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  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  Next

Comments 53601 to 53650:

  1. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Ooops ... the comment "the 57% figure is much firmer than it looks" should red "the 57% figure is not as firm as it looks".
  2. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    dana @29 Unfortunately, not everyone sees carbon taxes (or cap and trade) as benign. I keep looking at the link to counter-argument #37 and not seeing the same thing that you apparently do. The pie chart in the middle, based on the New York University Law School study really jumps out, "The  pool  of economists was selected by searching the top twenty‐five economics journals over the past fifteen years and identifying all articles related to climate change." Fascinating, but I wouldn't recognize a "top economics journal" if I found one in an airline seat back, have no idea what process they use to select articles for publication, or whether those writing anything about climate have any more academic credentials to do so than does Anthony Watts ... and the study isn't illuminating about any of those issues. Back to said pie chart: "57%  agreed  that  the  U.S.  government  should  commit  to  greenhouse gas reductions “regardless of the actions of other  countries,”  while  an  additional  15.5%  agreed  that  it  should  do so “if it can enter a multilateral emissions reduction treaty  with  some  countries,”  and  21.8%  agreed  the  U.S.  should  move  forward  “if  other  major  emitters  commit  to  reducing  emissions through a global.”   Only 0.7% would wait until all  countries commit to action, and 2.1% thought the U.S. should  not act regardless of the actions of other countries." To you, that looks like consensus, but to me, that looks like over 37% think the economic consequences of setting a carbon tax without international agreement would do more damage to the economy than it was worth ... a position I personally find incredible and inconsistent with any form of "expertise in climate". I also think that the 57% figure is much firmer than it looks since no numbers were mentioned in the survey ... in my experience, when things get specific, the support tends to go down. So, at least among economists (or the half who completed the survey) there is less a consensus than a raging controversy over the relative harm to the planet (or the country) that climate change will cause relative to the harm they think mitigation will do to the economy. Pretending that this issue is settled among economists is not constructive. Am I convinced by the studies provided? Yes I am, but I am not going to pretend that there are no serious economists with impeccable credentials who disagree ... and in that field there are not outnumbered anything like ninety-seven to three. It might be helpful if you could recruit some to participate at this site, and to do more public advocacy, because you can't really make economic arguments based on appeals to authority yourself, unless you have additional degrees you have been hiding under a bushel. Best wishes, Mole
  3. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    jyyh - my guess would be it's something to do with how the open water is appearing with low sun angles - looking at yesterday's mosaic (and the previous two days too), you can see a distinct latitudinal lower limit to the greenish tint on the right-hand side of the Arctic mosaic - looks a lot like wherever there's open water above ~80N there's the green tint, perhaps the blue spectral channel is not getting as good signal at low sun angles.
  4. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @7, Just a point of information - Einstein graduated from Zurish Polytechnic in 1900 with a Teaching Diploma that had a mathematics and physics component. He became a patent examiner two years later. He never placed much value on his Diploma, but the Polytechnic did bring him into a lively circle of mathematicians and physicists. He befriended some of these and discussed his ideas with them. The group included his first wife, who was also a student at Zurich, in the same maths and physics courses. She failed to graduate and her role in Einstein's early work is contested. Einstein's youthful achievements were amazing without making them more so. It is true he worked alone, but he was not the complete outsider that is often portrayed.
  5. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dana #29 - that's what I find so extraordinary about this whole taxes line of argument. Can these guys not add up? Has it not ever, once, occurred to them what the first knock is going to be from a destabilising climate? Guess I'd better spell it out. The first big and wide-reaching hit from climate change will be due to disruption to harvests in major food producing areas of the world. It only takes one of these major areas to be badly affected - e.g. the USA Midwest this year. Get several such areas so affected for say three years out of five and we are looking at substantial hikes in food prices. This hits the poorest people of the world hardest but it affects everybody in the pocket and it hits harder and harder over time. Compared to any proposed carbon tax, food price-hikes are going to hit everyone and, unlike the luxury of being able to choose whether or not to drive somewhere, eating is not optional. That is what Watts and friends are NOT telling you.
  6. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    The late melt area in Arctic has gone greenish in this image: http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r04c04.2012262.terra.1km Could it be the Arctic algae have found a new breeding (and decomposing) ground this year? Of course it can be also something else f.e. some error in the imagining system on Terra, or late season refraction due low sunlight. Any way if it's algae it'll die soon as the sun goes below the horizon.
  7. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    scaddenp @28 - I think that was one of those rare moments of total honesty. 'What bothers you the most?' 'Carbon tax.' It's totally absurd when you think about it. Carbon pricing is such a benign solution - you're talking about very minor increases in energy and gasoline prices, which could be offset by reductions in other taxes if that's something you're worried about (like British Columbia is doing). On the other side of the coin if the deniers are wrong, you have utter catastrophe. How can a carbon tax possibly bother you more than the potential for a climate catastrophe? I guess if you deny that a catastrophe is even possible. But you know, there's a term for people who are in denial. Anthony Watts doesn't like that word, but he's living it.
  8. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    "ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." Isn't this the most extraordinary admission? This is tantamount to saying "Accepting AGW might result in more taxes, ergo AGW is wrong". If you understand and accept AGW, then of course you want to change policy. What reasonable person would not try and prevent a disaster. However, Watts is implying that people want to raise taxes, therefore they are making up AGW as way to achieve this! I cant even begin to get my head around this worldview. The correct way to look at issue, is to decide whether AGW is likely to be true on the basis of evidence, then decide what is the best response. Dont like carbon pricing? Come up with an alternative then.
  9. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale: Academic credentials can help, but they aren't a pre-requisite. Credentials also don't guarantee any sort of expertise either. Assertions that unfortunately fly in the face of facts at hand. If News Hour was trying to select an expert to offer cogent support of contrary viewpoints on AGW, they obviously failed. On the other hand, if News Hour was attempting to illustrate the gulf between expert understanding of climate change and the opinions of a celebrity dilettante, they accomplished half of their intention.
  10. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Doug @20, You raise a very important point and one that the interviewer would have picked up on had they done their homework.
  11. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @17, That is an interesting paper, but it does not challenge the fact that the positive water vapour feedback (e.g., Randall et al. 2007; Dessler 2012), and empirical data together with model data suggests that the cloud feedback is weakly positive (e.g., Dessler 2010, Dessler 2012). All good scientists are skeptics, true skeptics that is. Those true skeptics have been asking "how much" as evidenced by the plethora of scientific papers on the issue, and Dana cited some of the more pertinent ones in his post. So can we please not "debate" points/facts that have been well established all along. It is, however, disconcerting when individuals elect to borrow the term "skeptic" as a front or cover for their bias and/or agenda (as Mr. Watts let slip in the interview). Watts' record demonstrates that he is not a true skeptic, but a fake skeptic (which is the antithesis of a true skeptic in this case). PBS has acknowledged that they should not have only posted Watts' comments in that blog post. So they have accepted an error when it was brought to their attention and in their update tried to address that error/shortcoming.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Per KR's suggestion, any further discussion on WV feedbacks should be taken to a more appropriate thread.
  12. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Doug @20: Academic credentials can help, but they aren't a pre-requisite. Credentials also don't guarantee any sort of expertise either. I've hired numerous IT people with all sorts of credentials who ended up being complete duds. Some of the best IT people I've hired for companies were non-credentialed people. John @22: Neither would I, but not surprising, I'm not American. But I suspect the producer probably also wanted to play a bit on the Watts v Muller snipeing. If you look at it one way, a sceptic of station siting turns warmist (Muller) and a warmist turns sceptic over station siting (Watts). A bit of journalistic license, and you got yourself a show that fuels the public. And that's what the show did. From a journalistic POV, the show worked wonders.
  13. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale - Thank you for providing a link. However, while potential increases of afternoon rains over drier soils (as discussed in that link) are interesting, global precipitation is driven by relative humidity. And that (see Dai 2005), while demonstrating significant variations on a regional level, shows that global RH hasn't changed more than 0.6% in the 1976-2004 timeframe. If you are interested in discussing that topic further, however, I would suggest taking it to one of the "cloud" or "water vapor" threads. This thread concerns the false balance issue (attention should be proportionate to evidence), Watts' misinformation (such as claiming a bad temperature record, when his own peer-reviewed paper states otherwise), and PBS's failure to ask basic questions of investigative journalism. Do you have any relevant comments regarding this thread?
  14. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @Dale #17: Sorry to burst your bubble, but I wouldn't recognize Anhony Watts if I bumped into him on the street.
  15. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    For yet another critique of the Watts interview, check out: MediaMatters’ PBS NewsHour Propagates Confusion On Climate Change
  16. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale: A scientist does not need academic credentials. They need well researched, well reasoned, well supported points. The first attribute "academic credentials" leads more reliably to the next three. If you're a producer working in the usual feverish haste, skipping the basic notion of formal qualifications as the first step to picking an expert is a very foolish choice, leads to embarrassment. We've just seen that amply demonstrated. Sometimes an "appeal to authority" is not so bad. "Help us" isn't the same as "he just knows." Of course if they'd chosen Richard Lindzen we'd have a whole different set of objections. :-)
  17. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What, between posts on CO2 snow and climate elves? Watts up with those?
  18. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @17 -
    They need well researched, well reasoned, well supported points."
    Which Watts does not have.
  19. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Please note, my above comments are more a look at sceptics "as a whole" as opposed to Watt's scepticism. PBS wanted to cover the sceptic view, and that sceptic view is "how much?" They could've spoken to any sceptic in reality, but in the US right now, Watts is the most recognisable sceptic. Hell, they could've even spoken to me if they wanted and I still tell them the sceptic view is "how much?" And that's what Watts put forward. His own personal justification to ask that question is due to suspecting station data. Me personally, I ask that question because of uncertainty over some parts of the hydro cycle. But it still all boils down to the point that sceptics are sceptics, because we ask "how much?" My point on scientists, PhD or not, was a simple response to the "why did they interview him, he's no scientist". A scientist does not need academic credentials. They need well researched, well reasoned, well supported points. Mod @9: Here's one to start on. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11377.html
  20. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    For another review of the Watts interview, check out: PBS NewsHour's Climate Change Report Raises Eyebrows (VIDEO) posted on The Huffington Post.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Your link is circular, pointing back to this very thread.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Update and SKS plug at PBS.
  22. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Watts' remark about a timeline for modernizing our approach to using hydrocarbons was empty hyperbole, a rhetorical flourish. It was also a classic strawman argument, a fabrication describing what Watts would like others to believe his opposition is endorsing. Watts was attempting to associate people making serious efforts at policy response to global warming with a ridiculous solution not conjectured by anybody in a position of responsibility and authority to deal with the problem. Watts got away with that red flag unchallenged. How and why is it that a volunteer blogger for Skeptical Science can spend a little of his free time and be more successful with critical thinking than the professional staff of PBS News Hour? What's the payroll of the production unit responsible for this remarkable failure?
  23. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, Just exactly how many more times does Watts have to be wrong, or promote pseudo science or attack scientists for you to understand that he is not interested in advancing scientific knowledge? While Mr. Watts might be telling you what you want to hear, believe me when I say that I do not want Drs. Hansen, Trenberth and other climate experts to be correct. Additionally, I for one am not going to bury my head in the sand in denial, or ignore the problem, or wish the problem away.
  24. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    As Albatross @10 notes, and as shown in the post we did about Watts' draft paper (linked in the above post), Watts does not understand the most fundamental aspects about how the surface temperature record is put together, and thus is not an expert in this area. Therefore, there is no reason for PBS to have interviewed him on the subject. In fact Michels said he chose to interview Watts to "hear more about the skeptical perspective", not because Watts actually has any expertise in the subject area. That is the very definition of false balance.
  25. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Regarding the science indicating anthropogenic climate change… I look at our 3rd rock the way a doctor views a patient; treatment follows diagnosis. The indicators as to whether a patient does or doesn’t have a given condition cannot be weighed against any concerns with particular treatment modalities being suggested. Carbon amelioration policy does not alter the accepted metrics or change physical reality. What is today is in no way changed by what is being considered for tomorrow. No doctor would ever suggested that blood values were inconclusive or that a MRI inadequate evidence simply because of a treatment being considered. They only measure the facts in hand. Let the facts speak for themselves; best if we don’t put the cart before the horse. Many "skeptics" take the opposite approach and some even go so far as to suggest it is the cart of carbon taxation pulling the horse of climate science. As for PBS…this is no different than a marginal song put out by a great band. Everyone slips up on occasion. The real issue, as has been pointed out, is that of false equivalency. Watts is to peer review research what Milli Vanilli was to original artistry.
    Moderator Response: Fixed text.
  26. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, I hope that you are not equating Watts with Einstein, or Hansen for that matter. What you say may be true in ordinary circumstances, but this is far from ordinary circumstances. Also, please recall my example of Watts making an amateur mistake by ignoring the time of observation bias, that is a huge red flag right there. Hopefully you have higher expectations of your cardiologist or anesthetist. The issues are twofold: 1) There is no reason to interview Watts when there are several other highly qualified experts available to speak to the subject; to do so is making the mistake of false equivalence, 2) Watts' attempt to conduct science is severely compromised by his ideology and his bias. Now if Mr. Watts were not in the unfortunate habit of repeatedly misrepresenting the science, promulgating and highlighting inferior or even pseudo science on his blog, then he may have been in a position to undertake objective and original science. The record shows that, for the most part, he is unwilling to do that.
  27. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    dana @6: I did see your "Global Warming Attributed to Humans" section of the above post. I refer you to my point that new research is coming out that questions some of the hydro cycle in models. You do mention aerosols in the article as one area lacking in clarity, but you failed to mention components of the hydro cycle. And ultimately, the hydro cycle is the most important part of the feedback system.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please provide a link to this new research you cite.
  28. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    So how does being consistently wrong, as Watts is, increase human scientific knowledge? Watts is in no danger of being awarded a PhD in science.
  29. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Albatross and Dennis: On the subject of "not a scientist", one does not need a PhD to increase human scientific knowledge. Einstein didn't even have a degree (let alone a PhD) when he published his theory of relativity in his 20's. He was a patent office clerk. His PhD was given to him well later.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Your presentation of Einstein is false and based on urban myth. If you still believe this to be true, please provide supporting references. Otherwise, reference all of the comments later in this thread to discover the truth.
  30. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @4 - I refer you to the "Global Warming Attributed to Humans" section of the above post. Moreover, Watts is arguing not that global warming is being caused by some mysterious natural cycle, but by urban influences on the temperature record, which is just plain wrong. As for his economic catastrophe claim, the real reason it is alarmist is that it's a strawman - virtually nobody is proposing that we stop using fossil fuels within 5-15 years.
  31. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Albatross @1 - fair point about the false equivalence, putting up blogger Watts alongside scientist Richard Muller.
  32. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    To be fair to Watts (and nearly all other sceptics), he does talk about the percentage of warming attributable to humans. This is the heart of climate change scepticism. To sceptics, they feel justified in asking for the empirical data to prove it's nearly 100% human caused (and not just models or "there's no other explanation"). Sceptics do not deny the world has warmed, or that humans have impacted the climate. But they are right in asking "by how much?" There is still some big question marks over some of the components of climate, which is openly recognised by the IPCC and other leading climate scientists. For instance, there's been some recent papers come out questioning parts of model hydro cycles showing via observations and field tests the opposite to what was previously assumed/known. In problem solving, it is also pragmatic to know all the facts first, lest you implement the wrong solution. Even the IPCC appears to be changing their stance on climate change as more research is done, with the removal of "very likely" (their 95% confidence level) to describe the human component of warming, and dropping back to a broader definition of the warming to encompass natural internal and external forcings as well as a human component in the draft for AR5. And TBH, if we suddenly stopped using oil, coal and gas in the next 5-10 years, it would cause major problems economically and socially. There's no possible way all three could be replaced in that short of a time without causing problems to society. Well, not without taxing your own population into poverty, which would be doubly problematic since, if most tax revenue is going into changing, that leaves not much left for the extensive social programs already funded by Govts. Replacing 99% of human energy demands needs to be properly planned, economically and socially.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Sceptics do not deny the world has warmed, or that humans have impacted the climate."

    Incorrect, as evidenced by the numerous rebutted skeptic memes on this very website.

    When making assertions citing literature, it is considered good form to also cite an accompanying link to the selfsame research. Please do so.

  33. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dennis @2, Perhaps we should be too pessimistic, even the best falter sometimes. It is not too late for PBS to set the record straight and to learn form this momentary lapse of reason (with apologies to Pink Floyd). We shall see...
  34. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    The PBS Newshour long enjoyed a reputation for honesty and solid reporting. It's not a coincidence that one of its longtime anchors, Jim Lehrer, has routinely been selected as a fair and neutral moderator of the U.S. presidential debates. People have come to trust PBS's approach to news reporting. However, placing Watts in the position of scientist has destroyed its reputation.
  35. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dana, It is even worse than your post shows. Not only were PBS guilty of false balance, they were guilty of false equivalence. Mr. Watts is first and foremost not a scientist, never mind one who specializes in the intricacies and complexities of correctly homogenizing and adjusting temperature records. For example, consider Watts recently showing his ignorance regarding the importance of allowing for the time of observation adjustment. So his misguided (and often incorrect) assertions and opinions on this subject are most definitely not on par with those of experts in the field. Watts has also repeatedly shown that he is guilty of confirmation boas. Moreover, Watts' claim about the BEST papers is demonstrably false. Specifically, at least three of the BEST papers are undergoing peer review, and that the paper submitted to JGR-A has been accepted conditional to the acceptance of another paper in which they present a new approach for averaging temperatures (at least for temperature data that is). Mr. Watts' alarmist and unsubstantiated comments about "economic catastrophe" really sealed the deal. As I see it, in this interview Watts has openly stated the primary reason for his denial about the seriousness of human-caused climate change in addition to his ongoing attacks on climate scientists. It is now clear that for Mr. Watts this "debate" has everything to do with defending his ideology and belief system, and nothing to do with science. Instead, Mr. Watts is routinely distorting and misrepresenting the science (too many examples to cite here) to further his ideological and political agenda. Finally, the real political tools here are Watts and those closely affiliated with him (e.g., Curry, Pielke Senior, Christy, Spencer, Monckton, Singer, not to mention the legion of conspiracy theorists who frequent his and Curry's disinformation blogs) . How very sad....one almost pities them, almost.
  36. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    All links now fixed and working properly.
  37. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    All links in the Fingerprints section are now working. More fixes to be made.
  38. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    "Never buy a new model of a car the first year it comes out. Sorry about the broken-links. I'll fix them pronto.
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    Hmm well I love the idea of the news round up. Just need to get those links working.
  40. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    I can't imagine this having much of an effect on the outgroup, but it's pretty cool. I watched the other symphony of science videos after I saw this but this one is definitely my favourite.
  41. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    There is a problem with many of the links. In Fingerprints, only items 3 and 4 work. In Plans, none of the links work. The rest seem OK.
  42. New research from last week 37/2012
    Thanks Bernard J, I've been waiting for the paper to be freely available. I'll draft something up next week - unless you're offering? Hint, hint......
  43. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    "Only when the media focuses on factually accurate reporting will the public become correctly informed on climate change." Last night here in the states the PBS News Hour, formerly a well respected source of reliable reporting, demonstrated that they are not interested in informing the public on climate change. They still cling to supposed controversy story. They spoke of the vast majority of researchers whose work has demonstrated that greenhouse gasses do trap heat and that climate change is taking place as “believers” and they spent a large part of the story interviewing Watts as if he were a scientist with opposing research. So I wonder which will happen first: Factually accurate reporting or and international agreement to limit GHG or peace in the Middle East. My guess is we have a better chance at solving the Middle East situation.
  44. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike Mellor - Here's a direct link to Myhre et al 1998, which I believe is from Dr. Myhre himself. In short, they ran radiative modelling (akin to numerical integration, not global climate modelling, mind you) using HITRAN spectral data, over three different atmospheric profiles (tropical, northern, and southern hemisphere), and calculated the incremental forcings. They then arrived at F=5.35 ln(C/C0) W/m^2 as an appropriately scaled approximation of the forcing deltas. Note that this was an update from the value used in the 1990 IPCC reports, which was 6.3, not 5.35 - in other words the Myhre analysis has a slightly lower forcing for doubling CO2. --- Sphaerica - I don't believe you have that equation right. The forcing delta is in W/m^2, not Fahrenheit, and the resulting forcing change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2. That leads to a temperature change (as per the SB equation, no feedbacks, assuming radiated power at TOA goes from 240 to 243.7) of ~1.1C, after which you have water vapor changes (another 1.1-1.3°C, total of ~2.4°C) and additional feedbacks - leading to a total climate sensitivity of ~3°C/doubling of CO2.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Thanks, KR. My bad. I should have looked far more closely at the thread and question before responding. Requested edit applied.
  45. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike Myhre's formula is just a fit to the full radiative transfer code results. It has limited validity and it's not a functional form that can be applied to other situations. I'm not aware of any simplified form for Venus.
  46. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike, Sorry, I didn't notice the second part of your question. You can't apply a simple climate sensitivity equation like that one to Venus because it's apples and oranges. That sensitivity includes things like albedo feedbacks (ice/desert/water), carbon feedbacks, water vapor feedbacks and more. It's specific to earth, and derived by a combination of observational, paleo and modeling studies. Really... you need a complex computer program to simulate the atmosphere of Venus. What exactly are you attempting to prove or investigate?
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Ignore this. It was wrong.
  47. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Mike, The equation you present simply says that temperatures will increase 5.35˚F for every doubling of CO2. It's a restatement of the equation in Celsius:
    F = 3.0ln(C/C0)
    From this perhaps it is easy for you to see that this equation simply assumes a climate sensitivity of 3˚C per doubling of CO2, something I'm sure you've seen before. Search for "climate sensitivity" to see the various ways in which that is estimated.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Ignore this. It was wrong.
  48. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    I've read every comment here. Rosco could be one of three things: an idiot savant, an agent provocateur, or a fifth-columnist. Whichever way, it's resulted in an interesting exposition of the basics of climate science. Please can anyone help? The CO2 forcing equation F=5.35ln(C/Co); how is the parameter 5.35 calculated? How would I calculate the appropriate parameter for Venus with its higher atmospheric pressure, partial pressure, and depth of atmosphere? Myhre et al quoted in the article is behind a paywall, and an hour of searching for radiative transfer models hasn't yielded results. (shades@iburst.co.za)
  49. What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
    ATI has already said they plan to appeal, but the language the judge cited from the FOIA seems to clearly state that it does not cover correspondence or even 'work product' behind scientific research... only the final published result. Which, in most cases, is publicly available anyway.
  50. What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
    Yah, here's the mainstream from WaPo.

Prev  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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