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  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  Next

Comments 53201 to 53250:

  1. Dikran Marsupial at 19:16 PM on 25 September 2012
    Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz With regard to lags, if you look at the chart from the Washington Times article, clearly TSI appears to be lagging behind USA temperatures, not the other way round (until 1960 ish). Temps start rising in about 1860, but TSI falls until about 1890, temps fall from 1940, but TSI falls from about 1950. This would suggest changes in USA temperatures cause changes in TSI prior to 1960. However, the real point regarding lags is that there needs to be a reasonable physical explanation to explain why there should be a lag, rather than a mere statistical phenomenon. It is hard to see a physical mechanism that would explain why TSI changes have a lagged, rather than an instantaneous effect.
  2. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Lanfear, if this is true, then my question is answered. But how do we know that global temperature and TSI were coupled directly? If I see curves (like in figure 15 here, especially the one from "Lean 2000" http://sun.stanford.edu/LWS_Dynamo_2009/61797.web.pdf), then there might as well be a lag, since TSI seemed to go upward already a long time, roughly since 1700, by a total of roughly 2,5 W/m2 since then.
  3. Solar cycles cause global warming
    To my question 3, I think I got it; from "it's the sun", nicely explained there, thanks. According to figure 8 over there, for the last 100-150 years, there is very roughly about 22% of solar contribution to global warming. Translating this into the kind of answer I was looking for in question 3, roughly about 0,6 Degrees of the 0,76 Degrees raisal of global temperature in the last centuries cannot be attributed to TSI and must be due to GHG. I hope this is roughly correct. Now I just need to understand what TSI data is correctly used and how they translate TSI into temperature... on to more articles to read! I anybody could still bring some light (or links) into questions 1 and 2, please.
  4. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz@40 "Couldn't it be that global temperature is still rising because of the TSI forcings from before 1960?" I have a hard time understanding this point. The problem AFAIK is that up until this timepoint the TSI/temperature has been coupled directly without any delay. Now you propose that there is a delayed mechanism hidden somewhere that continues to heat up the atmosphere (and apparently upper 2000m of the sea). Furthermore the mechanism is at least as strong as the apparent TSI-effect was. So the question is: Why hasn't this mechanism revealed itself earlier and where was the heat hidden?
  5. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Dear co-commenters, my main question has not been answered, instead I received a lot of corrections on some of my (admittedly wrong) conclusions, and some nitpicking on words. But, on the basic questions, I am still unclear what to think. 1. The graph in the Washington Times (Source: "University of California-Berkeley Earth-Surface Temperature Project" -> so it IS based on scientific work?) shows a continuous upwards trend of TSI, as does also the graph "historical TSI reconstruction" on http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm. I am asking about the long-term observations on TSI, not only since 1960. There are people like Leif Svalgaard on WUWT who deny any TSI increase since 1800 (if I understood his ppt presentation which he linked there correctly). 2. If people say that TSI since 1960 is not raising anymore and that is why GHG have to be the dominant driver: Did people think about possible lags to TSI forcings in our climate system? Couldn't it be that global temperature is still rising because of the TSI forcings from before 1960? 3. If we nevertheless assume (or have evidence?) that the TSI is not high enough to further raise global temperature, how come that I always encounter the claim that there is a rise of +0.76°C since 1850, and "most" of it was caused by AGW? I hold my claim that this is a miscommunication, and I am asking of how much is exactly attributed to GHG after removing the TSI forcing. When I look for answers, I am suddenly confronted with decadal trends, which in fact does not answer my question. I read the one essay from Pasini et al. (2012) which is trying to answer this (link provided by DSL further up). But if I understand that essay correctly, their only evidence is a so called Granger causality. Looking this mathematical contruct up on wikipedia, I think this can hardly be treated as sound evidence, rather as an indication that there could be evidence.
  6. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    David, click the last link in this post. It covers Kinnard.
  7. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    I've never seen this data before. Ramez Naam has a "guest blog" posted on Scientific American's site. The post contains a chart Naam cooked up starting with data from the 2011 Kinnard et.al. study Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years which combines historical and proxy data to provide an educated guess as to what the record was from around 600 AD to 2006. Naam has added data up to the present, to produce this: Although Naam says he had to ask Kinnard for the chart, and the Kinnard et.al. study is behind a paywall at Nature, the Supplementary Information in pdf form isn't. Page 10 in the supplement has what looks a lot like the data Kinnard gave Naam on a chart containing a lot of other data.
  8. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Bastardi would do better by divining goat entrails.
  9. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    David - yes if you click the first link in the above post, you'll see a screenshot of that Bastardi prediction, and then how it compared to the observations (the latter is also shown in Figure 6 above).
  10. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    I missed the fact that this entertainment was issued in 2010. Sorry. I find it hard to take these clowns seriously. It would be funnier if he had done this a few days ago.
  11. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Eli Rabett has a "Your Joe Bastardi Entertainment Moment" video clip up on his blog. Bastardi makes public his prediction for 2013. He draws this yellow line as his prediction while he talks: "...I think that's where we're gonna be next year. We're gonna recover dramatically here, with the cold that is coming over the next 9 to 12 months. I think next year you're gonna see the latest start to the sea ice melt that we've seen in a long time...." One might ask, why, Joe? "that is simply because of (hesitates)... you know... my studies show. And we'll see if I'm right". Then, he claims he predicted correctly what happened this year. First, he said ""I was right about this year. It did not get down below here": "If people want to say, and they keep finding some metric to make you think its lower than it actually is... And I'm the guy who said this is where its going to wind up" (Confidently and proudly draws this yellow line): You heard it from Joe. That's where it wound up this year. Then, he issues his prediction for the next 30 years. "...It's not going to get back to normal. That shouldn't happen for another twenty or thirty years. But we should be back up here next year. The higher you climb away from your low point the harder it is to get back, and I fully expect twenty, thirty, some of those years beyond, to be a little bit above normal...." (Draws the upper yellow squiggle line well above all other lines): This is just like war propaganda. (snip)
    Moderator Response: [RH] Inflammatory snipped.
  12. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    And Watts comes through in spades for Prediction 3! Yep, it really doesn't matter, just like the 2007 minimum didn't matter.
  13. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Coming from a geological background, I would also point out that climate theory is pretty successful at predicting the surface temperatures of other planets/moons given atmospheric concentration, TSI and albedo. Regard each planet as a lab experiment.
  14. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Thanks yocta. I play a little fast and loose with the posting date/time, which is entered manually. We generally publish one post per day, and this one is intended as the post for the 26th, Aussie time.
  15. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    I've been waiting for this article for a while. Well done thanks SkS team :) PS, unless you are a time traveler or more east than I am in Sydney, is the posting date of the article supposed to be the 25th of September 2012?
  16. Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
    Mann's responses to Silver's climate chapter seemed very reasonable and polite, and entirely valid if Mann's descriptions are correct. I too would like to see Silver's response. It sounds like his climate chapter is all too similar to the Super Freakonomics climate chapter, which was quite poor.
  17. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
    Dana@3: I say we pool our resources, out of the *piles* of cash we get from our multi-gabillionaire backer, and buy JM an 'atta boy!' Put me in for a quid....:)
  18. It's the sun
    DB, thank you.
  19. It's the sun
    SirNubwub - While I feel it inappropriate to speculate on others motives, I would like to point out some issues with your previous postings. Your first posting on SkS, as far as I have found, asked "Can I now present to my classes that the hockey stick argument has been discarded by the AGW proponents? ". I recall another one (can't find it at the moment) asking why there was no significant warming in 15 years. You've also recently put forth the proposition that climate science is driven by the money, rather than the data. And in this thread you open up by stating "I am not here to debate a point. I have read the report, but I am not knowledgeable enough in the topic to try to defend it. I just want to learn the alarmist side of the point", then showing a graph of cherry-picked data, from a bad source, arguing directly against the point of the opening post. So, in context, you have presented a series of 'skeptic'/denial talking points, asking about the "alarmist side", usually with an air of "Doesn't this prove all of the science wrong?". The support for these points (IIRC) has been from newspaper articles, blog postings, and sources like the NIPCC. Bad sources, bad phrasing in your questions, all of which unfortunately can lead to a perception that you are more interested in propping up denial memes than investigating the data. It also appears clear to me that you have not read the opening post(s) on the threads you have joined, or looked over the list of 'skeptic' arguments, all of which quite frankly answer the questions you have raised. If you wish to be taken as someone actually interested in answers, I would suggest several things: (1) read the opening post(s), (2) critically evaluate your sources, and (3) ask questions, rather than dropping these "Aren't all of you wrong?" statements. Because, quite frankly, anyone involved enough in climate science and the public discussion to be present on a website like this has already heard enough"Silver Bullet" arguments from 'skeptics' to find them quite antagonizing.
    Moderator Response: [DB] The thread in question leads up to this comment by SirNubwub here. Fixed link & text per request.
  20. It's the sun
    @ SirNubwub #1032 I'd be very pleased if you were to proove me wrong. If you do, I will apologize.
    Moderator Response: [DB] SirNubwub should be accorded the benefit of the doubt, as per his/her recent comment above. Comments made in good faith on these threads are what matter.
  21. Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
    Mann responds to Nate Silver at HuffPost. Silver's book The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail -- but Some Don't apparently plays up the uncertainty game. Mann dresses him down but may have managed to avoid burning the bridge. I would like to see what Silver says in response.
  22. It's the sun
    John, You have me wrong and I am a bit ticked by you accusation. All of my discussions have been based on data from referrenced links. I have admitted that I have been wrong on two occassions now in the past few days. If that and my reply in line 1030 is not what you want to see from all skeptics, then please tell me how you hope I would reply.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Point taken. Dialogue and discussion in good faith should be accorded respect from all parties. The point of this site is to disseminate and foster civil discussion of the primary literature of climate change and to overcome misperceptions and misinformation about it.
  23. It's the sun
    @ Bob Loblaw #1029: SirNubWub's posts on this thread and others suggest to me that his primary purpose is not to learn, but rather, it is to provoke SkS authors into saying something intemperate. Therefore, be careful not to take the bait.
  24. It's the sun
    Bob, Thanks for the info. I see that the graph I posted is fairly useless. I will have to dive deeper into the subject of radiation. I appreciate the link.
  25. It's the sun
    SirNubWub: You really need to get more specific in just what it is you're looking for. Although not totally useless, "sunshine hours" is awfully simplistic. It used to be commonly measured by devices such as the Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder, and is defined formally as the amount of time where direct solar radiation exceeds 120 W/m^2. It depends on cloud, other atmospheric conditions, sun angles, etc., and is only very loosely related to solar energy received at the earth's surface. Likewise "cloud cover". Cloud is not something that is easily summarized in one number. What type? What altitude? What time of day? all this changes the effect that "one tenth cloud cover" will have on solar radiation. If you are interested in energy received at the surface, it is better to look directly at the measurements, such as those archived at The Baseline Surface Radiation Network. Note that the "fake skeptics" that are trying to mislead people (or are misleading themselves) will often ignore real, direct readings of importance (e.g. radiation) and focus on indirect, approximate readings of loosely-related factors (e.g., sunshine, cloud cover). This is another form of cherry-picking. Regardless of whether it is intentional or the result of confirmation bias or motivated reasoning, it is not good science.
  26. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Following up several points in one place... Although a controlled experiment of "the greenhouse effect" is not possible (we're doing an uncontrolled one, however), many, many parts of atmospheric science are amenable to controlled lab experiments - such as IR characteristics of CO2 and other gases, scattering effects of aerosols, and much other physics-related issues. There isn't any simple "global climate theory" - it's a compendium of many aspects of physics and biology; some with extremely strong evidence, others with less. A specific question can be answered with specific details, but if the question asked is "What's the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything", then answering "42" is probably not an answer to the question you really want to know. I know I've seen the table of contents of "The Warming Papers" on-line. Many of the papers contained in it are freely available for download, too. (Try Google Scholar.)
  27. It's the sun
    SirNubwub - I would suggest looking at Ari Jokimäki's list of Papers on global cloud cover trends, in particular Eastman et al 2011.
  28. It's the sun
    I have been able to find some data on global cloud cover. I also see that it is a bit complicated with low clouds cooling Earth and high clouds warming Earth. Will take some figuring out. Again, thanks for your time.
  29. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    SirNubWub repeats one of the favourite denialist memes, (along with the ones about Einstein and Galileo), that billions are spent on government research into AGW, so the fact that Big Oil spends a few million here and there on countering the science is no big deal. The big difference is the word RESEARCH. When you carry out proper research, you do not necessarily know what you are going to find. So you could, for example, set up an experiment to measure ice pack thickness by satellite, year by year. The results may be different from what you expect, but you report them honestly, regardless of any ideological bias you might have. Contrast this with the 'research' carried out by the likes of Watt, or our very own Bob Carter. The result is preordained. We and they know that they will never in a million years admit that AGW is happening, or even express any doubt whatsoever. That is not research. That is propaganda pure and simple. If they ever started accepting the possibility that AGW is happening, they would lose their oil industry funding immediately. THAT, is the difference, and I am constantly amazed that supposedly intelligent people (well, so they claim to be), cannot see this.
  30. It's the sun
    KR and marsupial Thank you for your input. I understand your points. From the information provided to me, I did not have the information on the Heartland funding. I will look for data on global cloud cover. Does anyone have any links to such data? Thank you both for your time.
  31. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
    Thanks very much chriskoz. Let's give John Mason credit for the well-deserved reposts of his article too. Good job John!
  32. It's the sun
    SirNubwub - Japanese daylight hours versus Chinese temperatures? And you think this is serious? You don't recognize the cherry-picking involved here? Or the disassociation between the two regions? The use of two different (and not directly related - as a tiny example, Japan is an island affected by oceans, China a fair chunk of a continent) subsets of data to argue against global information? Cherry picking - "...the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." The NIPCC "report" has been discussed elsewhere - it is a Heartland Institute funded effort that is quite frankly an effort in disinformation. I would strongly suggest you look into better resources than what are essentially industrial and ideological lobbying groups. Your post appears (IMO) to be a clear example of confirmation bias. Which is not a product, I'll note, of an "open mind".
  33. It's the sun
    Marsupial, The point that I am looking at is that the amount of sunshine has increased from 1970 to 2000, just like global temps. I agree that this is just for Japan, (as I said, just "supporting evidence") but wouldn't this regional data indicate that global data should be investigated with an open mind?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] (a) the amount of sunshine is measured in hours, thus it is nothing to do with the sun, but cloud cover over Japan. (b) The temperature data is for China. Thus neither is necessarily representative of global conditions. Secondly cloud cover over Japan is unlikely to have a close causal reationship with temperatures over much of China (apart from perhaps the Eastern coastal region).

    What makes you think that such links are not invstigated with an open mind? The EU for instance has spent about 12 million Euro investigating possible links between cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) and climate. I think you need to reconsider some of your preconceptions about mainstream science.

    This is the last I am going to comment on this as I don't want to actively participate in a discussion that I am moderating (hence self-moderation of my previous moderation comment).
  34. It's the sun
    I am not here to debate a point. I have read the report, but I am not knowledgeable enough in the topic to try to defend it. I just want to learn the alarmist side of the point. The following graph is part of a report that is found at http://nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/23nov2011a5.html I see the graph as supporting evidence for the idea that the sun has been a major player in the recent warming from 1970-2000. I would like to know why I should not view the graph in this way. I thank you in advance. Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If you are genuinely interested in the science, then beginning by labelling the mainstream view as "alarmist" is probably not a good way to start the discussion. Please read the comments policy before continuing.
  35. Dikran Marsupial at 23:51 PM on 24 September 2012
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    By the way, David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumber (of RealClimate) published a book a while back called "The Warming Papers", which is essentially a collection of some of the key historical landmark papers on climate change, with commentary from the authors. So if you want to find out the historical undepinnings of climate change research, the Warming Papers is an excellent place to start. ALL skeptics should get a copy of it and read it so they know the true depth of what they are skeptical of.
  36. Dikran Marsupial at 23:44 PM on 24 September 2012
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    I have an idea for an experiment, and have identified a suitable industrial partner, however I have been unable to attract sufficient funding from the Natural and Environmental Reseach Council. They say I should just use a model instead. More seriously, to perform a physical experiment you would need to have a colum of atmosphere tall enough to exhibit a significant lapse rate, which pretty much rules out any lab based experiment. The basic mechanism was first suggested by Calendar and the first quantative analysis performed by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. That is probably the closest you will get.
  37. New research from last week 38/2012
    The sea level oscillation paper looks very interesting (at least from the abstract and figures). If the signal is real, the WN Pacific, North Atlantic and Indian ocean are past their upward inflection, so while they are still contribute positively to sea level rise, they contribute negatively to acceleration. However my first guess is that we are seeing the response to the late 19thC volcanoes and the mid-20thC aerosol cooling.
  38. New research from last week 38/2012
    Is there any research that has recorded any effects associated with human activity and development. Specifically: North Central region of Florida. The massive growth of the Orlando, Fl area (the huge addition of Concrete and Asphalt holding "heat" and releasing it throughout the cooler evening hours, than heating up much quicker the next day / the draining of Wetlands for development, which are recharge area's...holding & releasing moisture in a longer, more consistent time-span (that action going away with the draining /development) Then, our coastal water temperatures, butting against these massive concrete/asphalt expansions of development just 60 miles inland. The action of watching clouds pile-up against the coast, and then the action of seeing them "funnel out", through Ponce Inlet, >as if leaking through this watery exit. NOTE: Over the years, you could witness an every afternoon summer showers, (we got them in 2012 for the first time in several years). It appears (I don't have data to confirm), but, which seemed to have "shifted" to other area's or not existing in my area at all. I am curious if the data exist that demonstrates these "elevated Big City Temperature increases", are in fact changing wind-direction, and cloud development or lack of? Hence changing surface temp.
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
    This is not just SkS' week. This is Dana's week. His articles have been reposted/quoted in 11 publications! As regular reader since mid-2011, I noticed Dana's leading role as SkS most prolific author. A role very well played, as the above references prove. Congratulations, Dana and keep it going!
  40. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    barry strictly speaking, there's no lab experiment possible on the enhanced greenhous effect. It is like asking a lab experiment on the gravitational collapse leading to the explosion of a supernova. Climatology shares with astronomy and other fields of science the characteristic of reproducible and controlled experiments being impossible. But then, knowing the radiative properties of GHGs and the structure of the atmosphere you know what to expect. Whoever knows even a little bit of the two does not question the atmospheric greenhouse effect, self-styled skeptics only question its magnitude.
  41. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    Useful paper which was quite well hidden so might not have been picked up: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/HCTN_91.pdf It's slightly out of date as it pre-dates the record ice loss we've just experienced but appears to be a very comprehensive summary of Arctic ice loss and it's effects, with particular emphasis on the ability of models to match observations.
  42. Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
    The final paragraph of the conclusion of the Bray paper is truly bizarre. I am sure that the 38% of scientists who participated in the IPCC but thought that the IPCC reports underestimated sea level impacts would be horrified to discover that their disagreement with the 50% who said the IPCC got it right was being used to argue that the science is not settled. If someone really wants to argue inaction, then they need to show the percentage of scientists who support that inaction, not use the scientists who think the situation is even worse than reported to justify their stance. Spelling mistakes aside, there are a few other phrases in the conclusion that make me surprised this passed peer review — the suggestion that the current science is not devoid of "dogma and politics", the need to "wrest the issue from the hands of politico quasi-scientific institutions", the reference to ClimateGate and "the ensuing crisis in climate science concerning transparency", and "it will be interesting to see whether the facts will remain constant and the truth will change or the truth will remain constant and the facts will change". It seems to me that perhaps there is dogma and politics involved, but not where the author indicates.
  43. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    #34 - , oh, my! Dr Inferno will be getting jealous!
  44. Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
    roxanne - Even a quick look at Bray is very informative. After noting that there is a range of opinion (in particular a fair distribution of scientists who feel that the IPCC is either over or under estimating attribution, risks, etc), he concludes:
    When, as is often prematurely claimed, ‘the science is settled’, then, and only then, should the public and politics enter the fray. What this analysis has disclosed is that the science is NOT settled and that perhaps beneficial scientific skepticism, albeit in an infant stage, is growing and may wrest the issue from the hands of politico quasi-scientific institutions that have become fashionable in the era of ‘global’ studies.
    In other words, even though the mean of the surveyed scientists fall right along the generally accepted center of opinion as expressed in the IPCC, Bray wishes to Demand Impossible Perfection, a form of "Moving the Goalposts" - no action until there is unanimous consent (and possibly more than that, I'm certain additional criteria could be added) before acting. There is a consensus, a very strong one - in fact, stronger than the science in the CFC/ozone issue that led to the Montreal Protocols and success with addressing that problem. Brays work (IMO) is simply an attempt hair-splitting to raise doubts and delay action. I am not impressed.
  45. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Do you have anything yet, barry? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure people do that kind of stuff anymore. They certainly don't publish it. You might ask over at science of doom.
  46. Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
    Roxanne, I would say that this is an apples and oranges situation, and Bray knows it. As he points out, Oreskes tested for consensus on AGW basics, which at the time were being attacked by "skeptics." Bray wanted to see if there was consensus not on whether it was happening or whether it was us or even whether it was bad, but on specific issues -- sensitivity, model projections, etc. I'll read Bray further and see if I have anything to add. It's all kind of goofy to me, though, since the science is what it is. Consensus convinces the untrained and unfamiliar, or it makes research direction decisions. For the former, all you really need to know is that all of the world's major scientific bodies have issued statements of acceptance and concern. For the latter, read Spencer Weart's work at AIP. There is consensus for a limited range of sensitivity, but there is no consensus on a single figure. That is clear in the literature. If someone wants to turn that into "there is no consensus on AGW," well, they are free to abuse the untrained public. We'll all just deal with the aftermath.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Actually, given that the standard line is that 98% of the scientific community is in agreement, PBS should have given Muller 49 minutes and Watts one.
  48. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    barry: "the meat and potatoes physical lab test." I think you need to explain just exactly what it is you mean by this. For example, if what you want is a simple demonstration that CO2 really does absorb IR radiation, then there are gazillions of commercially-available systems for measuring CO2 in air using IR spectrometry. e.g., Licor.
  49. Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
    What are people's thoughts about Bray's study, which also refutes that there is a true consensus? Bray, D. (2010). The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(5), 340-350. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001 final draft at http://www.schulprojekt-klimawandel.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/journals/2010/Bray-envscipol.pdf
  50. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    I'm on a quest to find peer-reviewed papers specifically testing the enhanced greenhouse effect by raising CO2 levels in a volume of atmosphere in the lab. I'm looking for a fistful of more tightly controlled examples of those experiments you see on youtube. Not OLR or DLR in the atmos, not spectroscopic tables, just the meat and potatoes physical lab test. Checked every citation for Tyndall's papers. Nothing. Tried various search terms in google scholar. Nothing. I begin to imagine that this experiment has never been submitted for peer review! If anyone knows of such papers, or can tell me the right search terms to use to find them, that would be much appreciated. I plan to offer them up to Ari for a new list @ http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/, and to have them standing by for the undead hordes.

Prev  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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