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  1301  1302  1303  1304  1305  1306  1307  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  Next

Comments 65401 to 65450:

  1. Dikran Marsupial at 03:49 AM on 31 January 2012
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Tom, I wouldn't use the temperature of the start and end point as a reliable indicator of the trend. An OLS trend can show warming even when the start point is warmer than the end point, because individual years are sensitive to ENSO etc.
  2. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    So the WSJ rejected the letter from the NAS urging for climate action but prints this long debunked drivel? Mindblowing, but not surprising. The deniers have free access to the press all over the world, it seems, while the real science is being ignored. Still, the anti-science disinformers claim that the press is "warmist" and won't let them voice their opinion? Amazing.
  3. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Dikran Marsupial @153, in this case it is no warming. The 1997 and 2011 figures are identical in the press release, and 2011 is actually colder than 1997 in the actual data. More importantly the HadCRUT3v trend from 1997 to 2011 inclusive is 0.01 degrees C per decade. Of course, as shown by Foster and Rahmstorf, once short term independent factors such as volcanoes, the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Solar Cycle are accounted for, the HadCRU trend from 1997 is > 0.1 C per decade, and is statistically indistinguishable from the long term trend of 0.17 C per decade:
  4. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubwub, actually that is rather the point. There isn't any 'original paper/press release'. The Daily Mail took the latest updates of the CRU temperature data and NASA solar readings as 'foundation', but all the 'conclusions' they draw came from other sources entirely. DB, the only way to provide "definitive proof" for my position (i.e. that no such statements from CRU/NASA exist) would be to review all statements from those organizations. However, given that we have seen the 'no warming since XYZ' and 'it is the Sun' nonsense over and over and over and over again it doesn't really seem like a stretch to say, 'no, that tripe did not come from NASA or the CRU' without extensive documentation of all NASA/CRU statements. In truth, if you read very carefully, The Daily Mail does an adequate job of differentiating between the data from CRU and NASA and the 'conclusions' deniers outside those organizations draw from them.... except for the claim in the article title that, "if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again". NASA didn't say anything about the Thames... that's all Rose. Also, SirNubwub's statement that, "NASA and CRU have stated that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years", demonstrates how easy it is to miss the transitions in Rose's article from things said by NASA and CRU sources and those said by deniers.
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 03:34 AM on 31 January 2012
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    P.S. I could only bring myself to read the first few paragraphs of the newspaper report, but they were enough to show that the problem is that Mr Rose is not competent to be writing articles on this topic, and would benefit from reading a few SkS articles.
  6. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubwub, there are claims by the Daily Mail. They are based on the press release by the Met Office which shows no increase in temperature on HadCRU figures over the period 1997-2011, but the press release also shows GISTEMP, GHCN, and WMO figures which all show an increase over that period. Ergo, the Daily Mail, by choosing just one of four data sets that suites their narrative are cherry picking. What is worse, it is known that HadCRUT is about to be updated by including more station data, thus reducing some of their gaps in coverage. In the updated HadCRUT, 2005 and 2010 are both warmer than 1998, and there is a distinct positive trend over the period 1997-2011. In other words, not only have the Daily Mail cherry picked, they have cherry picked a data set which is known to be inaccurate compared to the others, and which is about to be supplanted. I discussed this in more detail here. As the moderator indicates @149, the Daily Mail's intellectual integrity as shown by that article cannot be accurately described on SkS due to the comments policy.
  7. Dikran Marsupial at 03:32 AM on 31 January 2012
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubwub You are making a common error in interpretiing a statistical statement. "no [statistically] significant warming in the last 15 years" does not mean that "that temps have remained level for the last 15 years". If a trend is not statistically significant, this means that there isn't enough evidence to be able to confidently reject the possibility that the actual trend is flat. However, evidence requires data and if the timespan over which you estimate the trend is sufficiently short, the test for statistical significance will fail to reject this "null hypothesis" even when it is incorrect. Essentially if the trend is not significant, then there are two explanations (i) the trend actually is flat or (ii) there isn't enough data. This is why climatologists use 30 year trends, as these are long enough for the test to be statistcally meaningful. I suspect the paper is referring to a BBC interview with Prof. Phil Jones, where he agreed that the 15 year trend was not statisticlly significant (I think that is no longer true), and also had a go at explaining why this is not surprising.
  8. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    CBDunkerson Yes, I agree that these are only claims by a newspaper about a report. Believe me, I know that newspapers are not always truthful. Aren't you a bit quick to resort to an accusation of lying? Lets see if anyone has the original paper first. I will state that it is a bit odd that the newspaper doesn't supply a link to the original paper or press release.
  9. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    CBDunkerson: exactly...there are claims...that is why I asked if anyone has the original paper.
  10. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    correction: It was the Met office and CRU. It wasn't a NASA paper, but rather NASA researchers are used in other parts of the story.
  11. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubWub, you seem to be confusing 'The Daily Mail' newspaper with NASA and the CRU. Yes, The Daily Mail claims that NASA and the CRU said something... but they're (-snip-). Disagree? Then cite the spokesperson for NASA and/or CRU who said these things.
    Response:

    [DB] Please refrain from such verbiage without more of a definitive proof offered.

  12. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Ah, so you're saying that you no longer provide your students with copies of, or links to, Inhofe's "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism"? You remember, the one you had posted at the very top of your student's reading list last year?
  13. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I know that the this website has ably answered my questions about the apparent pause in warming. However, I would like to know your response to the news that NASA and CRU have stated that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html I understand that CRU is NOT dismissing the past or future affects of CO2. The interesting statement is just that temps have remained level for the last 15 years. I have not been able to find the actual paper by CRU, so perhaps the newspaper is misrepresenting CRU's statements. Does anyone have the original paper?
  14. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    Tom Curtis @ 24 - thanks for all the information on that, it was very informative
  15. apiratelooksat50 at 01:48 AM on 31 January 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Chris G at 90 Thanks, and regardless of other's peoples misconceptions on here, I do teach my students the current/predominant state of science and robustly encourage them to explore on their own. At the beginning of the year we drill into them the scientific method, and teach them how to research. Other than the regular search engines, we also have access to other sites through our school links, and the libraries of local colleges and universities. It's not about getting hung up on a word. It's about better accuracy. Prior to issuing our first writing assignments, all science teachers in our district work with our students on the importance using the proper words in the proper context. For instance, the differences between probability and possibility, how to use may, shall, will, suggests, etc...
  16. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    DrTsk #1 "This worse that Newt's Videos...." No it ain't ... Archibald is interchangeable with other Easterbrooks and they will not control research budgets or congressional hearings. (I am assuming you are not talking ethics ánd Newt ánd David in one breath ... naturally)
  17. apiratelooksat50 at 01:19 AM on 31 January 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Rob Painting at 89 If you think amphibian populations can be sustained with such a phenomenal rate of extinction you are simply deluding yourself. On the contrary, I think the decline of amphibian species is particularly distressing. Especially, since they are an indicator species. Being a school teacher means what exactly in terms of expertise? I am not just a school teacher. Teaching is a second career that I have the pleasure of doing after I started my environmental consulting company. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology, and Master of Science degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, and I have over 25 years experience in the environmental field. Fake-skeptics objections flounder because they are essentially arguing with the experts and the overwhelming evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way we roll. Is anything I posted about the status of amphibians and the status of their decline incorrect? If so, please point it out. I provided links to peer-reviewed papers. "........you managed to make more direct in #50." Here's what I wrote at @ 50. Well, the birds, butterflies, lizards and amphibians that have already become extinct from global warming paint a rather different picture. Please list the species and differentiate between direct and indirect extinctions due to global warming. Hopefully your students are taught not to just take your word, and to actually research the scientific literature, all of it,... They are expressedly directed to do that. It's one of the first things I tell them and reiterate throughout the year. I am looking forward to future posts from you on this topic. Are we talking near future?
  18. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Recommended reading: “The overwhelming scientific evidence that says humans are causing the warming of the planet has emerged as the new battlefield in middle and high schools in the U.S.” Source: “Conservatives Use Creationist Playbook to Attack Climate Change Education in Schools” by Bill Walker, Alternet, Jan 26, 2012 To access this in-depth analysis, click here.
  19. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    I've been reading increasingly from denialist websites phrases like "a large and growing number of distinguished scientists ... ." I suggest anytime, anywhere someone writes or says something like that, we toss an Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark) question without hesitation: "Who?"
  20. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    I looked up the 16 scientists in the Web of Science, which counts only peer-reviewed publications and is thus more restrictive than Google Scholar. I searched for author and topic "climate change" in the Expanded Science Index. 1.Armstrong has one publication, on the subject of polar bears. It was roundly debunked. 2.Cohen has two, one of which has 55 authors. Both are on technical subjects. 3.Lindzen has four and as we know, is widely published in meteorology. But he still has never written an article falsifying anthropogenic global warming. 4.Score for all the others: zero. Not one of these 16 has ever published a paper showing that anthropogenic global warming is false, or even presenting any evidence that it is false. Surely if global warming is as innocuous as they say it is, this diverse collection of eminent scholars could get a peer-reviewed paper published explaining their evidence. Isn't that what we expect in science? In the long run, opinions backed up by no evidence are worthless.
  21. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    It is interesting that they think publishing an Op-Ed in a business newspaper constitutes "science." Just another example of the tactics and tall tales used by the denialist industry. Exposing Climate Denialism
  22. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    *need not
  23. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    What really annoys me is that Im quite naive to denial (I don't read UK tabloids usually) and the assertions the article was making weren't subtle; its actually titled 'forget global warming'. To the average reader it would seem that they need to concern themselves with this issue anymore - without wanting to sound alarmist myself sure these articles pushing denial are crimes against humanity?
  24. NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
    Rob@25 Thanks you effort in detailing the explanation. Is it certain that the ENSO cycle and the warming trend are independent? For example - how well do we know that the heat energy tranferred to the atmosphere from the ocean during El Nino is equal to that returned to it during a La Nina?
  25. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    Of course, when HadCRUT4 is released the conspiracati will say: 'They weren't seeing warming so they kept picking which stations they used till the warming appeared, they're hiding the decline!' It'll be further evidence of 'warmist' deception. You know, precisely how they reacted to the ARGO edits. Unfortunately there is zero way to avoid this reaction. Most of the big names will carry their opinions with them to their graves.
  26. New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
    Thanks Micheal. I assumed that with 334 kJ being absorbed by the melting of each kg of ice that will never refreeze and then the reduced albedo of open water, there would be a significant increase in energy available to be absorbed by the Arctic Ocean and permafrost in the ESAS and the adjoining land. Clearly it isn't as important as I thought!
  27. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    apeescape - yup, will be up within the next week or so. We keep pointing out the ocean is still warming and that over 90% of global warming actually goes into the ocean. So we're not remiss in that regard.
  28. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    re the daily mail lies, met office news is worth getting email updates from http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
  29. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    Will you guys be covering the Loeb et al. (2012) paper? There's still too much observation error to really tell if there is a discrepancy between radiation flux and ocean heat content. It'll probably require at least 5 more years of data to see if they both match. I didn't like the original Trenberth graph because it smoothed over uncertainties so much. Both ocean heat and radiation imbalance are powerful ways to show that the Earth is warming. I think it's possibly a more effective way to point out the statistical insignificance of atmospheric non-warming over a short period of time.
  30. Dikran Marsupial at 19:17 PM on 30 January 2012
    Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
    @chriskoz wrote "I simply don't understand how certain denominations can develop such incoherent logic." Human nature, as a species it is something at which we excell. Einstein wrote "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity (although I'm not sure about the universe)" [or words to that effect] ;o)
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 19:13 PM on 30 January 2012
    The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    "The lack of warming for more than a decade" is rather an embarassing statement for the "cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting" to have endorsed, given that 10 years of data is not nearly enough for one to be able to reliably detect a warming trend in the data when it is actually there. Any decent forecaster would have looked at the power of the test and would have known that there is nothing that surprising about a lack of warming for a decade (or two).
  32. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    The Wall Street Journal acquired anti-science syndrome years ago. The article is nothing new, and the rogue's gallery is nothing new. The 2200 comments don't even look new. But all the article has to do is drag the same bottom-feeding message over and over again. That's how anchors really work. The interesting side-note was the discovery of a new article - the Garden of CO2 has a hot snake in it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21399-wheat-will-age-prematurely-in-a-warmer-world.html Wheat yields in northern India are declining - heat-driven premature aging. The guys at the WSJ should debunk that one.
  33. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    Actually, they're identical with a 2-point difference favouring the northern hemisphere lead influence. And the NOAA graph isn't the real global - it's the background level measured from the network's marine sites (sea level). Mauna Loa works for me.
  34. Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
    Tristan @8, Your well know evangelists who claim that: "Wealth is by definition, sanctioned by The Lord" simply contradict themselves. Their dogma does not make sense, because the bible teaches to the contrary, i.e.: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" repeated at least in 3 gospels: http://bible.cc/matthew/19-24.htm http://bible.cc/mark/10-25.htm http://bible.cc/luke/18-25.htm I'm with william @6 on that subject: I simply don't understand how certain denominations can develop such incoherent logic.
  35. Doug Hutcheson at 17:13 PM on 30 January 2012
    The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
    This would be the same propaganda covered in the video linked by J. Bob here, I think. As I commented at the time, it is hilarious. The interviewer seems deeply interested in getting to the truth. Not.
  36. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Pirate, As a science teacher, you are obligated to teach your students the predominant understanding of today. You are doing them a disservice otherwise. Climate changes in the past are associated with mass extinctions; getting too hung up on the wording used at one source, and the particulars about what it means, is not really helping your students. Personally, I think the rate of recent extinctions, overall has more to do with the explosive growth of the homo sapiens species. I don't know how 7 billion people can exist on the planet and not push some other species out of the resources they need. Some extinctions are undoubtedly a result of changing environmental conditions, but climate change is only getting warmed up. On the school board and science standards, I was disheartened and infuriated when the school board here in Kansas was taken over by a bunch of right-wingers who mandated teaching of intelligent design. However, as it played out, the following year there was a turnover of the board, and that decision was reversed before it could be implemented. Here's hoping sanity triumphs elsewhere.
  37. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    It's fairly easy to shoot at the barrel-fish in Archibald's paper, but SKS missed the magic-moment Joke-of-the-year: his prediction about global CO2 levels: (from page 8): 7. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 - 2030 "He very funny man." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, that was Mauna Loa.  Global is here (December not yet finalized):  http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global

  38. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    This site gets my daily visits; has for years. It ain't too shabby at all (as opposed to Archibald's work): http://www.solarham.com/
  39. Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
    I read a great little book on propagandistic phraseology called Unspeak, by Stephen Poole. He had this story to tell:
    "The U.S., Saudi Arabia, and other oil-producing countries lobbied the U.N. in the late 1980s to change the language of early resolutions from 'global warming' to 'climate change' because the latter is vaguer and less frightening, and also because it doesn’t point the finger so directly at the burning of fossil fuels as the cause. While 'climate change' is scientifically correct (because a local climate might get colder rather than hotter), it obscures the fact that such changes will be a result of the rising mean temperature of the planet — i.e., of global warming."
  40. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    I do not see algae meeting those criteria... Nor plant based biodiesel.. Too much N,O,S, metals In favor of methanol, can make from a variety of sources..
  41. actually thoughtful at 14:09 PM on 30 January 2012
    Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    DrTsk - anything worth doing has to resolve the issues of scalability and cost. Not sure what your point is. At this point, we have pretty good solutions for heat, cool and electric. Liquid (or other high density) fuels for travel that are sustainable ARE the big nut to crack. I am very happy to see some serious work in that regard.
  42. Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
    l'm with Joe. At least it might take the wind out of 'warming stopped in 1998.
  43. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    The largest barriers are productivity, scaleability, cost...
  44. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    bibasir @26, exactly correct. Of course, over the period of interest, emissions were less than Scenario C. That explains exactly why Michaels only reported Scenario A.
  45. David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
    ferox @22, the Daily Mail was referring to this press release, showing HadCRUT temperature data for 2011. As it happens, it shows 1997 and 2011 as having the same temperature. The linear trend of the HadCRUT3v global data (which differs slightly from that in the press release, as does the HadCRUT3 data) shows the linear trend over the period 1997 to 2011 to be effectively zero (0.01 degrees C per decade). The first thing to notice about this is the obvious cherry picking. The press release also shows the NOAA NCDC figures, the NASA GISS figures, and the WMO figures, all of which show significant positive trends. So, the Met Office did not release figures showing no increase in temperature. On the contrary, they released a set of figures which together show an increase in temperature, although one particular index did not. Of greater interest is the fact that version 4 of the Hadley CRU temperature series is about to be released. The significant difference between version 3 and verion 4, from our perspective, is that version 4 has more Russian, and more Arctic stations, thus filling in some of the gaps in coverage of HadCRUT3. The effect of filling in those gaps over recent years is shown below: As can be seen, HadCRUT4 (red line) is significantly warmer than HadCRUT3 (blue line) after about 2003, resulting in 2005 and 2010 both being warmer than 1998, and a net positive trend. GISSTEMP (NASA) and the GHCN (NOAA) already use mathematical techniques to avoid the lack of coverage that plagues HadCRUT3, so unsurprisingly, increasing the overage of HadCRUT brings it closer into line with the other two indices. This clearly demonstrates that the lack of warming in HadCRUT3 is an artifact of gaps in coverage of that index. Preferring it to either GISTEMP or GHCN is to prefer an index which is known to be less accurate just because it suites your prejudices. The third point is, as I believe you have alluded to, is that this is just another example of deniers trying to go down the up elevator. Finally, I have located and read the Mail article to which you refer, and the press release regarding solar activity which they focus on. As is typical of press releases from many research institutions, they report the research, but do not cite the paper. (IMO, that shows such a fundamental lack of awareness of the nature of science as to render the composer of the press release unfit for their duties.) Consequently I am guessing as to which paper the press release refers to. The two best candidates are this on a future grand solar minimum, this on climate impacts of solar minimums, or this (which is behind a paywall, so I cannot give you a summary). I notice the Mail continues the standard practice of "balance" in main stream media. That is, if you report on the consensus of climate science, two thirds of the article must be given over to the opinions of (largely) unqualified deniers for balance; but when you report on the opinions of climate change deniers, no opinions of climate scientists need be reported for balance. The article is, in other words, not journalism but propaganda!
  46. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    I think the best way to look at Hansen 1988 is if emission a are A, then the result is A' If the emissions are B then ----- etc.
  47. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    There you took a statement from Sphaerica (that he falsified from me) and made a response that shows your insistence on focusing on the buzzwords like "climate change" or "global warming" that you see in articles or published papers. If you really read the paper, you would realize it does little, or nothing, to support your premise. Words like 'global warming' and 'climate change' are anathema to a fake-skeptic, but really so what? Your conduct here is exceedingly obvious - you wish to downplay the significance of global warming-related extinction, but the scientific literature does not support you. If you think amphibian populations can be sustained with such a phenomenal rate of extinction you are simply deluding yourself. Other people do not possess this cognitive ability to ignore reality - least of all those studying the natural world. The fact that you have "...researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years." shows. I get this a lot with fake-skeptics, when their argument has been thoroughly refuted, but my response is always the same - an appeal to authority is worthless if you have none. Being a school teacher means what exactly in terms of expertise? In fact the enormous number of wrong-headed posts you have made here really destroys such a notion. I don't claim to be an expert - that would be foolish. I just happen to be right about the topics I have thoroughly researched. And if I have an issue or question I bother to contact the scientist whose papers I'm writing about. Some are extraordinarily helpful in fact. That's why fake-skeptics have to resort to concern trolling, talking around in circles, saying their not clear on something, and those kinds of rhetorical devices. SkS blog posts are robust because they are so staunchly supported by the scientific literature upon which they are based. Don't think we haven't noticed. No, real experts are those that publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and whose work stands up to scrutiny by other experts. Those are the people whose work we research and understand. That is the foundation of all posts here. That's why SkS posts stand up to scrutiny. Fake-skeptics objections flounder because they are essentially arguing with the experts and the overwhelming evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way we roll. "........you managed to make more direct in #50." Here's what I wrote at @ 50. " Sphaerica- "and even if it is it won't be bad" Well, the birds, butterflies, lizards and amphibians that have already become extinct from global warming paint a rather different picture. As far as amphibians are concerned, it's hard to see much of a future for many of them. Their current rate of extinction may be 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. And that is not a typo." All factually-based. All supported by the scientific literature. Do you really think that that won't be bad? Amphibians already appear well on their way to oblivion. "As I teach my students, when investigating environmental issues all factors must be considered and accepted or discarded as warranted.' Hopefully your students are taught not to just take your word, and to actually research the scientific literature, all of it, to glean a thorough understanding of why scientists studying the natural world are so concerned about global warming. I'm sure it would be a real eye-opener for them. "I am very interested in the postings on global warming and extinctions you plan to publish in the future" I'm sure some will be surprised the by the gravity of the situation. It's beyond trivializing. And it won't be just me writing about them. I think it's important to deflate the skeptic myth "It won't be bad" once and for all. But it's going to be a biggie of a collection.
  48. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    Apologies. Didn't link it right. the algae experiment
  49. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    Great speech, this kind of tech is really up and coming. An architecture student is doing some good work on making a closed loop photo-bioreactor. It's called the algae experiment. You can read more here on http://thealgaeexperiment.tumblr.com
  50. Models are unreliable
    Climate-Change-Theory/Doug Cotton - Let's be clear here. Your arguments violate observations and physical laws, and go against even freshman physics. It's just not a viable objection. Please - go read a book or two... such objections are why many 'skeptics' are not taken seriously.

Prev  1301  1302  1303  1304  1305  1306  1307  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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