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  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  Next

Comments 70851 to 70900:

  1. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn:
    I don't know how to upload pictures or I would.
    Personally, I'd expect any erstwhile "Galileo" to be capable of learning something as simple of this, given that their presumption is that they're overturning a wide swath of modern science ... (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  2. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Hypotheticals like that are pretty useless anyway. If in 4 years there are leprechauns and unicorns in my backyard, that is worth looking at in very serious fashion too. Meanwhile, there actually is a continuing global warming trend for the past 40+ years. When are we going to start taking that seriously?
  3. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn @20 If the cooling, slowing, or lack of warming [...] for the past 10 years continues for another 4 years, it is worth looking at in a very serious fashion You have just shown not only the ignorance of the statistical nature of the processes we are talking about; but also the disregard to the content of dana's article. Dana cited the work which has proved that at least 17y of data is required for any statistical significance: Santer et al. (2011) Your period of 14 years, that you want to cherry-pick in some 4 years, will be insignifficant. If I was you and trying to be as skeptic as you, I would say, that we need to wait for some more: 7 years. Or I would say "perhaps we can find out with usual 95% confidence, that 2000+ trend is different than previous century trend, using given statistical test" if I wanted to challenge Santer et al. (2011) findings.
  4. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn: a) "dramatic" is a wholly subjective term. b) The recent warming trend is still going and will only accelerate unless we get GHG emissions under control. Arguing that it's not "dramatic" yet is rather pointless. Who cares if it's "dramatic" as compared to other recent warming periods? Let's please discuss some science as opposed to subjective rhetoric.
  5. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn: "As far as HadCrut3. It used to be the established metric. ". Are you saying there was a trend before 1900? I don't see much there, but maybe I messed up here? Trends 1800-1900, 1900-2000
  6. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Spaerica: IF HadCrut3 is a reliable metric, then how in the world am I cherry picking? This sort of arguement baffles me. HadCrut3 has the most documentation for a long based temp metric. When you are going back to the 1800's, it was the first to established the temps. This is getting to the point of being silly. We have a long term warming trend.....agree? The recent warming trend is NOT a dramatic one in comparison to previous, within 200 years.......agree?
  7. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    23, Camburn,
    I am not trying to "play tricks".
    laughs
    Note the long term warming for the past 200 years or so.
    So what? I've been aging myself for 50. If I get hit by a car and die, will you tell everyone I died of old age, as evidenced by the fact that I'd been aging steadily for 50 years? Use some sense.
    Actually, you have proved my point.
    No, actually, you proved mine.
    So, show us a graph of the past 200 years?
    I did. You need to see it all at once? To prove what? That global climate recovered from the Little Ice Age before rocketing into temperatures not seen in thousands of years, which are a result of an unnatural forcing with a source and pace never seen on this planet in it's entire history?
    Or is all of a sudden HadCrut3 not a realiable metric anymore?
    No, it's just a perfect example of a cherry pick on your part, and I thank you for it. It makes it clear to any truly skeptical reader exactly what sort of games deniers play to sow doubt.
  8. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    And any further comment regarding forcings should be on the thread linked by myself or related threads.
  9. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    The question still remains, how much is caused by co2,ch4 etc and how much is the result of normal forces. Of course - it's not like climatologists have been studying these kinds of things in an effort to quantify the contributions of solar forcings, greenhouse gas forcings, aerosols, water vapour feedbacks, cloud feedbacks, and so on. ... Oh, wait. They have been.
  10. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Spaerica: No, I am not trying to "play tricks". I don't know how to upload pictures or I would. Note the long term warming for the past 200 years or so. Note the warming from even longer, 1910-1945. Over 30 years so this is suppose to be important....right? (-Snip-) Actually, you have proved my point. During the past 200 years there have been short term period of warming, short term periods of cooling. The general trend has been one of warming, as the warming trends overcame the cooling periods. So, show us a graph of the past 200 years? As far as HadCrut3. It used to be the established metric. I still have problems with GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations. (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] "I still have problems with GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations."

    Note that DMI is a product synthesized from models and augmented by some observational data; it is not an observational product, nor is it a global product.  Thus your point is seriously in error.

    Multiple off-topic bits snipped.  Please see the earlier Warning to you.

  11. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    20, Camburn,
    ...it also must be noted at least, as it could be a short term trend change...
    You didn't really say that, did you? Did you even read the post above? Or did your fingers simply snap into denial mode by instinct?
  12. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    19, Camburn, First, here's your skeptic game played with 1800 to 1900: And here it is with 1900 to 1975: This is fun. Can we play some more? And here's your graph from woodfortrees.org: And here is yours using the BEST data instead of HADCRUT (which is known to be low among all data sets for modern warming because it does not provide any coverage of the area of the globe with the greatest anomalies, the poles): I am assuming that the point that you are too shy to make is that warming from 1917-1943 was equivalent to modern warming, so it must all be natural. You ignore the fact that the first spate of warming lasted only 20 years, while the current warming has lasted more than 30 and is continuing. You ignore the fact that the warming from 1917-1943 did not push temperatures above levels not seen in thousands of years, with a threat to push them above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. You cherry pick start and end dates for both of your series. You cherry pick the data source. You cherry pick the duration. Oh, wait! I'm sorry. I didn't realize. You really had me going there. Thank you! Thank you! Your point was clearly to demonstrate the main topic of this post -- that deniers play games with graphs to trick people. Well done, Camburn. You totally Poe'd me. Totally.
  13. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Sphaerica@18: My point is, one would expect the rise after 1970 as we were in the midst of a Grand Solar Maximum. The rise of the early 20th century has had various reasons for it, but none really stand out as correct or wrong. My point is that the warming presently is not dramatic. If the cooling, slowing, or lack of warming, whatever you want to call it for the past 10 years continues for another 4 years, it is worth looking at in a very serious fashion. Tom@16: (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.  You are being egregiously off-topic.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit  off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  14. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    She has put up a post supposedly addressing the issue of a "pause," and says that while there isn't a statistically significant pause, there's no evidence to say it didn't happen. Also she is now claiming that BEST can't say anything about global warming because it's a land-only data set. Apparently since land only covers 30% of the globe in a reasonably well-distributed manner, it's unable to say anything about global climate... Tamino has already called her out for dodging his question about having a scientific basis for her claims that warming paused since 1998 with BEST data, and using that claim to attack Muller.
  15. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Sphaerica @18: Ok......look at the rate of rise in the following graphs: wood for trees comparison of two time periods
    Response: [JC] This argument is examined in What caused early 20th Century warming? Note: we went to the trouble of writing three levels of rebuttals (the advanced version by Dana is particularly high value) so I recommend reading those pages.
  16. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Added the following: Nov 12, 2006 Picking Cherries Nov 15, 2006 Who the heck started all this global warming fuss anyway? Nov 17, 2006 Monckton part ? Nov 21, 2006 The Thermometer Record Nov 27, 2006 Warming up to Iceland Nov 30, 2006 Supreme Court Nov 30, 2006 True Grit Dec 4, 2006 Wherefore art thou warming? -Still Missing- Dec 5, 2006 Wherefore art thou warming? Part 2 Dec 7, 2006 Honest doubt, honestly expressed -Still Missing- Dec 7, 2006 Questiones Naturales -Still Missing- Dec 9, 2006 Models on the Table -Still Missing- Dec 11, 2006 Balloons and other things Dec 12, 2006 Clearing the Air Dec 15, 2006 Moosehead Lake Dec 17, 2006 Al Gore Dec 28, 2006 Svalbard Saga Dec 31, 2006 Weighting for Averages Jan 5, 2007 Temperature Records of the Week Jan 9, 2007 The Signs are Everywhere -Still Missing- Jan 13, 2007 Coming soon to a blog near you -Still Missing- Jan 14, 2007 Once More, with Feeling -Still Missing- Jan 23, 2007 Change in the Wind -Still Missing- Jan 24, 2007 Here Comes the Sun, part 2 -Still Missing- Feb 15, 2007 Millerism -Still Missing- Feb 24, 2007 Question for Believers -Still Missing- Feb 24, 2007 Water, Water, Everywhere, Feb 26, 2007 Congratulations, Al -Still Missing- Mar 6, 2007 Fast CO2 -Still Missing- Mar 7, 2007 Questions and Answers Mar 13, 2007 The Long, Hot Winter -Still Missing- Mar 15, 2007 Crisis? Apr 11, 2007 A Tale of Two Cities Apr 15, 2007 Temperature Records of the Week: Shelby County, Tennessee Apr 17, 2007 Pay It Forward -Still Missing- Apr 27, 2007 Debate Numbers -Still Missing- May 30, 2007 Note to readers Oct 5, 2007 Wait For It... -Still Missing- Oct 19, 2007 IPC projection falsified Nov 4, 2008 Northern Ice Northern Ice Nov 5, 2008 Yes We Can -Still Missing- July 8, 2009 Vapor Lock July 13, 2009 Why should we make sacrifices? July 14, 2009 Warming, Interrupted? Aug 4, 2009 Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature Aug 5, 2009 Open Thread #15 Aug 6, 2009 Graph Jam Aug 12, 2009 Monbiot vs Plimer Aug 19, 2009 CO2 and the Volcanoes Aug 22, 2009 Constant Aug 23, 2009 Sea Floor Gas Aug 24, 2009 Methane North and South Aug 26, 2009 Loony bin
  17. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    15, Camburn, If you have an intelligent, defensible point to make then make it. Vague, indecipherable implications of doubt and distrust are worth nothing (unless your goal is simply to confuse and befuddle people).
  18. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Global warming is like slowly puting on more clothes on a hot day, you will get hotter and hotter. But if the sun goes behind a cloud you will get cooler for a short period.
  19. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Camburn @15, at no point on the graph does a short term trend (ie, less than 13 years) become a reliable indicator of future trends. At all points on the graph, medium term trends (20 - 40 years) are reasonably reliable indicators of future trends, although they fail at certain well known inflection points. Most importantly, at all points in the graph, the best predictor of future trends has been Global Circulation Models incorporating known forcings including (most importantly) anthropogenic forcings. Which just goes to show, physics is a better predictor than statistics, which is a better predictor than statistics done badly. And (as though you didn't already know), at the moment both physics and statistics done well both predict an ongoing upward trend. As a result, agw deniers just can't keep their focus of statistics done badly.
  20. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Anthony Watts was surprised to learn the pdf had been deleted, and kind enough to email me a working link to Fall et al 2011. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf Having read through, I have to retract my comments above. The interpretation I gave came not from the study itself, now I remember, but from an article on the paper at WUWT. Nowhere in the paper is it suggested that biases in min/max trends make the mean trend suspect.
  21. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    I would recommend that you go back a bit further in time with the graph, say approx 200 years? Gets quite interesting.
  22. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    @ WSteven: I don't see how deniers can continue fooling themselves. They don't have to fool themselves, just the rest of us. For their purposes, it suffices for their arguments to be noisy, not coherent.
  23. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    *these are not the trends you are looking for* Utahn - no worries, the post is coming soon! Probably Monday at the latest, maybe even tomorrow.
  24. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Thanks Dana, I'll look forward to it, you tease!
  25. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    @ Sphaerica "there are no actual temporary cooling trends" That's a great Obi-Wan channeling act you've got going there. ;)
  26. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Utahn @8 - thanks. We've got another post in the works comparing the various data sets. Short answer - BEST is comparable with NOAA and GISS land-only. Almost identical long-term warming trends, in fact. HadCRUT is biased lower, but that's not news. The satellite analysis is where it gets interesting, but I don't want to spoil the post.
  27. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    7. @Sphaerica. "here are no actual temporary cooling trends" Yeah, I knew that. Sorry, poor choice of words on my part.
  28. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Really excellent, figure 1 will save me a lot of time. Is 0.27/decade comparable to other datasets, or I guess warmer as land only? Thanks!
  29. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    6, WSteven, Two notes. First, there are no actual temporary cooling trends. You see them only because of a careful selection of endpoints. It's actually a whole lot easier to get a graph with a series of warming trends (almost any choice of end points will give them to you): Second, the gradual flattening of the downward trends is not an optical illusion, but I'm not sure that it's anything more than coincidence, either.
  30. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    In fig 1, the denialist's view, you can almost see the slope of the temporary cooling trends becoming more positive each decadal cycle. I'm not sure if I'm actually seeing that, or if that's some sort of optical illusion. Regardless, it's obvious that the start and end points are always higher than the previous decade. I don't see how deniers can continue fooling themselves.
  31. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Figure 1, is an excellent representation of how the deniers look at the temp record. Having recently shown this graph to a few, they are always lost for words....... Excellent article.
  32. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    kmpollard @3, "Those warmists have cooked the data again." The irony is that it is they (the "skeptics" and those who deny AGW) who are cooking the data.
  33. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    I can just hear the deniers discussing Fig. 1.”If the global temperature has gone down over so many periods in the last 40 years, how can it be warming? Those warmists have cooked the data again.”
  34. Climate's changed before
    292, lancelot, Didn't notice Appinsys in your list. The site is a travesty. You will get nothing but confusion and misinformation there.
  35. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Tom and Logicman, the problem with that line is given by the actual struggle for interpretion of evidence. In history and practice oratory always helps to bring certain interpretations of evidence (like that of rising mercury in certain instruments across the globe) across. Actually this is only not true for logic and mathematics, although even there certain 'retorical rules' for proofs exist. The elegant proof convinces even more: often by giving deeper insight. The line is self-defeating. I think the problem can be avoided by not viewing science as a contest at all, for starters. But I don't know how such a fine oneliner could be destilled from this..
  36. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Thanks Alexandre, the point of this post was really to highlight that Figure 1. I should note that we had to include the last two BEST incomplete months (April and May 2010) in the "skeptic" version in order to get a cooling trend (without them all recent trends are positive), but we removed the incomplete points in the "realist" version, since realists would not use incomplete data. Otherwise the data in the "skeptic" and "realist" versions are identical. Hat-tip to Sphaerica again for coming up with the idea. All I did was animate it a bit.
  37. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Figure 1 is a great graph that speaks for itself. It hasn't warmed since... the last recent temp record.
  38. Climate's changed before
    lancelot - I would also recommend The Discovery of Global Warming for an overview of the topic, not requiring a technical background. And in looking at the 'series of tubes', the interweb, I would suggest discounting any sites with obvious political or ad hominem ranting. Such as, for example, "Appinsys". The ability for anyone to publish to the web means that quality checking is ever more important.
  39. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Logicman: What a great line: "'Debate' is a contest of orators: science is a contest of evidence. I've been searching for a concise, snappy way to say just this. That one's going right into ClimateBites (with credit to Sks & logicman, of course!)
  40. Climate's changed before
    Lancelot: Rather than attempting to access and read a slew of peer-reviewed papers, I recommend that you first read and digest books and reports that essentially synthesize the science of climate change. You really need to understand the forst before you start analyzing each and every tree in it. In terms of textbooks, I highly recommend the Fourth Edition of Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by John Hougton, Cambridge University Press, 2009. It is written in plain English so to speak. Another excellent resource is the recent set of reports prepared by the National Academies of Science under their America's Climate Choices initiative. To access these reports, click here.
  41. Climate's changed before
    lancelot : "Muller, Svensmark, Kirkby.. Appinsys..." Seeing that you go to Appinsys, I can now see how you could have been confused or uncertain previously ! A website whose 'Global Warming' page contains 28 instances of 'alarm' and 3 uses of the word 'lie', should give pause to anyone thinking of using that site. Not only that, the About page ends up by calling Obama a "liar" ! How could you (or anyone) consider that site a useful and unbiased one ?
  42. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    @caerbannog, Watts will not 'come clean'. He will already have his tactics laid out now, and when the peer review etc on BEST is done he will call the peers 'biased' or worse (though he might try to avoid a word like 'traitors': for us to guess). Correlation in trends between stations less than 1000 km apart is considerable. I think one will find global temperature on a monthly basis by using just a hundred stations 'sufficiently spread across the globe' within one or two tenths of a degree C margin of error. JMurphy #30, I have disqualified Watts as a meteorologist permamently as of just over a year ago, when he showed not to know at all what a Polar Low is. An object any meteo textbook will describe, and only within the tropics can one afford not ever to have heard of it. Though the warm core, non-baroclinic, convective character of such a low could provide a little useful understanding for tropical revolving systems (just add seven kilometers for tropopause height, say).
  43. Climate's changed before
    lancelot - One thing I've found helpful on Google Scholar is the links to "All N version". Often this points to alternative sources, pre-prints, author's copies, etc., when just an abstract is available on a journal page. Full text isn't always available, but it's helpful. If nothing else works, I follow the "Cited by N" link, and try to get a feel for that particular topic from those either using that paper as background, expanding upon or refuting the results.
  44. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    DB response, MY misleading graphic! Goodness one has to be careful (smile).& Les you are quite correct on method, if graphs are supposed to be proving anything or quantifying anything. My chart was simply to check for any broad correlation. I think it serves that singular purpose. From that point on, I would certainly defer to (and insist on) the power of numbers if taking the investigation further.
  45. Climate's changed before
    285, lancelot, For learning properly I might recommend Raypierre Humbert's book Principles of Planetary Climate. I have not read it myself yet. I simply have a whole lot of respect for Raypierre. Amazon lets you look at a fair number of pages inside the book to give you a feel for it. If you do pick it up, let me know how it reads. I won't have time to do so myself for quite a while (looking at my schedule, I'm planning on getting to it by my fourth reincarnation from now).
  46. Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
    Perhaps there needs to be more emphasis on the abject failures of the "coating" experiment to reach the appropriate standards for a scientific experiment. Because it was one screen of each type, tested over the course of one day, in one location, the results should be considered mildly interesting but not statistically significant until the test has been repeated many time with randomized placement so that positioning bias (among others) can be controlled for. The essential problem to me appears to be that Watts prefers an approach to science best characterized as "science by anecdote".
  47. Climate's changed before
    285, lancelot, Three things. First, while it seems daunting at first, you will find that as you look at more and more actual papers (just briefly!) it will get easier and easier. Admittedly, KR's ability to do what he did in 2 1/2 minutes did come from a lot of practice. But it does get easier. Second, on finding papers... I've found that while most papers are behind paywalls, you can almost always find a copy for free download from somewhere. Usually including the term "+pdf" in the Google search terms will find you an option or two... but not always. Third, on learning on the Internet... that can be very, very dangerous, especially with the vast number of denial sites out there who want to spin the science from their own perturbed (and wrong) point of view, but do so with the confident tone of someone who is teaching you fact rather than their interpretation, misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the facts. You need to be very leery of what you read and what you trust.
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1120, Fred, I actually think you've done a pretty good job of creating a simple model that demonstrates exactly the effect and mirrors real life (i.e. the temperature of the surface is clearly not 255K, although it's not quite 303K). As Tom pointed out, your simple model has flaws (it is, after all a simple model), so you can't expect to have used it to compute an accurate surface temperature. To elaborate a bit on what Tom said, the "half up/half down" simplification is good for a thought model but grossly flawed for a quantitative analysis. The atmosphere is more complex than that, with varying density and behavior from the surface upwards, so working with a single-slab with a half-up/half-down rule really is a gross simplification. But still, all in all, I think you have something that you can work with for understanding what is happening at a very high level. [Like Tom, I am baffled by your "why pay more?" comment. Can you explain?]
  49. Climate's changed before
    KR I will use google scholar in future, it looks good. iI have in the past tried to download papers such as Dickens from the AAAS site and for some reason the site repeatedly fails to register me. So only the abstracts are viewable, for me. When I have seen full articles, often as a non expert the language and terminology can get quite dense and very hard to follow. I simply don't have the hours in the day to learn the language. At the same time, i need to make some decisions which are to a large extent dependent on theIPCC advice for policy makers. For that reason I have taken time over the last 6 months to fully understand the subject in as much depth as possible, in order to feel confident about applying the advice. Learning mainly on the web, that inevitably exposes one to a lot of arguments and apparently valid questions, from all sides, some of them very plausible. Muller, Svensmark, Kirkby.. Appinsys... I felt it was quite important to be clear in my mind and to subject the questions in my mind (some of them independently arrived at by the way) to expert grilling. I wish of course I had the time to do a climate science degree and even to understand a tenth of the content of some of the papers! But this forum has been very helpful, and patient. I have actually gone through my finite list of 5 query subjects now so I doubt that I will need to ask any more, unless some surprises come up. Of course as we know, life is full of surprises!
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I seem to recall noting to damborel some time ago a simpler variant of the below: The atmospheric greenhouse effect: (1) was postulated theoretically; (2) then confirmed experimentally; (3) and has since been observed empirically. Trying to argue it doesn't exist by means of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fool's errand.

Prev  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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