. Reading the first few paragraphs... The 15% figure for renewable energy is often a misquoted and mis-used one. It applies to ALL energy use, not just electricity generation. It was (mis)used by Chris-Heaton Smith in his campaign to get MP support to stop/reduce wind farm installations. I think it is estimated that around 30% of UK electricity will have to be produced from renewables to obtain a 15% overall renewable energy portfolio by 2020. Renewables currently (in Q1 of 2012) account for about 11% of electricity generation, that is all electricity generation renewables, not just wind turbines. The spinning reserve thing quoted for gas turbines I would say is incorrect, such a turbine probably only takes about 15 minutes or so to run up. Much of this issue is in designing systems. In any case there are some good energy storage systems being developed now that have a lot of potential, use cheap abundant materials and don't depend on batteries. Such as: http://www.isentropic.co.uk/ The keep the 'wheels of industry' turning bit is amusing considering most of it has been exported to China et al! UKIP twist the purpose of the current renewables plans. Current renewables installation is to offset established fossil fuel electrcity generation, so inevitably you are still going to have fossil fuel generators as well. What they are doing is assuming that the current plan is to shut down fossil fuel plants on a like for like basis. Some of that will happen but the goal is to cut CO2, not to take plants offline. The bigger issue is later when we need to have a higher percentage of low carbon energy. But that's when the new energy storage and smart technology will kick in and we will need fewer fossil fuel fired power stations.
  36. Cornelius Breadbasket at 00:31 AM on 17 October 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    I am so grateful for this article. Here in the UK there is a growing backlash against wind turbines and the article was skewed to imply that growing energy prices were the result of green energy, which I don't believe to be accurate. With 'respected' papers like the Mail printing nonsense - no wonder we have UKIP printing policy documents like this one. Please - is there someone at SKS who would be kind enough to help me write an objective scientific response to this policy document?
  37. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    As Neven points out, CT sea ice area has now surpassed the record anomaly against the 1979-2008 daily average. The record from 2007 was 2.635 million km2 below the daily average. The record is now 2.705 million km2 below.
  38. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Bart: My fault. Updated data for all the series, including new versions of HadCRUT4, BEST and UAH on their way to John. Unfortunately we never got round to automating the updates.
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
    All the links look fine now. Must just have been the two you fixed.
  40. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    But what is much worse, in my opinion, is when you have a (formerly) respected scientist (i.e., Curry) enabling Rose while full-knowing the long dubious history of said "journalist". In fairness to Professor Curry she does claim that she has been misquoted She claimed she had been misquoted by David Rose last year as well. In fact she said: "At the moment, I’m feeling manipulated by both Rose and BEST." But she talked to him again, and was misquoted again. Well, gee golly, would you believe it? Poor, innocent Dr. Curry...
  41. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Dear all, Very good post, but...I downloaded the HadCrut4 data myself. The yearly average temp from 1997 to 2011 are: 1997 0.39 1998 0.523 1999 0.298 2000 0.291 2001 0.433 2002 0.485 2003 0.496 2004 0.438 2005 0.534 2006 0.491 2007 0.478 2008 0.383 2009 0.489 2010 0.54 2011 0.399 I computed a linear trend with Excell and the outcome is 0.06 per decade (not 0.084). As far as I can see the trend calculator seem to miss some points at the end of the series? Bart Strengers
  42. It's not us
    Carbon500, if you make reality a matter of perception then we have no common basis for discussion. Either the globe consists of more than the surface atmosphere (e.g. oceans, higher layers of the atmosphere, et cetera) or it does not. Either the graph you posted showed a warming trend or it did not. If you truly believe the 'not' position on either of these issues then 'the way you see it' is at odds with perceived reality 'the way I see it'.
  43. Climate sensitivity is low
    Falkenherz, it depends on what you mean by 'significant'. Current TSI (sometimes still called 'the Solar constant' even though we now know it isn't actually constant) is about 1361 W/m^2. The Maunder Minimum ~1700 was less than 1 W/m^2 lower. Thus, the most profound swing in TSI of the past several thousand years was a change of less than 0.1%. The difference from peak to valley of the ~11 year cycles is also about 0.1%, but obviously maintained over a shorter period. Over longer time scales TSI is increasing by about 0.1% per ~140,000 years as the Sun grows older and hotter. Yet, these 'tiny' changes in TSI have noticeable effects on the Earth's climate due to feedback sensitivity. The fact that current greenhouse gas forcings are already larger than any solar variation of the past few hundred thousand years should thus be of some concern.
  44. It's not us
    carbon500, You need to check out the latest SkS post.
  45. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    I was waiting for this debunk to inform my comments on HuffPo. Its climate section has been inundated by Daily Mailites. I love the denier / realist gif. This distortion of the Met Office HadCRUT4 data will I'm afraid be a powerful denialist tool. Complexity is the enemy in the Daily Mail's / WUWT world of automatic gainsay.
  46. It's not us
    KR: It depends on what you mean by an experiment. To me an experiment is something which has been set up so that variables can be controlled by the experimenter, hence my comments regarding an artificial atmosphere. CBDunkerson: the graph I'm talking about is entitled 'Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature'- you don't agree with the way I see it; so be it. (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. Please follow the link that Adelady was kind enough to provide for a discussion of that newspaper article.
  47. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Tommi@7, Your critique has been explained in this post. Particularly in comment 2, Dana explains that the "dip" is due to incomplete BEST data from 2011, that "skeptics" like to cherry-pick to support their preconceptions, wheareas in the realist view, BEST series was extended with all available data for 2011 (at that time). Was it a good choice to illustrate this denialist meme? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it was good, as we've seen example of such data cherying/distorting by denialists in the past.
  48. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    It's depressing how an apparently serious newspaper prints such garbage. I don't see any big complication in understanding that a linear trend overlaid on short-term cyclic variation can occasionally result in a "flat" or even "negative" short-term trend. A really simple thing to do is to create a plot of a sine wave added to a linear function (e.g. y = sinx + 0.1x will give periods of about 3 units where the curve goes down) and on a sufficiently small time scale, the trend appears reversed, or do what I did here: take a period when the temperature record is flat, add a positive linear trend, and you will still find periods when there is a negative slope on a trend line. In all cases, you know there's a linear trend because you've imposed one on data that had no trend before.
  49. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    #55 Hi again JoeRG, I think I understand why they chose to use the global value. It's because they're looking at total radiative forcing, and ultimately they include land/atmosphere/ice heating as well as OHC change in the calculation. So the total value should use a factor of 0.62. In this case it makes sense to calculate the individual components using the 0.62 factor because then they can be simply summed to get the final answer. What each column is calculating is therefore the global RF required to produce each heat content change in 0-700 m, 700-2000 m and LIA. Makes sense, as Table 1 is labelled 'global flux imbalance...'
  50. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    The Daily Mail has been appropriately described as "Britain's answer to Fox News". Enough said.

Prev  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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