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  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  Next

Comments 70751 to 70800:

  1. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    #9 muoncounter-Thanks for the link to the online article, which, as you noted, does not refer to climate science- not sure why he included the quote from David Colander re clouds and climate science- in the print edition that I received today the paragraph I referred to left me with the impression that he accepted the assertion that climate models were leaving out a key variable. Maybe I just read too much, or too little, into it.
  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1124, Fred,
    These results are absurd, but they are derived from the original greenhouse “explanation”.
    Yes. Which means there is something drastically wrong with your model. A skeptical person would sit back and think "okay, that can't be right. What am I doing wrong? What am I misunderstanding? Which assumptions have I made that are incorrect?" Hmmmmm. A skeptical person would do that.
  3. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Tom & Sky, Camburn has said many an outrageous thing in his time commenting here since September 2010. But he also has had time to be fully aware of the consequence for the egregious transgression he has just committed here. So let us await an answer, on the off-chance that all of us have missed something in the relevant text that Camburn can enlighten us on. But if no answer is given - or more obfuscation - then that will be sufficient for resolution to then follow.
  4. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    #10, Camburn, do you have evidence for your claim? In AR4 WG1, Section 8 is to do with the construction and evaluation of climate models, in 8.1.1: "In climate change simulations, on the other hand, models are used to make projections of possible future changes over time scales of many decades and for which there are no precise past analogues. Confidence in a model can be gained through simulations of the historical record, or of palaeoclimate, but such opportunities are much more limited than are those available through weather prediction. Without getting into the semantics of projections vs predictions, we can see that Section 8 does not support a view that "they do not have predictive ability". We then have a whole section, Section 10, on "global climate projections".
  5. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn @10, I'm going to call you on that. Your claim is so contrary to the general tenor of the comments in section 8 that I cannot see how you came to that conclusion. What is more, chapter 10 repeatedly uses climate models to make projections, ie, because they are presumed to have predictive power. Therefore I must conclude that your claim is in direct contradiction of the IPCC WG 1 report. In fact, it is so far in contradiction of the report that, if you do not produce the quote where Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 WG 1 report says that models have no predictive power, I will have to conclude that your statement is a flat out lie.
  6. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Build it, and they will come.
    Response:

    [DB] Flippancy is not becoming nor called for when people are trying to engage you sincerely, apiratelooksat50/Sasquatch.  FYI, sock-puppetry is "frowned upon" in this establishment.

  7. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    WG1 Section 8 is quit plain when referring to models. They do not have preditive ability.
    Response:

    [DB] "WG1 Section 8 is quit plain when referring to models.  They do not have preditive ability."

    Yes, it is plain.  And it plainly says the opposite of your assertion.  So substantiate your assertion.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-11.html

  8. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jimb#5: "David H. Freedman, makes a comment about modelling, and referring to climate science he says" Here's another take on the Freedman article: Freedman builds off a 2005 paper (pdf) by earth scientist Jonathan N. Carter et al. from a conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output; the paper's titled "Our Calibrated Model has No Predictive Value: An Example from the Petroleum Industry". The SciAm article starts with this geophysical model, draws conclusions about economic models, and mentions climate models not at all. The model in the Carter paper is a petroleum reservoir; the model has difficulty reproducing actual production results. Freedman concludes: "That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott--he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions. ... But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work." What does this have to do with climate science? Here's the big insight: No matter what the application (economics, geology/geophysics, climate modelling, etc) a simple axiom applies to computer models: garbage in, garbage out. Only one response to that is worthwhile: "Wow."
  9. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jmorpuss - you seems to be under the misapprehension that GHGs affect radio-frequency radiation or that radiowaves affect climate. This is not supported by data.
  10. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jimb @5, if that is what David Freedman says, he is simply wrong. Outrageously so. He may be confused by the fact that clouds are not a single variable. Rather they effect both incoming SW radiation both by reflection, scattering and absorption, and outgoing LW radiation by absorption and emission. How clouds effect these factors depend on their altitude and type. Climate models also track convection and latent heat transfer, important factors often associated with clouds. So, looking at a global circulation model it would be hard (indeed) impossible to point to a single variable and say "that is clouds", but the effect of clouds is integral to operation of the models.
  11. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jim - this is plain flat out wrong. Where on earth do you suppose he got that idea? Some info on treatment of clouds in models can be found here.
  12. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Just got the current issue of Scientific American. In the article "A Formula for Economic Ca laity" the author, David H. Freedman, makes a comment about modelling, and referring to climate science he says" Omitting a key variable seems egregious, but scientists do it all the time....That is a problem for climate science, Colander says, where models often have no terms to account for the effects of clouds. " Clouds control 60 percent of the weather, and models usually ignore them," he notes, "When you can't model a factor that has that kind of influence on the outcome, you have to use a lot of judgment in whether to believe the results."" I am very much an amateur with respect to this, but this quote seems to throw more doubt on the models than is justified.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred Staples @1124, you jump too quickly from "it is not a multi-layer emissivity 1, zero convection atmosphere" (my summary) to it is "a top-of-atmosphere effect". In fact climate models (or at least Line By Line models, and Global Circulation Models) are multi-layer models. Importantly, they include terms for transmitted radiation, and energy transfer by convection and latent heat at each layer, and require energy balance at each layer. It is possible to develop an "effective altitude of radiation" plus lapse rate model of the atmosphere. It has the advantage of being very simple, and giving approximately correct results. It is, therefore, far better than the slab model you used in 1120 above, but it remains only approximately correct.
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "We have some evidence..." Fred, you might want to add to that evidence, the observations from surface, aircraft and satellites of longwave radiation being scattered at GHG-specific wavelengths (some presented in the Intermediate tab). Add to that the observations of an increase in downwelling and a decrease in outgoing LW radiation at GHG-specific wavelengths observed over the past few decades. Where does the increase in downwelling radiation from GHG-specific wavelengths go?
  15. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Just stumbled upon this; summarizes the state of things quite well.
  16. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Here NZ - close to 80% renewables and should cruise to target of 90% by 2020. Add hydro and geothermal into the mix. However, the answer to reducing CO2 emissions is not just renewables. They are just part of the solution. What bothers my is the logic that goes from "I cant see how to live without coal, ergo AGW is false".
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Thanks for the comment, Sphaerica, but my post was intended to be a simplified version of so much that is posted about “back-radiation” theories. (You will find a complicated version in Eli Rabetts rebuttal of the original G and T paper). As such, it is not remotely realistic. There is no reason to believe that outgoing radiation will be absorbed only once. If we add another absorbing layer, radiating W to space at a temperature of 255 degrees K, we fill find that the surface temperature must rise to radiate 3W, at a temperature ratio of the fourth root of 3, or 335K. The absorption distance in the atmosphere means that there will be many such layers, and every layer will absorb the incident energy and re-emit half downwards. Repeat the calculation and you will find: One layer – Fourth root of 2 = 1.19. Tsurf = 1.19 x 255 = 303K Two Layers - Fourth root of 3 =1.315 T surf = 1.315 x 255 = 335K Three Layers - Fourth root of 4 = 1.415 Tsurf = 1.415 x 255 = 360K Four Layers - Fourth root of 5 = 1.495 Tsurf = 1.495 x 255 = 381K and so on. These results are absurd, but they are derived from the original greenhouse “explanation”. As I and several others posted here long ago,(1000) the only plausible theory of “greenhouse” warming which supports AGW is the “higher is colder” theory. The temperature difference from the surface to the 255 K effective emission level then depends on the lapse rate, which in turn depends on gravity and specific heat; it has nothing to do with radiation. AGW is then a top-of-atmosphere effect. The argument is that adding CO2 (or any other absorbing gas) will elevate the emission level to higher, and therefore colder, temperatures, so reducing the outgoing radiation, and allowing the sun to warm the entire system. We are, in fact, conducting a global experiment to test this theory. We are on course to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere. We have some evidence, satellite and radio-sonde troposphere temperatures, which we can relate to the increasing CO2 levels. In my opinion, DB, this is what is important, not more and more expensive attempts to model the heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation, and evaporation) from the surface through the chaotic weather systems. It might be instructive to return to the McClean thread and see what can be learned from the available data.
  18. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    The most recent justifications I've seen from Curry seem to involve the "but they did it too" defence. She has been writing things like : 'the WWF are/have/would do the same'; 'the IPCC spread disinformation...probably'; 'Mann is political'. Basically, it's : 'It's not me, or if it is (which I deny or have been misunderstood about), what about them over there...' It is so juvenile, I don't know whether to laugh or cry - probably a bit of both !
  19. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch"When the wind doesn't blow enough, or blows to hard; or the sun isn't shining - from what source are we going to draw power?" Actually the problems that renewables create are similar to the problems encountered when electricity was first developed on a grid wide scale. The issue is not individual sources of generation, the main issue is management of the whole grid system. Back then they were faced with the issue of load balancing (this is actually the ONLY issue when you take a system approach to the problem). When you generate to much or to little, or if you look at it from the load side and you find that demand is to high or to low, then you find the frequency across the grid goes up or down. The engineering solutions are to have standby generation sources that range from hydroelectric gas turbines. So to suggest that renewables cause a problem, misses the point that we have always had a problem with variability in the system! The reason we think we have some stable system is because engineers in the past have spent years developing systems to deal with variability in load, and we now take for granted. Today we are faced with new engineering problems and the difference today is that we also have science and technology that can also vary load intelligently to better match a more variable generation side.
  20. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    I still haven't found a way to list the various questions that I've touched on this site. When I refer to 'ice age' I'm talking about the ice ages that occur on the 100,000 year period, as revealed by the ice core data. Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Read this post:  Milankovitch Cycles

  21. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    If your going to use data collected from satalites and ground based units then you nead to at least understand these processes (-Snip-)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please do not link-dump without providing context for why you are providing the links and what the reader can be expected to take away from the reading of the links.  You provide neither in this case, so the links have been snipped.

    As an FYI, you presume that the author doesn't understand the processes behind integrating satellite and ground-based measurements.  That is a false presumption.

    Edit:  Please note that a subsequent comment of yours to this was deleted due to multiple violations of the Comments Policy.

    Please take the time to thoroughly acquaint yourself with it in order to fully comport your comments with its strictures.  Understand that, by commenting at this site, moderation is an implicit condition accepted by the person commenting when posting a comment.  Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance.

  22. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    The fact that global warming continues despite anti-science groups trying to impose cooling trends on global temp graphs is obvious when you look at most the anti-science graphs. This was the point I was trying to get across in my previous post in part 1 of this series, though I obviously worded poorly. Of course, most anti-science types won't show the whole warming trend, just the decade they've cherry-picked for the purpose of "refuting" the majority of climate scientists. Thanks for these articles exposing the deception, dana.
  23. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    95 Sphaerica, But they are not hiding; some have gone deep underwater, where they cannot be measured. And anything that cannot be measured does not need to be hidden. It is sufficient to say that we have no evidence of their lack and hence, they must not be lacking.
    `Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly. `I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.' `You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'

    In any case, until we have enough turtle measurement floats deployed, to say they are 'missing' would be a travesty.

  24. KeefeandAmanda at 08:37 AM on 9 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Yes, as you point out, the skeptic attempts to blame the Sun are falsified. But the other main claim of the skeptics is also falsified, and this falsification does not seem to get a lot of press, and this falsification is this: The skeptics deny what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has to say on the greenhouse gas activity of non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 as forcers and water in the atmosphere as an amplifier (feedback). And so those that admit that the Sun's output has not changed enough to cause all or almost all the recent warming say that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming. (Note that the claims of Svensmark and Spencer et al. with respect to cosmic rays or oceans or clouds ultimately reduce to the claim that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming.) There is a book that is partially available online as a Google e-book "Solar activity and earth's climate" by Rasmus E. Benestad, who obtained a Ph.D in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University. (He is one of the many real climate scientists who contribute at RealClimate.) Go to page 176. We read, "Any mechanism involving the albedo implies strongest response in the daytime temperature. Observations, on the other hand, suggest a reduction in the diurnal temperature range where the night-time temperature has increased more than the daytime temperature (Houghton et al., 2001). According to Svensmark's hypothesis, the warming is due to the reduction in Earth's albedo (reflected light), and therefore a long-term reduction in the low-level planetary cloud cover appears to be inconsistent with the observations." That is, what Benestad says above is simply a polite way of saying that the reduction in the global diurnal temperature range where the global night-time temperature has increased more than the global daytime temperature strongly falsifies the skeptic hypothesis that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming. That is, if CO2+H2O greenhouse gas activity is as weak as the skeptics claim and the warming is entirely or almost entirely due to less reflected light, then there is nothing to keep enough heat from escaping out into space at night globally to avoid a global diurnal temperature range increase such that the global daytime temperature increases faster than the global nighttime temperature. But the opposite has been happening. And note that this falsification of the skeptic claim that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming is a strong falsification. That is, even though a constant global diurnal temperature range would suffice to falsify the skeptic claim, a decreasing global diurnal temperature range strongly falsifies it. And depending on its rate of decline and on whether this rate of decline is changing and how it is changing, one could argue that this falsification is not just strong but very strong or even very, very strong. How do skeptics deal with the fact of the falsification of their denials of what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has to say on greenhouse gas activity? They deal with it in two ways: They either ignore it or they try to use *local* phenomena to try to refute fact about *global* phenomena. That is, on the latter point, they try to use the fact that there has been an increase in the diurnal temperature range in some *local* climates to try to argue against the fact that the *global* diurnal temperature range has decreased. But since this is all about *global* climate and not about the climate of only cherry-picked parts of the planet, this attempt is just an embarrassment to those skeptics who try this. By the way, if a skeptic tries to say that increased water in the atmosphere by itself with no or almost no forcing from non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 will save the day for the skeptic denial of what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science says about these non-condensing greenhouse gases, then consider this: The equations in physics providing the calculations that fit reality on this one are where? Answer: Nowhere. Everyone in the skeptic community who does not try to confront this problem in some meaningful way (like Svensmark) know full well that they cannot even begin to make the numbers work to their favor on this one, and so rather than embarrass themselves trying to make the numbers work to their favor they elect to just ignore this problem when confronted with it.
  25. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    Actually, the most significant number is the missing denominator, for without it the turtle budget cannot be balanced...
  26. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    94, muoncounter, Are you admitting to having used Mike's Nature trick to hide the turtles?
  27. Eschenbach and McIntyre's BEST Shot at the Surface Temperature Record
    @citizenschallenge The conclusion in Fall et al. is that errors in the temperature record mostly cancel out in the averaging process, without significantly shoving the trend to either cooling or warming. From their paper: "The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time-of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade." They also found that poorly sited stations tended to have a slightly cooler trend, rather than the higher one Watts wanted to find. These findings are in agreement with the conclusion reached by Menne et al. (which preceded them). BEST likewise found that the Urban Heat Island effect didn't significantly alter trends either, another conclusion that had been previously reached in the literature. The surface temperature record is apparently pretty robust against siting influences or UHI effects according to all these studies.
  28. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    "Oceanic cycles don't create or retain heat, they simply move it around. So if these climate shifts are causing the surface air to warm, they should also be causing the oceans to cool." This claim is repeated dozens of times around the pages of SkS. It is not strictly true, however. Long term changes in oceanic flow can indeed cause the global mean temperature to warm without causing the ocean to cool. The reason being that changes in the distribution of heat can change the distribution of clouds, water vapor and ice, which can, in tern, cause a global radiative forcing. There is quite a bit of research published on this but the following paper is a good place to start: Herweijer C., R. Seager, M. Winton, A. Clement (2005) Why ocean heat transport warms the global mean climate. Tellus, 57A, 662-675 can be found here: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/herweijer/herweijer_swc_2005.pdf Note that I am not arguing that changes in ocean heat transport are responsible for 20th century warming. Instead I am simply advocating that SkS be a little more careful in the wording that they use to rebut the 'internal variability' argument.
  29. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Suggested reading: “Solar energy covers earth’s needs thousands of times over,” Lars J. Nilsson, Lund University, Nov 1, 2011 To access this informative article, click here.
  30. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    92 Sphaerica: Ha! You have no evidence that there are no turtles on the side you cannot see. The primary metric must be the number of unseen turtles.
  31. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    Suggested reading: “Solar energy covers earth’s needs thousands of times over,” Lars J. Nilsson, Lund University, Nov 1, 2011 To access this informative article, click here.
  32. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Just reading Steven Pinker's Better Angels and he uses the quote: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire That'll be why these people work so hard on the absurdities .. to promote the atrocity of inaction.
  33. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    @Albtross #90: Who is Neven and why is his reaction to Curry significant?
    Response:

    [DB] Neven is the proprietor of the Arctic Sea Ice blog - probably the finest blog resource of its kind in the inter-tubes.  Imagine John Cook on ice...

  34. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch - Please, see post @ 93, and my reply to you on the linked (on topic) thread. And then comment there. You do not appear to be following the links folks have provided to you in this discussion.
  35. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch wrote: "When the wind doesn't blow enough, or blows to hard; or the sun isn't shining - from what source are we going to draw power?" The sun is always shining and the wind always blowing somewhere. Ergo, as was already explained to you, a large enough grid solves this problem. Likewise, excess energy from peak production times can simply be stored for later use. The Gemasolar concentrated solar plant in Spain uses molten salt storage... enough to provide 15 hours of baseload power with no sunlight at all. The technology to get around temporary and localized lack of wind or solar energy already exists and is already being implemented.
  36. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    104, Sasquatch, Never and nowhere if the "it can't be done and it's not necessary" obstructionists keep pushing it aside.
  37. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    #21, and to add to #22, this is the point I was (perhaps clumsily) making in #3. Calculate the squared deviations from the assumed model. Now that deniers are no longer questioning the reliability of the temperature data, they are proposing models that have no physical basis. To slice and dice, cutting the fit into 4 constant sections and fitting the 4 intervening levels, requires 7 parameters (the 3 cut locations plus the 4 levels). These parameters are varied to find the least-square-deviation. But this makes no more sense than fitting to a 6th order polynomial, which also has 7 parameters. There is no physical basis. The underlying denialist motivation is to show at any cost that there is no relation between rising CO2 levels and rising T.
  38. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    KR @ 87 "All that aside - it appears quite possible to produce dependable baseload power with renewables." Where is this happening? Or, better yet, when is it going to happen? When the wind doesn't blow enough, or blows to hard; or the sun isn't shining - from what source are we going to draw power?
  39. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    91, muoncounter, Your photo is obviously fabricated. Where is the turtle on which the earth rests? Surely you can do better than this.
  40. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    "The skeptics have no better theory, or indeed any theory, to explain all of the observational evidence of man-made global warming." That is such an important point. Science doesn't work by criticizing arguments and trying to deny the evidence, but by building and testing competing theories. "Skeptics" don't have any consistent theory that explains all the data. Moreover, in order to deny each piece of evidence, they eventually get into contradictions (as documented here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php). Another important point, IMHO, is that global warming is not some kind of surprising feature of our world that we need to come up with explanations for. Global Warming was a prediction, an expected consequence of dumping billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Speaking of contradictions; one minor quibble. Point 6 end with "To be a climate skeptic is to remain a skeptic" but point 7 you state about Muller that "we should no longer consider him one" Besides, I don't think I agree with point 6. There are "skeptics" that changed their mind. Michael Shermer comes to mind; he wasn't "sold" on the idea of climate change but some years ago he ended accepted reality. While I accept that your characterization applies to many "skeptics", I don't think is fair to generalize.
  41. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    90 Albatross: Surely you must admit that there is no basis for saying the world isn't flat. Don't try to show me 'photographs' or some other such 'data;' that's all clearly manipulated to hide the flatness. -- source Based on this one image, there is no consensus. If you suggest otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  42. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    The sceptical view show and important trend.... Seems to me for the sceptical view, the slope is getting more shallow with every decade. At some point it will level off and start to rise in every decade mostly. Scary stuff.
  43. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    JMurphy @86 and CBDunkerson@89, Oh goodness, the wheels really are coming off now. Even the ever patient and reasonable Dr. Bart Verheggen is troubled by her musings. And Neven is having nothing of it: "Neven | November 8, 2011 at 6:43 am | Reply Dr Curry, if you think I’m a CAGW ideologue, I would again kindly urge you to remove the links to the Arctic Sea Ice blog and graphs page from your blogroll. We don’t want to be associated with each other." So Curry has just burned another bridge. She can add Neven to her list which now includes Schmidt, Trenberth, Verheggen, Tobis, Muller and many more. Fine job she is doing of being self-professed 'peacemaker". The juvenile and vitriolic crowd on her blog are now projecting their petulance on Neven, but whatever. Right now, I would not be too surprised if Curry claimed that the earth is flat. Bad times. Pretty pathetic times too given that we are even having this discussion instead of how aggressively we should be reducing our GHGs.
  44. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    Here's why we must double-down on our individual and collective efforts to educate people about what scientific community is telling us about climate change. “There's been a lot of talk recently that the world is finally facing an economic reckoning — a final past-due bill for those years of living so far beyond our means. The truth is we're facing a climate reckoning as well. The two are fatally intertwined — and they're going to be impossible to solve separately, if they can be solved at all.” “The Kyoto Accords — and Hope — Are Expiring,” Time Magazine, Nov 8, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
  45. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    There is an article in the International Business Times which claims that Curry is now denying that humans have caused any warming. I doubt this is true, as it would indicate that Curry had completely lost touch with reality... but I have to wonder how she plans to continue in her role of 'peacemaker' now that she has become the de facto standard bearer for global warming denial.
  46. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    Composer99, it has been passed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-08/carbon-tax-passes-senate/3652438
  47. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    Any word on Australia passing the carbon tax? I've been led to understand that took place just today (Australian dates).
  48. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    All 'best fit' trend lines and curves should be calculated from linear least squares. As long as the errors are normally distributed.
  49. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Dr. Pielke Sr. proposed Moist enthalpy as the primary metric in Davey, Pielke, Gallo 2006, Global and Planetary Change: "Changes in heat content of the Earth's climate are not fully described by temperature alone. Moist enthalpy or, alternatively, equivalent temperature, is more sensitive to surface vegetation properties than is air temperature and therefore more accurately depicts surface heating trends." Now, of course, it's OHC.
  50. Luxembourgish translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Ah, I thought it was Rosa Luxemburg.

Prev  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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