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  1299  1300  1301  1302  1303  1304  1305  1306  1307  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  Next

Comments 65301 to 65350:

  1. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    The reason it takes longer to determine a trend in climate is that there are different time frames for climate forcings. The forcings aren't all annual. Pumping oil out of the ground is a function of supply and demand. The world wasn't in recession in 2005 when pumping peaked, so that was a good benchmark for our capacity. When volume declined and rocketing prices didn't cause more to be pumped, it's a good bet that they're pumping as much as they can.
  2. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    17, rlasker3, The statement you quoted does not say we will reach 450 by 2017, only that we will be unable to avoid reaching it by that point. That is, putting on the brakes to slow emissions (if we don't start doing so until 2017) will be virtually impossible without unnecessary and painful economic upheaval. At the current rate of emissions (assuming no slow down or acceleration) we will reach 450 by about 2042.
  3. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    "Given our fossil-fuel dependent economies, this is more urgent and has a shorter time frame than global climate change," Uhm ... didn't the IEA say that we are on pace to surpass the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that is considered safe by scientists by 2017? Is the argument that oil demand will become economically critical before that point? http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1112 "The headline conclusion of the WEO11 report is that, while the 450 target is still achievable, our chances of success are decreasing with every year of delay, and that, by 2017, the target could be out of reach."
  4. Sapient Fridge at 08:38 AM on 1 February 2012
    Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    A very good book on the topic of peak oil is "Beyond Oil - The view from Hubbert's peak" written by Kenneth S. Deffeyes who is both a geologist and second generation oilman. The book is written in 2004 and predicts that peak oil would be in 2005, based on Hubbert's peak theory. It has a serious topic, but manages to be an entertaining read at the same time. My favourite quote is the one about the efficiency of modern drilling sites: "The crew on site will consist of a driller and a dog. The driller is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to bite the driller if he touches anything."
  5. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Doc, There are also many issues with government and industry estimates of coal reserves. Much data is secret. They mine the best deposits first so only third and fourth rate deposits are left. It is difficult for a non-expert to sift through the conflicting claims to determine how much coal can really be extracted economically. When you look at the obviously fudged claims about oil (see link above), it makes you wonder how much coal there really is to be extracted. For example they measure coal in extracted tons of coal, but new coal mines have lower quality coal which has a lower heat content per ton. Because they need more coal they do more environmental damage extracting it. Eventually even West Virginia may say enough.
  6. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Doc Snow, one of the primary components of the price of coil is actually the price of gasoline... because you need to move the coal. Oil and gas can be sent through pipes, but coal has to be loaded into trucks and hauled around. As the price of gasoline goes up so does the cost of transporting coal from extraction sites to power plants, and thus the overall price of coal. This can be seen in that spike in coal prices you mentioned... which exactly corresponds with the spike in gasoline prices. So yes, there is still plenty of coal around, but the cost of coal power is going to continue going up so long as it requires gasoline to transport it.
  7. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Daneel, You need to consider that it has been forecast for decades that oil would run out in the early years of the 21st century. So the question is: when we see oil running out as expected is it really running out? Compared to Climate Change where we expect the climate to keep getting warmer and we see data that says it is still getting warmer in spite of claims to the contrary. Canada oil sands are not economic at less than about $100 per barrell. The people who want to build the pipeline obviously think oil will only go up in price.
  8. Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
    @Hank -- Not just the video speed, but also the back/forward increments. So, for example, if you're curious what every August looks like, you can change the increment to yearly and get a sense of your local summers
  9. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    I think the second plot addresses Daneel's (in my view interesting) question: it provides an additional source of evidence for the apparent production cap in the first plot. The sharp change in gradient and the distinct clustering of the data points provides independent evidence of a change in the elasticity of supply or demand (just as for example satellite energy balance readings provide an independent test of whether the earth is still warming). Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that production can be introduced at the $100+ price point but with a lag longer than 7 years.
  10. keithpickering at 06:57 AM on 1 February 2012
    New research from last week 4/2012
    Hmmm. "We additionally find the presence of a 28-month period of oscillation in the Δ14C record at La Jolla." The QBO also has a 28-month periodicity. Coincidence?
  11. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    Phila @29, "I do have a grudging admiration for its grasp of human psychology." That is my understanding-- they learned a great deal about how to fool people and play psychological games in the tobacco and creationism wars. They have well over 50 years of experience at it. So I fear what you say is true. The big question is what do about it and how do we effectively convince the public that about the reality and urgency of the situation?
  12. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    In case anyone is getting upset at Skeptical Science's supposed lack of neutrality or balance, I should like to emphasize two things: Denialism in Action Denialism is a bit ill-defined as it is a fairly recent concept (despite longstanding examples such as tobacco industry re: smoking, asbestos health effects, HIV/AIDS denial, anti-vaccine crankery, and others), however most people who review it professionally (psychologists & sociologists) or as a hobby (such as ScienceBlogs' denialism blog) would include some or all of the following behaviours: 1- Cherry-picking evidence 2- Fake experts 3- Misrepresentation of opposing positions, arguments & evidence 4- Unsupported allegations of conspiracy on the part of those who hold opposing positions 5- Logical fallacies 6- Goalpost shifting The OP clearly documents the use of elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Possibly element #6 is in there, too. So the Wall Street Journal letter is a textbook case of climate science denialism, allowing all & sundry to refer to the signatories (and the publishers) as denialists. Crime & Comments There are, to be sure, a few comments on this thread suggesting criminal sanction may be called for or is otherwise appropriate for a number of climate science denialists. In case you, dear reader, think this is unfair, consider Daniel Lewis' statement upthread that much of the behaviour undertaken by climate science denialists was shown by Oreskes, in Merchants of Doubt, to be indistinguishable from demonstrably criminal behaviour (in the sense that it led to indictment & conviction on criminal charges) undertaken by tobacco companies.
  13. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    I have alerted Professor Murray about this post and have invited him to participate in this discussion thread.
  14. funglestrumpet at 06:40 AM on 1 February 2012
    The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    Further to David Lewis @ 19 Thanks in large part to their own actions, climate change is probably going to take a long time to reach a point in public opinion where these 16 'experts' and their comrades in arms can be brought to book. In the meantime there is the danger that vital evidence will be lost if bank details are automatically destroyed when some statutory time period elapses before that moment. With that in mind, are there any mechanisms in the various home countries involved that will ensure that any payments received by the denialati from the fossil fuel industry are not lost before they can be presented in evidence? Perhaps it is something the IPCC could consider exploring via the U.N. thus possibly making it apply globally. I suspect that a good few of the denialati treat climate change as just another politcal game and are not mature enough to realise the potentially serious consequences of their actions, not only to the world's population, but to their own personal freedom. I am sure that SKS computer material is well backed-up. I sure hope so, because it will be an excellent source of evidence should criminal proceedings result at some future date and I am sure it will be in the cross-hairs of denialati hackers.
  15. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Daneel, your question is flawed in construction in that it suggests it would be accurate to say 'global warming has stopped' but for the timeframe chosen. That is not the case. It is invalid to say 'global warming has stopped' because it hasn't. If you take a trend or moving average of global temperature anomalies over the past 15 years it shows warming. If you take a trend or moving average of oil production over the past 5 years it is essentially flat. In short, they are described differently because they show different results.
  16. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Daneel - you can also do accounting. Tally up production heading for retirement and tally new scheduled production to get an indicator of how much production you will have in the future. IEA does that - and they are sounding warnings. Actual oil production depends on political factors as well but it cant exceed the total productive capacity. Unfortunately it is hard to actually estimate this when SA wont lets its reserves be audited.
  17. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    Many thanks for this excellent summary. I am particularly interested to learn that William Nordhaus has seen the light; and that he denounces this latest attempt to dismiss climate change as environmental alarmism (I have clearly been out-of-date in criticising his denunciation of the Stern Review).
  18. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Further to Stephen Baines In addition, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) - see Dec 20 2011 report is SkS - showed that by adjusting the global temperature anomaly for ENSO, volcanoes and solar cycle effects, the resultant composite global temperature upward trend appears to have statistical significance over a time span much shorter than 30 years (only 11 years).
  19. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Daneel When your car gets the hiccups it is probably running out of fuel. The longer the hiccups continue, the more certain you can be of being stranded. It is not, however, certain that you will end up on foot in some backwoods place where creepy people with genetic defects do nasty things to strangers.
  20. Ice isn't melting
    So I just checked all the sources for Lindzen in the Climate Mythscolumn and there is the same problem with all cites for the April 6, 2011 source.
  21. Stephen Baines at 05:34 AM on 1 February 2012
    Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
    muoncounter Ugh...Those threats are disgusting and, I would guess, actionable. Hayhoe is understating the level of misogyny in some of them.
  22. Stephen Baines at 05:22 AM on 1 February 2012
    Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Daneel One (the atmosphere) is a dynamic system bouncing chaotically around a mean set by the planetary energy budget, and the other (conventional oil) is a depleteable resource whose state can be inferred from other information besides the time series (reserves, price behavior, production trends). In short, there are physical reasons to believe these systems are different and consequently there will be different standards for assessing them. It would almost certainly be foolhardy to apply to the same criterion to both of them.
  23. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    I'm much more interested in the climate science side of this stuff so my question may be out of place but... Why is not valid to say that "global warming has stopped" based on 15 years of data but it's ok to conclude that "oil production has stopped" with just 5 years? I understand that we are talking about two whole different systems here but still... it doesn't feel right.
  24. Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
    Texas Climate News posted some excerpts from the hate-emails Dr. Hayhoe received. Don't read if you have a weak stomach.
  25. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    In the US, our politicians are obviously in the pocket of the carbon barons. Whether for climate reasons, economic reasons, or to extract ourselves easily from volatile Middle East politics, developing alternate energy is an obvious solution. Instead, all we get is "Drill, Baby, Drill." It feels a bit like Rome in 477 AD.
  26. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    If this is the best today's climate fake skeptics can do, perhaps, as Patrick Michaels suggests, they are losing the battle. The quality of the arguments doesn't matter because they're not intended by consumption for knowledgeable or even curious people. The point is to give people who don't want AGW to be real a reference to cite. It doesn't matter what the reference is or what it says; what matters is that it's a "reference" by "top scientists." And that it confirms misinformation that the readers have already bought into, like the Trenberth quote. In articles like these, it's not just acceptable but also beneficial to present a mishmash of contradictory arguments; the more excuses for disbelief you can provide, the more readers you can reassure. Different claims appeal to different readers, so toss 'em all in! It's not like they're gonna compare notes. It also doesn't matter if the authors lack any real authority, because the people who want to believe this stuff will magnify the authors' credentials beyond all bounds for the sake of their own credibility. And that's what it's all about, ultimately: Convincing people who are desperate to be right that they're not only right, but smarter than everyone else. Which is very light work, of course. They know they'll get no serious criticism from their audience because that would require a level of self-skepticism that their audience can't afford to have. Much as I dislike this industry and its cynical approach to rhetoric, I do have a grudging admiration for its grasp of human psychology.
  27. Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 1 February 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    I've been a regular reader since almost the beginning of the site's existence. I found it either following a link from Real Climate or by researching a topic on climate. As the site grew I acted as a moderator for a little while before time constraints prevented me from doing so any longer. Not to mention that the level of scientific expertise required of moderators has increased quite a bit since the early days. I visit daily, even if briefly perusing to see what's new. The site is exemplary by many accounts. If I have any remark, it would be a concern similar to that of David Kirtley above in post #8.
  28. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Like the renewable power industry there is a lot of speculation about how much 'new technology' will bring down costs of fossil fuel extraction. Until recently tar sands, shale gas, deep water oil, and other 'alternative' sources were all prohibitively expensive. New technologies and methods of extraction (e.g. 'fraking') have changed that, but it still isn't clear how much additional fossil fuel this will make available at prices lower than those of renewable power (which is also benefiting from technology improvements). What is clear is that we've passed the peak of 'conventional' oil. Without the new sources we'd now be facing massive economic consequences. This article suggests that 'alternative fossil fuels' will not be able to continue to support the demand gap and that their costs will drop more slowly than renewable costs. However, neither of those is a sure thing. Research funding, government regulation, and 'luck' will play a part in which technologies have the biggest economic breakthroughs. For purposes of avoiding global warming it would be nice if we could write off fossil fuels as economically unfeasible, but the reality is that we just can't know how the 'R&D race' is going to play out. I think there is some cause for hope in the fact that fossil fuel producers are just trying to keep costs from growing too much while solar power is projected to drop below current 'grid parity' over the next decade (it already has in some places). That should make a transition to renewables inevitable, but leaves alot of uncertainty about how much GHG levels will increase before we get there.
  29. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    1) Since late 2008 2) Through a link posted on a Norwegian climate science website 3)30-40 4) I think the extremely rapid changes in the Arctic is the most interesting topic right now. It will play a crucial role in getting the world to open their eyes in the coming years, especially when Santas' home is nothing but open ocean sometime before 2020. When that happens, and we can point to the deniers earlier (2008-2012) claims of imminent rapid and dramatic cooling, the disinformers will have nowhere to run, and the public might finally see them for the dangerous clowns that they are. It might turn ugly, but I can't help looking forward to it.
  30. Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
    Very interesting stuff. I'd just like to add that these more extreme sources of oil, oilsands, shale oil/gas, deep sea drilling, coal-oil conversion, all produce significantly more CO2, and also have significantly detrimental environmental externalities. These are not amazing technological breakthroughs, they are a path to climate suicide. The IEA says the world needs the oilsands at the same time they state that we will have locked into a path of catastrophic climate change by 2017. IMO, we need drastic, immediate changes to the current outlook for the next ten years. P.S. love reading climate news from tomorrow, today. What an amazing planet!
  31. Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
    Dikran Marsupial, I notice that you have been posting regularly on 'Real Science'. Is there any chance you could get in contact with me here; http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/p/comments.html
  32. Eric (skeptic) at 02:57 AM on 1 February 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    First comment was 22:14 PM on 25 May, 2010 so I started reading some time before that. That thread, on polar bears, was subsequently revised to include some discussion of hunting. The link that brought me here may have been on polar bears but many links brought me here posted by "walter in falls church" on the Capital Weather Gang blog. I don't have enough time for much extra reading for a month or two, but I'll read daily when I do. These weekly wraps are good, I would not change much.
  33. wonderful world at 02:35 AM on 1 February 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    1 a couple of years 2. dobn't recall exactlt, maybe a dorlomin link fronm the guardian 3.10-20 4. maybe doug cottons dichotomys, or can we chuck in to raise some money for his counsellors counselling
  34. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    1. About 2 years, ever since "climategate I" 2. I don't remember how I found the site. At the time when "climategate I" broke I said, "WTF" and started looking around the web for some real answers. It didn't take me long to find them at Skep Sci. 3. I visit the site daily, or try to anyway. 4. Can't think of anything. One small nitpick: When I first found this site what really impressed me was the even, measured tone of the posts. It was very refreshing to just read the scientific arguments clearly stated, as opposed to the bloviating and bluster of the denier sites. But lately, it seems to me, the posts have become a little more biting in their tone (a bit more like Tamino's site). I know it is very frustrating to have to constantly counter the unending stream of disinformation spewing from the deniers. And sometimes it's best to fight fire with fire. But what I love best about this site is when the science is presented as a rock-solid bulwark against the stream of denier nonsense. Like I said, it's just a small nitpick. Keep up the great work.
  35. apiratelooksat50 at 02:06 AM on 1 February 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    DB at 94 I don't have and have never had a required reading list. Yes, the link was there along with other links presenting both sides of this issue. Which you conveniently failed to mention that. It was left over from an Honors Chemistry course I used to teach. The students were presented various viewpoints and asked to write critiques of them. If you wish, you can go check my PowerPoint presentation for Climate Change and tell me if you have any issues with it. I doubt you will. If you need the link, let me know. I am not sure if I am allowed to provide it here. I can also provide you with my consulting companies website if allowed. Thanks
  36. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    1. I visit on a regular basis since about 2 years. Not posting here but I do use information found on other blogs / newspaper sites 2. I read something somewhere (other blog don't remember which) 3. Daily normally morning and evening 4. Requirements? not really. Keep on doing the good work!
  37. New research from last week 4/2012
    The Esper paper is probibly going to kick off another minibunfight with various people making claims about what it means.
  38. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    Whupps, missed 'how often'... around 15 times per week. Also, for discussion topics, it might be good to talk about what myths people are seeing most often recently and/or what data/evidence people think makes the most compelling case on AGW and might be good to 'feature' more prominently somehow.
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    How long reading SkS - Today is my two year anniversary How became aware - Google Future topics - Would be nice to hear about the results of these little surveys. Were any changes made / planned to the comments policy based on the discussion of it? Are any of the features / design changes suggested under review for possible development? Et cetera. BTW, one of my comments was that it is sometimes difficult to find old features... just before this post I ran across an old article mentioning the 'Settled Science' button... which I now can't find. :]
  40. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Trent1492, there is some disagreement on whether and how much ancient humans contributed to atmospheric CO2 levels through deforestation and other 'land use' changes. If we set that aside and accept the pre industrial revolution value of about 278 ppm as a starting point it gets much simpler. Given that we know (see below) from multiple lines of evidence that humans are responsible for all of the increase from that point, calculating the 'human percentage' is just a matter of dividing the current level (about 392 ppm) by 278 ppm... which gives about a 41% increase. The 39% figure you cite was probably based on 386 ppm atmospheric levels a couple of years ago. A good overview, with links to source papers, of how we know humans are responsible for the recent increase can be found here.
  41. Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
    John, a good talk so far. I had to pause to post a comment when I heard your comment about "I wonder how many 'Sydney Harbours' Greenland is losing every year?" When I gave a global warming talk at work early last year, I used the 2011 Brisbane Floods as my yardstick, and came up with a figure of five and a half times the peak flow rate of the January 2011 Brisbane Floods. Non-stop, for five months.
  42. New research from last week 4/2012
    This is an interesting paper, only published this week : Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks Good BBC article on it too. Could be useful to counter the so-called skeptics who reckon we're only now "coming out of the LIA" - whatever they mean by that !
  43. Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
    Well dudes the carbon tax changes to an emissions trading scene in 2015. When the tax stops, the revenue to pay compensation stops. The big polluters like power stations and airlines will have no choice but to go renewable energy. Yippee!!!! Bring it on Julia.
  44. The Skeptical Chymist at 22:53 PM on 31 January 2012
    Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
    @ Michael Whittemore The impacts of the Australian Carbon Price will be much more modest than you expect. For starters there is nothing in the policy about stopping the compensation. The compensation is funded by the polluters paying the carbon price and they do this no matter if it acts as a tax or a market trading scheme. Much of the compensation is through income tax cuts, so is permanent, unless a future government was to increase income taxes across the board (which seems unlikely). Secondly, we won't be seeing a $50 or $100 carbon price anytime soon. Partially it's because the scheme simply isn't that ambitious, but there also price caps etc which will prevent it. Lastly, while "forcing" power companies to green the grid may seem attractive, such a measure would decrease the incentive to reduce carbon pollution throughout the rest of the economy. Like a carbon price we would see increases in electricity prices, but unlike the carbon price there would almost certainly be no household compensation.
  45. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    Of course it doesn't matter how many signatories there are on any one letter. It only takes one to prove anything wrong. It's the weight of the evidence that counts, not the length of the author list. And of course these people have no evidence. That's the real bottom line. The biggest failure in climate change policy development is the failure of journalism. Journalists should have well-honed BS detectors, and spot a shill a mile off. That they don't after other anti-science campaigns like the ozone hole and tobacco (and even AIDS denial, though the motivation there is less clear) invokes the old "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
  46. Piet R. Zijlstra at 22:23 PM on 31 January 2012
    2012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
    SkS issue of the week (2012 -4) a. 3 months (just retired) b. I discoverd SkS by walking around on the web c. now SkS is part of my daily routine d. I use to search and judge with two questions in mind: 1/ is this scientific based information 2/ what is the intention / agenda of the writer e. SkS does address these two questions f. I am now looking for mass and heat balances of the climate system Moderator: please remove post #4
  47. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    It often gets depressing that most articles on most climate science blogs tend to be about countering denialist drivel. This article however is the polar opposite and actively raises hopes for the future that talented people are addressing the multiple problems we face with innovative research leading to practical solutions. Thanks Dr. Bomani for brightening my week.
  48. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    It's fairly obvious that many global warming deniers should know better. There is only one conclusion. They are being paid off or have special interests. Would love to be able to rummage through their bank accounts. That would be real transparency. Another csuse for the Wall St occupiers?
  49. Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
    Interesting point re carbon being in CO2 and CH4. If I'd thought of that, I would've mentioned it :-)
    I've lost track of the number of times I've wandered away from a conversation or presentation and thought of something I should have said. ;-) I might have added that even CO, which is not a GHG, does indirectly force climate change, through its interaction with CH4 and Ozone via the scavenging of the hydroxyl radical. Eventually, it oxidises to CO2. There are also some other less well known carbon-based GHGs (eg CFCm, HCFC, CF4, C2F6; More broadly though, the precise nomenclature of GHG-abatement CO2e with the "e" standing for "equivalent". So even non-carbon-based anthropogenic GHGs (such as Ozone, N2O, NF3) are expressed in terms of "carbon" equivalent. In some ways, the objection is a little like someone who claims that the tomato is not a fruit but a vegetable. From a botanical point of view, the tomato is the fruiting part of the tomato plant, but from a culinary point of view, it is a vegetable. So too, "carbon" here doesn't refer simply to the fact that most of the drivers of anthropogenic warming are carbon-based, but that carbon equivalents is the measure used by policy for reconciling these matters.
  50. New research from last week 4/2012
    Thank you, Ari - this is a fantastic resource. Look - squirrel! Now if I could just somehow generate more time to read all the papers...

Prev  1299  1300  1301  1302  1303  1304  1305  1306  1307  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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