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  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  Next

Comments 55301 to 55350:

  1. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I second the PRATT.....
  2. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Sounds like we need to declare PRATT and move on...
  3. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    "Ostrichosity".....scribblin' like mad, in my notebook..;) I also nominate the term, "ostrichoid,' for those who, even though they begin by sounding vaguely like true skeptics, start to lapse into full-on ostrichitis, when backed into a logic corner. I suppose it could also be for those who are beginning to get a clue as to the untenebility of their denialatti views, too. The lexicon grows....
  4. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, By the way, please do not take the next logical climate ostrich step, which would be to comb through those papers looking for statements that you can take out of context to make it look like this is not an issue. Please drop this. You are wrong. I don't expect you to admit to that, because it would change your level of ostrichosity, and I know climate ostriches hate to lose their very ostrichness. But the information is there. It's science. It is irrefutable. This debate is over.
  5. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I also would like to point out--not that the regulars here didn't notice it--that there's been a goalpost shift? Dale, we were talking *primarily* about the formation of ground level ozone (GLO), *not* tropospheric ozone. In any case, temperature there still is an impotant, if slightly less so, factor in its formation.
  6. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, in the face of the *mountains* of PR'd articles, cited references, and ~150 years of understanding of this subject, perhaps you might just do the right thing, and admit that *maybe*, juuust *maybe* you're incorrect about the stand you've taken? The hallmark of a *good* skeptic (nee scientist) is to know when they've been shown to be utterly wrong, and then "man up" and admit that mistake. We all do it, we all will continue to do it (Pauling eventually did it), and, at this point, it seems a bit--pointless--to keep answering your questions, when they've been addressed ad nauseum in this very thread. Just an idea...
  7. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    DB@11: I *like* it! Now, who's gonna write it up on Wikipedia? The birth of a new definition is something I'm not sure I've ever witnessed, before!
  8. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    David Lewis @1, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in 1970. Patrick Moore joined the committee in 1971. Given that we have not yet developed time travel, that means Moore was not a foundation member of the Don't Make a Wave Committee, and hence not a foundation member of Greenpeace (which was formed by a name change of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee"). This is quite consistent with his being one of the first members of Greenpeace, which is all that is claimed in the link you provide. I think no purpose is gained in inflating Moore's credentials, especially as he is using those credentials to destroy what he once stood for.
  9. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, Climate Change, Tropospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter, and Health Impacts (Kristie L. Ebi1 and Glenn McGregor, 2008) Climate change and allergic disease (Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPHa, et al, 2008) Climate change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 US cities (Michelle L. Bell et al, 2007) A review of surface ozone background levels and trends (Roxanne Vingarzan, 2004) Is that enough (for now)? There are lots more. Lots.
  10. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    Thanks for the patience work it takes to unpick a GG like this. I started the task on a comment thread elsewhere and offer my comment there (lightly edited) as it contains a few extra pieces of information not covered above. ________________________ This quote [the one with which this post started and which was also quoted on the other thread] is a piece alarmist strawman scaremongering from a paid industry lobbyist with a long history of misinformation on behalf of the mining, logging and pharmaceutical industries. I don't have any particular desire to defend Al Gore, but even in the quote you've included there is an easily demonstrated falsehood. Gore has *not* called for cessation of all fossil fuel use by 2020. Nor has McKibben (who is mentioned immediately before this quote), so the 3.5 billion deaths claim (which itself is highly contestable) is a classic strawman. Gore's proposal was for the USA (not the world) to cease all fossil-fuelled electricity generation (not all fuel use) by 2020 - a very different and more modest goal. The immediately preceding paragraph has a quote attributed to a man who died in 2005 that is not found anywhere else on the web except in this interview and its mirrors. Perhaps he said it in private musings, but we only have Moore's word for it and apparently he has never mentioned this quote before this interview in any forum that has ended up on the web. [The above post doesn't mention the alleged quote from Greenpeace founder Bob Hunter, in which he said that Greenpeace would have to be based on ideology "because not everyone can be a PhD ecologist".] "Oil is responsible for 36% of global energy and is therefore the most important source of energy to support our civilization." Methinks he's forgetting one energy source slightly more critical to our, and all previous, civilisations. [i.e. the sun, especially as mediated by photosynthesis.] "as a scientist who is fully qualified to understand climate change" He's got a PhD in environmental law. "Yet they provide no opinion as to what did cause the warming between 1910-1940." He has clearly not read IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html "the IPCC does not speak of "catastrophe"" Nope, just of >50% of all species committed to extinction, >20% suppression of crop yields, the end of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise sufficient to cause trillions in damages, millions of refugees, and so on. Oh, and this... https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html "The causes of climate change are first the sun, as it is responsible for the existence of climate." This is much like saying that the cause of most deaths during the Battle of Britain is the iron core of the earth, whose gravity sucked downed pilots to their demise. Almost trivially true, but basically irrelevant to any causal analysis with ethical significance. "global average temperature has now been flat for the past 15 years" The heat content of the earth continues to rise, with most of the energy continuing to go into the largest heat sink (the oceans) and a tiny percentage going into the atmosphere in non-linear ways. "I fear the irrational policies of extreme environmentalists far more that a warmer climate on this relatively cold planet (14.5 C global average temperature today compared with 25C during the Greenhouse Ages." Ah yes, those wonderful times when there were forests across Antarctica, crocodiles in the Arctic and almost no life in the tropics. I can't see any problem heading back there with a world of ten billion people with trillions and trillions of sunk costs in infrastructure built on the assumption of a 14.5ºC world...
  11. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Try B. P. E. Clapeyron, “Mémoire sur la puissance motrice de la chaleur,” in Journal de l’École polytechnique, 14 (1834), 153–190. If you have an open container of VOCs they evaporate exponentially faster when it is warmer. The original reference Eli gave IS refereed BTW and has many citations about the role VOCs play in forming ozone near the surface. Enjoy your reading assignment.
  12. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    I've met people who say the free-market economy can withstand anything: climate disasters, natural resource collapses, overpopulation, you name it - freedom, liberty and private property will take care of everything, even if we don't know how. The one thing the free-market economy cannot survive is low carbon - that's certain doom. Half of the people in a world would die within a year, as we now learn.
  13. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    I once had to debunk a similar thing: that time it was microwave radiation. As in the calculation above, the estimation (in favor of the hypothesis by overestimating sender density and strength and handy strength and usage) showed a difference of several orders of magnitude compared to the energy needed to heat the globe as is observed. -- Some arguments can easily be checked ad hoc for validity, but the more advanced biasing, tweaking, cherry picking, falsifying, etc. of science is not so easy to get for me - despite my regular reading on climate here and elsewhere - and I am very thankful to all people here contributing to this fact oriented work. I personally am not a (semi-)professional on the subject, so I only con contribute a little money to the web site each year: one of the best investments I can make in a livable future, I think.
  14. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    Looking of nuke test influence over the climate is a joke, however a related topic: the natural radioactive decay in Earth's mantle is not. This wikipedia article provides the real, somewhat signifficant number of 0.1W/m2 as the geo-radiative heat escaping to space currently. It used to be twice higher 2Ga. So, some (within just one order of magnitude-10) portion of this heat, diminishing as the Earth ages, can be attriubuted for recent cooling from hothouse of ancient history. I cannot find any more info about that in climate studies that I've looked at, which IMO cannot be ignored, because 0.1W/m2 should be taken into account if taking about total radiative balance. Or, maybe less geo-heat in recent times can mean that simply plate techtonics are not as fast as they used to be with no change to radiative balance, hopefully some geologist would explain it to me? Thanks.
  15. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    #5 - indeed, a very Moncktonian approach. It takes a certain and not particularly common skill-set to bluster in this way. When people like this demand that one debates them live, read, "I challenge you to sit next to me in public whilst I gush for however long I can get away with it for. You can't catch me". Written ones are much more fun, though, as they're easy to demolish even if it's a bit time-consuming.
  16. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    (-Snip-) EliRabett: Thanks for the info. Can you please describe the role of temperature (heat not light obviously) in the formation/destruction of tropospheric ozone? Sphaerica: Please point me to an actual peer-reviewed paper which supports the premise that GW increases tropospheric ozone formation.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
  17. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    David Lewis@4, our quote: the incoherent rambling of Moore, proves the point of the article that Moore is a classical Gish-Galloper. However, it does not say anything bad about his intelligence. I'd guess rather opposite: good rhetoric and public speaking skills mean Moore be possibly as skilled as lord Monckton. I haven't seen Moore in action but I see his tactics are very similar to Monckton's.
  18. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    He doesn't know anything about climate change. [-snip-] Eg: When he appeared alongside Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Lindzen, Tim Ball, etc., in the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore explained to the world why climate change became a major issue: "The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid-'80s the majority of people now agreed with all the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now, when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace, it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. Like I said, 'You guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table, you know. I mean, I'm not sure that's within our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element. The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because Communism fell, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and communists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than anything with ecology or science"
    Moderator Response: [RH] Tone it down a bit please.
  19. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    I had a different interpretation of Moore's statement [2] "The cause of the onset of Ice-Ages, one of which we are presently experiencing, is a puzzle we don't fully understand." I see it as a self-conflicting double whammy: A) that we don't fully understand the onsets of Ice-Ages. B) that we are currently experiencing such an onset into the next Ice-Age. How can he assure us that we are at such an onset while also insisting we don't fully understand them?
  20. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    David, thanks for the RS link, within which I found this little gem: "Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident." He's 'buried' the Little Ice-Age!
  21. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    There's no sense trying to minimize his early role at Greenpeace. George Monbiot in the article you link to identifies Moore as one of the founders of Greenpeace. He was said by Greenpeace itself to be one of its founders for many years, until he became an apostate. See: archived Greenpeace webpage Moore's been at this a long time. He isn't "back". He never goes away. Eg: When the U.K. Royal Society publicly excoriated ExxonMobil's U.K subsidiary Esso because they had broken the promise they made to the Royal Society that they would stop funding climate science denial, Patrick Moore charged to the rescue by writing a letter in support of ExxonMobil. Moore challenged the scientific qualifications of the representative of the Royal Society he was writing to and told them they did not understand what science was. [-snip-]
    Moderator Response: [RH] Snipped inflammatory.
  22. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    "Chemtrails," not contrails! How can we enact a conspiracy if we can't keep our terms straight? No "Agenda 21 Decoder Ring" for you guys, sorry.
  23. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Thanks, Eli! I've always said, it's good to have a spare chemist lying around, just in case you need one. And if you can find one that refers to himself in the third person, that's all the better! As an aside, here's more commentary (second hand, in the form of an article) from the UK Royal Society and a Guardian article from 2004. Both explicitly reference increased ozone levels and health impacts in this decade, versus previous periods. Impacts of climate change? You decide.
  24. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Gee EliRabett, there nothing like someone who knows what they are talking about to ruin a good argument. Thank you for that valuable insight.
  25. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    I was going to suggest that we shouldn't haarp on about this... ;-)
  26. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    When flying in comment streams, don't poke the HAARPies!
  27. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    The CA Air Resource Board has a very good review of tropospheric ozone chemistry see Chapters 3 and 4 from which most of this argument is taken. WRT this thread there are a few important points to be made. First, while storm driven intrusions of stratospheric ozone can push ozone down into the troposphere, the penetration decreases as the distance from the tropopause increases. There are effects high up in the mountains but the amount that gets down to the ground is miniscule, esp wrt ozone in urban areas during the summer. For the purposes of this thread that is a red herring, a tasty one perhaps, but not more. Second, the discussion has not touched on the role of volatile organic compounds of both natural and man made origin, which are both key, but also complex. The effect on ozone depends on the ration of [VOC]/[NO2]. Starting with NO2 photolysis between 420 and 310 nm NO2 + hν --> NO + O (1) The oxygen atoms react with oxygen molecules O + O2 + M --> O3 + M (2) and NO is converted back to NO2 by O3 + NO --> NO2 + O2 (3) Following the air pollution board, in an unperturbed atmosphere the NO2 concentration will reach a steady state and from reaction 1 and 3 [O3]= k1/k3 [NO2]/[NO] (4) k1, the photolysis rate (which is higher in the summer), is much slower than k3 and normally there is more NO emitted than NO2, so under normal conditions not much ozone will be found Enter VOCs, which can convert NO to NO2 via RO2 + NO --> NO2 + RO (5) (R stands for any organic molecule) altering the balance in Eq 4 and more. The source of the RO2 are the VOCs. From both human and biological sources, this is strongly temperature dependent. Vapor from all sources (solvents/trees) is strongly coupled to temperature. For example consider Atlanta and the Appalachians. Atlanta has a world class tropospheric ozone problem because of the nearby Appalachians, which are primarily a pine forest. There is no major ozone problem in the Appalachians because there are no major sources of NO. In Atlanta traffic and industry produce a lot of NO, which interacts with the VOCs from industry and the Appalachians.
  28. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:29 PM on 24 August 2012
    Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    @Steve L #13 At the risk of taking this too far off topic, I recently read that someone nominated Steve McIntyre for a science award. The particular award is for a young scientist who stands up for good science despite harassment. (Katharine Hayhoe would be a good candidate IMO.) McIntyre's nomination is a good example of extreme delusion/confirmation bias. (McIntyre is quite old, definitely not a scientist and partakes in and encourages harassment of scientists eg through frivolous FOI campaigns.)
  29. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale @49: You reference the article, Ozone Layer Depletion - The Importance Of Stratospheric Ozone posted on the Science Encyclopedia by JRank. The operative paragraph from this article is: “In addition, some stratospheric ozone makes its way to the lower atmosphere, where it contributes to ozone pollution. Ozone is an important pollutant in the lower troposphere where it damages agricultural and wild plants, weakens synthetic materials, and causes discomfort to humans. During events of great turbulence in the upper atmosphere, such as thunderstorms, stratospheric ozone may enter the troposphere. Usually this only affects the upper troposphere, although observations have been made of stratospheric ozone reaching ground level for short intervals of time. On average, stratospheric incursions account for about 18% of the ozone in the troposphere, while photochemical reactions within the lower atmosphere itself account for the remaining 82% of tropospheric ozone.” Unfortunately, none of the statements made in the above paragraph are documented by source. I have absolutely no idea who wrote this article and whether or not the statements made in it are actually derived from legitimate scientific resources.
  30. It's satellite microwave transmissions
    This is my pet 'skeptic' argument. I resent the fact that it's so widely ignored. How come WUWT never bandied this out? Not that they would know it was rubbish...
  31. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    I'm dubbing it HAARP's Law (the equivalent of Godwin's Law):
    1. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/new world order (nwo) approaches 1. 2. In other words, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/nwo. 3. Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/nwo has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
  32. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Sph, methinks the phrase 'not a True Scotsman' applies...;( Also, by this time in the dialogue, I believe the correct terminology is "will not grasp the concept." I've seen 'spoon-fed' and 'denial' on here before but....at least *I* have learned a great deal about GLO that I didn't know before! If you wanna *trust* all them scientists, that is. {:-)
  33. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    Tom@9: HAARP. Oh, and the evil gummint contrails...
  34. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, Let's see... you, through your talented use of Wikipedia could be correct, and NASA, the EPA, and a host of government and non-government organizations and the scientists in their employ could all be wrong, or... ... chemistry and science could be just a little more complex than your (overly-simplistic, Google-based) view allows. There may be other reactants and reactions (see previous comments about pollutants), and maybe the whole thing is just a little more complicated than your five line Wikipedia entry might lead you to believe. In which case, once again, we get back to the fact that, as the entire world except for climate ostrich Dale seems to understand, temperature affects ground-level ozone production and global warming will therefore increase the frequency of hazardous ozone days in some regions. BTW, the Nobel price to which you refer covers the ozone layer and stratospheric ozone formation, which is very, very different from ground-level ozone. You have made that mistake repeatedly here, and cannot seem to grasp the concept.
  35. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    John @47 Some info: http://science.jrank.org/pages/4974/Ozone-Layer-Depletion-importance-stratospheric-ozone.html Incursions account for 18% of tropospheric ozone according to them. Sphaerica: Interestingly, chemists have had a formula for calculating ozone formation for years. Look up Leighton's Relationship. Formation is reliant on UV-light, thus solar intensity and solar zenith, not temperature. Heat can impact the generation of pre-cursors, but not the formation or destruction of ozone itself. BTW, a Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given in 1995 to three scientists who worked on ozone formation. These folks all say it's UV-light, not heat that determines ozone formation. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to take the word of chemists this time.
  36. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    vroomie @4, thanks, and fixed. Byron Smith @1, this is certainly not the loopiest idea I have ever seen from AGW "skeptics". The most bizarre is the idea that it is radar that is causing global warming. The next most bizarre is that not only is geothermal energy causing global warming, but the relatively temperate climate at the Earth's surface is entirely caused by geothermal energy. The theory that nuclear weapons is the cause involves primarily a simple failure to grasp the scale of the energies involved. Consequently it will have an intuitive appeal to the scientifically uninformed; but fortunately only to a very few on the sidelines.
  37. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    Fujii link now fixed, apologies. I see Watts criticised it last year, so maybe there's merit to it.
  38. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    John, since by definition there is no convection operating above the tropopause, I would say the "incursions" by diffusion would be too small to be measurable. Furthermore, it is only persistent in cold, dry condition. Within the lower troposphere, its half-life is a matter of days.
  39. Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
    Hi Neven, looks like arctic roos is showing record minimum ice area already, with a couple of melt weeks still to go.
  40. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    Like the sheep. The world sheep population has fallen by 1% since 1992. http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/AD452E/ad452e2y.htm#TopOfPage They'll be paying farmers to breed pale coloured animals next. Wouldn't want to be black sheep.
  41. Pete Dunkelberg at 06:56 AM on 24 August 2012
    How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    Byron et al. "I thought I was familiar with pretty much all the myriad loopy dissenting arguments. This one took me by surprise." I'll bet you don't know this one either.
  42. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    On a more serious note, have a look at the discussion in Fujii 2011, on stagnation of Global Warming in mid 20th Century. Interesting read, and more of a case for cooling due to atmospheric nuclear explosions than warming
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
  43. Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    The "crust" is actually the lithosphere, which is not that weak or that thin (100-200km) and the stuff underlying it is not exactly fluid either, being many orders of magnitude more viscous than pitch. Perhaps a better analogy for isostasy would be a water bed filled with peanut butter, overlain by a two-inch thick rubber sheet.
  44. Pete Dunkelberg at 06:34 AM on 24 August 2012
    Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Michael Sweet @ 8: "I address AGW by assigning a several reports where the students look up their own data and write reports on sea ice or global temperature." Yes! Do it that way. What is your physics teacher's argument? Is he a "2nd law of thermo forbids downwelling radiation" type? Why on earth is it hard to address the "grant money" argument? That's about the trashyist argument there is, and an opportunity to explain what science and scientists are all about. Grants have been well addressed at RC sometime ago. Obvious factors start with: 1. The first criterion for getting a grant is that the proposed research will advance scientific knowledge. You don't get or need a grant to say what everyone else is saying, nor do you need to do all the work of research. 2. You don't get the money anyway. The money goes to the institution. First they take their "overhead" off the top. Then they disburse the remainder in bits as graduate student or postdoc stipends, or to suppliers for equipment, etc. When you get a grant, what you, the researcher, get is an obligation to do a lot of work. Why would you do that? see below. 3. If it is money you are after, and you are enough of a scientist to do original research in earth science, you can make much more money working for industry. which brings us to what scientists and science are all about: *** Finding things out is what it's all about *** That's the first realization your students need to start understanding scientific methods. Then you get into How to find things out. But you won't get far without a drive to find things out. Michael, learn to take that trash "grant money" argument as an opportunity. ... then finally point out that it is not a scientific argument - is it an implicit admission of not having one? If not, back to your Assign a report method. ======= Steve @ 12: "When we first take physics, we start with Newton. (Don't we?...." Well there's http://www.physics2000.com/. ======= @ 16 "If children *see* a container of C02 getting warmer than one of air, Linda's first co2 experiment ...." search on Linda's first CO2 experiment. As for wanting teachers to cover all those other things you mention, by and large they are struggling to cover what they have to (their state standards) while following the text and preparing the students for standardized tests - three sometimes contradictory aims.
  45. Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
    One of the continuing issues that drives me *nutsoid* is the dereliction of duty the MSM has exhibited, regarding effective and truthful reporting of this topic. Media Ignore Record Ice Melt
  46. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    Tom Curtis, in your third 'graph, under the "Annual Yields" graph, you've mispelled 'from' to 'form.' I understand though, having rented flingers, too..;) Thanks for this article, and to Doug: I'm waiting for bated breath to hear what next the denialisti come up with, for the global warmings, as their cherished 'causes' fall like dominos. Excessive planting of sunflowers, causing too much reflection of yellow light up to the troposphere? Where I live--surrounded by ~25K acres of corn, alfalfa, and *sunflowers*, and in the county in which I live (where I'm one of two, *maybe* ten Progressives--it would be an easy sell. You heard it here, first...;(
  47. Pete Dunkelberg at 05:22 AM on 24 August 2012
    New research from last week 33/2012
    With polar ice volume decreasing faster than models predict, we had better note the "at least" aspect of the predicted sea level rise. Semi-empirical projections may also not take account of losing our coal-induced aerosol cover, hopefully well before 2100. As for after 2100, what was sea level the last time CO2 went above 400 and stayed there for a good while? Above 450?
  48. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    I certainly can't recall seeing anyone make this claim before online.
  49. Pete Dunkelberg at 05:16 AM on 24 August 2012
    Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
    The forgotten analogy for a thin crust over a fluid interior: waterbeds ;)
  50. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Tamino usefully digs in to this issue with a new post: Risk.

Prev  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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