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  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  Next

Comments 71601 to 71650:

  1. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    albatross#3: Considering the cartoon containing the reference to 'Roger' comes from the UC Berkeley teaching resource website Understanding Science, dated 3 Jan 2011, we just got a pretty good lesson in how misconceptions form and propagate.
  2. Climate's changed before
    Sphaerica, Thanks again. My background is building and engineering, which tends to rely on fairly precise calculations, hence my expectations for precision. Your point is well taken that Climate is never going to oblige my personal wishes by making itself easy to quantify. As for 'must be Co2' I take all your points; the SkS intro on that might benefit from some re-phrasing, to avoid possible misunderstandings by others about the 'thought processes'. I do see that certain words such as G*R prompt emotive reactions. Not a reason to jump on the speaker please. I am not a climate scientist,I rely a lot on pre-digested reports. I see no reactions to the idea of micro-organisms having a role in cloud formation. Maybe grasping at straws with that, and surely way off-topic. But I am currently involved in supporting research into micro-organisms in the air and in precipitation, so I take a keen interest. Maybe we can breed some bugs to seed clouds and cool the planet? (Just half-serious on that one) Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail.
  3. 9 Months After McLean
    Excuse 9: Did I say 2011? I meant 3011!
  4. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    Hear, hear, Albatross! Skeptical Science goes to great lengths to actually regulate the tone of posts & comments, so it is very disappointing to see Dr Pielke tone-trolling SkS on his own blog, all the more so in light of his own characterizations of his peers and the characterizations undertaken by Watts and company.
  5. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Inconsistency, that's the word. Watts Up With That Inconsistency? Straight to the point, Bert.
  6. SkS Weekly Digest #20
    Dr. Pielke , Please remove the following error from your recent blog post: "which, the disclaimer to the contrary in one of the comments, clearly is intended to relate to me " How on earth can you state that unequivocally? You claiming that "clearly is intended to relate to me" is simply false and you have been told so repeatedly, yet you insist on making this fallacious assertion and repeating it in public. I'm sorry, but we have many other issues to address besides you, and the cartoon was not about you. Four things Dr. Pielke, 1) There are many, many people who share your name on this planet, 2) Unlike the person in the cartoon, you are not a couch potato, you are a respected scientist 3) Unlike the person in the cartoon you are not opining about an issue which you are not qualified to speak to, in the case medical research 4) The message of the cartoon, to me and most reasonable readers for that matter, is very clear-- people speculating and speaking to things that they are not qualified to speak to (like climate science) is very annoying, and it also speaks to the media giving false balance to non-experts and contrarians. In my opinion, that someone has to spell this out to you (again) is ridiculous. Or are you calling us (and John Hartz) liars? Speaking of which, you should not be lecturing others (based on faulty interpretations) on etiquette when you post things like this on your blog when specifically referring to Dr. Tom Karl and the EPA. Do you consider that respectful and constructive treatment of your peers? This is how you recently described Dr. Jay Fein and Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh when you claimed that they ignored your requests (is the little girl meant to represent Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh?). Do you consider that respectful and constructive treatment of your peers? your friend Anthony Watts recently posted this delightfully defamatory cartoon of Dr. Muller and the BEST team (which then also refers to his co-authors, which includes a Nobel laureate). Do you consider that respectful and constructive treatment of your peers? Will condemn that action by Mr. Watts or will you tacitly endorse it? And this is how anthony Watts depicted the much respected Dr. Andy Dessler recently. Do you consider that respectful and constructive treatment of your peers? Should I continue?
  7. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Just a note: All of the links in this article (Not so Permanent Permafrost) appear to be broken to me. The external links seem to have had skepticalscience.com prepended to them.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed links (all of them, I think).  Made all graphics expandable (if larger scale available).

  8. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Should have read "8 gt of carbon dioxide"
  9. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    If humans currently emit 29 gt of CO2 http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm CO2 has an atomic mass of 44 while CH4 is 16, that would decompose into 8 gt of carbon, so it would actually be a pretty significant addition to the CO2 in the atmosphere given its relatively short life as CH4? Sorry thnking out loud.
  10. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Ah so that where this 3gt figure from Shakova came from, long term (late century) figures. Someone got their hands on it and was trying to tell all who would listen that this was the current measured figure and spinning all kinds of woe from that figure.
  11. 9 Months After McLean
    Excuse me, excuse 8, and imposter. Even more so.
  12. 9 Months After McLean
    I like excuse 9. Impersonation. Yeah, impersonation of a scientist.
  13. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Re #240 (the new PNAS) study. I am so glad that someone did a proper attribution study, the results are quite sobering. Hard to fathom that July's in Moscow are warming at >5 C per century there, and that is summer when the anomalies tend to be smaller. Very interesting to read about how the GISS correction for the winter urban heat island is swamping the signal in the summer months. That paper deserves its own post IMHO.
  14. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Very impressive shots Daniel, love those reds!
  15. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Thanks Bert, and I also agree with your assessment. The counterfeit dollar bill analogy is a good one.
  16. 9 Months After McLean
    Yeah, Figure 1 really shows that the norm now is much warmer than the norm 50 years ago.
  17. Climate's changed before
    234, lancelot, Forgive muoncounter for bristling. GCRs are a touchy subject. The fact is that the potential mechanism has always been taken seriously to some extent, but the mechanism is proposed, but still vague and unproven, some poor papers have used bad techniques to try to prove correlations that did not exist, there are no matching temperature changes to pair with identified major cosmic ray changes in the paleoclimate record, and most importantly there are no recent cosmic ray changes to parallel the temperature changes we've seen. This is not new knowledge. These things we've known for a decade or more. Still, the idea was never dismissed out of hand, and still isn't. It is being given its due, and researched as far as is worth the effort. But it has never been a serious "contender" to explain the warming trend because of the long known issues just described. But as muon said, there are other posts and threads to discuss that. We don't want to drag this thread any further off topic (which is another habit here at SkS... people like to keep threads focused, rather than wandering all over where ever the conversation decides to go).
  18. Climate Change Demands New Decision-Making Strategies by National Leaders.
    noble_serf: The US space program (Apollo) was hardly a small group effort: At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. For another, look at the Netherland's response to catastrophic flooding in the 1950s.
  19. Climate Change Demands New Decision-Making Strategies by National Leaders.
    3/4, noble_serf,Sphaerica isn't the best place to look things like CFC and the Montreal Protocol? Other places industry and government have got its act together; - The ITU - global spectrum management, telecoms protocols. - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (only a few rogues) - international shipping (most national waters respected) we're perfectly up to the job... when the interests of people, the markets and vested interests line up. It's a question of getting big-oil/coal to adjust their business plans... if they weren't so short-termist and wanted their businesses to last 100s rather than 10s of years... they might be happy with emissions reductions.
  20. Climate's changed before
    lancelot#234: "... assured before a lynching that all other suspects have been fully checked out first!" Odd statement. What makes you think that climate science doesn't work that way? If there were other reasonable candidates for causal agents, who wouldn't be checking them out? "GCR/ cloud forcing theory seems to have some credibility in the scientific community, and certainly looked like a good suspect to me for a while." Now there's an example of the thinking process you seem to feel is out there. There are many whose first principle is 'it can't be CO2' and therefore climb on to any bandwagon that happens to pass by. GCR threads are plentiful here (use Search), so I won't go off topic any further than to say that this idea had neither a reliable mechanism nor a reliable history and yet it still gained traction among the 'skeptics' - because it wasn't AGW. A fine example of not fully checking things out before making a lot of extravagant claims.
  21. Climate Change Demands New Decision-Making Strategies by National Leaders.
    3, noble_serf, The Great Depression. Rebuilding Europe after WW II. Rebuilding the South after the Civil War. The U.S. Interstate Highway system under Eisenhower. The taming of he American Frontier (not the kill-the-Indians part, but the rest of it, the economic and social aspects). The elimination of small pox and polio. You're not going to find much that matches our current dilemma, however. The fact is that true "global" interaction has really only been a reality for the past 75 years. The opportunity has not existed, nor the challenges presented themselves, to prepare us for what we need to be able to do today. It's all on us.
  22. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    @Bert writes: "It seems to be trying to be the devil's advocate that pulls evidence out of thin air." An apt summary, Bert! I find I can't look at that site for more than a few minutes without my blood pressure rising to unsustainable levels. I have to visit SkS just to calm down and remind myself that there is logic to the world.
  23. Climate Change Demands New Decision-Making Strategies by National Leaders.
    More of a question than a comment: Other than war, when is the last time a national leader (or body of leaders) in major democracy has taken on a massive challenge and compelled people to take action and overcome a problem together? I'm looking for recent examples in history. The US Space program comes to mind, but it was a small group of people who were well funded. (Small group does great things rather than everyone in a large group doing small things.) Any other examples?
  24. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1 - "Then can you explain how the current energy balance is maintained despite such significant amount of shorter-term, local, regional, seasonal hemispheric and even sometimes globally averaged variability?" Conservation of energy, RW1. Internal variation produces lots of fluctuations, but such excursions up and down are limited by the incoming/outgoing energy levels, and will cycle around those energies. And of course, if the amount of energy in the climate changes due to (for example) increased GHG's, the climate will shift it's average behavior accordingly. As to feedbacks, as long as the gain < 1, the system is stable, as per the Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming thread. Net positive feedback means a greater shift in climate state for input/output energy changes - not instability. And positive feedback is observed from the ratio of paleo changes in climate to reasonably well known energy changes, QED. --- RW1 - This has all been discussed with you before, in excruciating detail, on the Lindzen-Choi threads. Your continuing intransigence indicates (IMO) that your opinions and preconceptions are apparently more important to you than the facts.
  25. Clouds provide negative feedback
    214, RW1,
    Yes. It's interesting that you would mention this because it leads into my next point, and that is the physical processes and feedbacks that maintain the planet's energy balance cannot be separated from those that will act on additional 'forcings', such as GHGs.
    Good for you. You are beginning to demonstrate some grasp of how the system operates. Now your questions have been answered. You need to answer some of the questions that have been posed to you, specifically: With a net negative feedback, how do you account for the broad fluctuations in climate that have been identified throughout recorded history (through proxy studies)? And With a net negative feedback, how do you account for the dramatic and historically unique warming of the past 30 years? Why has your powerful net negative feedback not succeeded in constraining temperatures for the past thirty years? If it has not done so in that time frame, how can you imagine that it will do so in the future, as we continue to raise CO2 levels to dramatic extremes?
  26. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Wow!, those are some awesome shots there Yooper.
  27. Clouds provide negative feedback
    213, RW1, Your original question was:
    Then can you explain how the current energy balance is maintained despite such significant amount of shorter-term, local, regional, seasonal hemispheric and even sometimes globally averaged variability?
    My leading question was:
    If you have a net negative feedback, why does the system succeed in fluctuating so greatly? Why does the negative feedback not keep the system stable and within very narrow confines?
    Your answer for my question was:
    Because the feedbacks take time and the system is largely chaotic.
    My answer to your original question is:
    Because the feedbacks take time and the system is largely chaotic.
  28. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Feedbacks need not be instantaneous. For instance, when wolves were shot in the early 20th century in order to increase the deer populations, herds increased immediately. However, the increase in the herds exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment, and the herds decreased over the next several years due to the lack of food supply. The herds varied widely initially, but were eventually constrained by the food feedback to a population which was not all that different from the original.
  29. Climate's changed before
    234, lancelot, Going bottom to top... Relative precision? He gave a range of 23% for known versus unknown forcings, leaving what I would consider to be pretty wide error bars in his estimates (even if the precision of the boundaries seems fine, the range between them is not -- scientists always use precise numbers to define embarrassingly imprecise estimates -- a science habit, I guess -- they like to be very precise in admitting to how much they don't know). What you term "unnaccounted for" by the models actually is accounted for, but it is not the result of ongoing forcings, but rather internal variability. No matter what we do, the system is still chaotic. Like weather, you are just never going to pin it down completely and make everything add up perfectly so that the model exactly matches reality on date X with temperature Y. It's just not feasible. What is more important to recognize, which is the core of your realization that today's CO2 truly represents a unique event in the planet's climate history, is that the temperature range being discussed for the 1,000 years prior to today's crisis covers a mere +/- 0.1˚C range on average and a +/- 0.2˚C range at extreme events. If close to half of that is attributable to known forcings, then in most periods only +/- 0.05˚C is "unaccounted for" and even in the extremes that number is only +/- 0.1˚C. And the greater swings are generally those that are accounted for by notable solar/volcanic events, which makes the real "natural variation" range very narrow indeed. I can't find a free version of the paper, but the figures and data area available here. Too, it is important to recognize the methodology and limitations that Crowley used. First, the inputs for solar and volcanic forcings for the past 1,000 years are themselves only estimates inferred from available proxies. Inputs for other variations, like ocean currents, land/albedo changes and such are non-existent, so what is left as "natural variability" could well have been accounted for with better inputs. Secondly, the temperatures against which he is comparing are also only proxy estimates, so the error range is by necessity broad. Who knows... it's possible that with precise solar and volcanic forcing inputs and temperature outputs, the accountability might be much greater. You have to consider the fog through which the scientists is attempting to squint to get to the inference. On to the last item, the "CO2 must cause" statement. The phrasing is unfortunate, but the take away message should not be "we can't think of anything else so the thought process stops here" but rather "everything we've tried does not account for the warming, and yet CO2 does." CO2 is not the culprit simply because someone saw it hanging around on the street corner the same night that today's Climate was murdered. His fingerprints are in fact all over the gun, and he was the only one with the key to the locked room in which Climate's body was found. What is unsaid on that page (and maybe it should be said to make things more clear) is that this conclusion was reached because models do incorporate every known forcing and none of them did the job. The use of every known forcing successfully models temperatures up to the current time. The dual implication of this is not only that CO2 appears to be the culprit, but also that if there were another, unknown forcing -- why did it never influence anything prior to the current dilemma? Where were similar dramatic changes in GCRs, solar activity and such for the last two thousand years? We know why there were no swings in CO2, but why no swings in any other magically hidden forcings? What's also left unsaid, as we have discussed, is that it is not like scientists then close their eyes to any other possible forcing. There are tens of thousands of scientists around the globe studying everything imaginable, from the Amazon to the Arctic to black carbon to land use changes to methane deposits to solar forces beyond our current understanding. No one is stopping their thought process and saying "let's focus on CO2 because it makes our job easier." Quite to the contrary, scientists would like to find, understand and pin down every forcing imaginable, because in so doing that 41% to 64% range that worries you drops to zero, all doubt vanishes, and the climate models become marvelously accurate. Such an accounting "benefits CO2 proponents" (as if anyone is a sports fan rooting for CO2 in a game) as much as anyone. By the way: Here at SkS it's considered bad form to use all caps (it's shouting). Instead use italics or bold for emphasis. You can click on the "Click for tips on posting images or hyperlinks" link just below the "Post a Comment" text box for instructions on how to do so (or just click this link here).
  30. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Link to images of the aurora from last nite taken locally: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.290369907653519.75544.165862740104237&type=1
  31. 9 Months After McLean
    Figure 1 is startling. I'm so used to seeing monthly variations overwhelming year-on-year variations, that a comparison to 50 years ago comes as a bit of a shock.
  32. Climate's changed before
    scaddenp: CH6 is indeed a great source. Thanks for reminding me.
  33. Climate's changed before
    Sphaerica; Re 'must be CO2': I picked up that particular skeptic meme from the SkS intro - How Reliable are Climate Models? [my CAPS] "So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 MUST CAUSE global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. NOTHING ELSE could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century." Maybe a bit of anti-meme spraying is needed here before those bugs propagate too far? :) Having said that, I know the history of CO2 greenhouse gas theory, Arrenhius et al, and that CO2 was not just plucked out of thin air to 'fill the gap' because noone could think of anything else. When I say myself use the phrase 'must be C02' I refer to the logic that there is a gap between observed warming and estimated natural warming, there are possible 'suspects', and CO2 is the by far the most likely one; that is fine, but I would want to be assured before a lynching that all other suspects have been fully checked out first! GCR/ cloud forcing theory seems to have some credibility in the scientific community, and certainly looked like a good suspect to me for a while. Even biological influence on cloud formation is a possibility. But while those theories are very appealing, the evidence is very slim to date. And the killer blow is : warming seems to be well beyond any natural variations in recent history. I will certainly look into the references given, thanks to all for those. One point which still is unclear to me: Crowley T J, in Science, 14 July 2000, Causes of Climate Change over past 1000 years: Abstract: "Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much [sic] as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism." [That seems to leaves 36 to 59% of variations pre 1850 unaccounted for by the models, which has really troubled me, seeming to cast doubts on the completeness or accuracy of the models] In view of sphaericas' comment (226) on the inability to precisely determine past temperature, how does Crowley arrive at his conclusion with such relative precision?
    Moderator Response: No, GCR / cloud forcing theory does not have "some credibility" in the scientific community. See It’s cosmic rays.
  34. Test your climate knowledge in free online course
    Congratulations to the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and the collaborative universities for putting together this elegant, simple, clear yet thorough guide to AGW. Big pat on the back to Skeptical Science too for it's role as evidenced by the number of times articles on the site are used as important references in the resources section. It's a great tool to bypass deniers on blogs and just refer people to look to educate themselves if they still have an open mind. I especially liked the simple video demonstration in the 1st section showing how CO2 absorbs heat. Absolutely smashes the denialist myth that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist (of course we knew that anyway but what a great way to show it). Top marks to all concerned
  35. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 211), "The feedback is a response to any input, whether that input is part of constant change and chaos, or a new, steady input." Yes. It's interesting that you would mention this because it leads into my next point, and that is the physical processes and feedbacks that maintain the planet's energy balance cannot be separated from those that will act on additional 'forcings', such as GHGs.
  36. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 211), "The question, rephrased so that you can understand it, is: If you have a net negative feedback, why does the system succeed in fluctuating so greatly? Why does the negative feedback not keep the system stable and within very narrow confines?" Because the feedbacks take time and the system is largely chaotic. Over time, the net negative feedback does keep the system tightly constrained, which is why longer-term globally averaged there is generally very little change relative to the much larger more local and regional short-term change.
  37. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, Your current question to me (#202) is effectively "How can 2 + (2 * 1.5) = 5?" In the context of your question, positive feedback is simple math.
  38. Clouds provide negative feedback
    The question, rephrased so that you can understand it, is: If you have a net negative feedback, why does the system succeed in fluctuating so greatly? Why does the negative feedback not keep the system stable and within very narrow confines? And separately there is no requirement that the inputs be the "constant change and chaos." Yes, I understand that it fits with what you are trying to arbitrarily impose on the system, but it is too narrow a definition. The feedback is a response to any input, whether that input is part of constant change and chaos, or a new, steady input. Any attempt to frame the definitions and system only within the narrow confines of a predetermined conclusion will confuse the issue. Please stick with proper, true definitions, rather than reframing things in order to score points or twist the argument in a certain direction.
  39. 9 Months After McLean
    I think wingding's second hypothesis is plausible:
    "Or he hadn't bothered looking at a global record at all but had just plugged numbers into some SOI->global temp equation he had incorrectly derived and hadn't bothered to even question the plausibility of the result."
  40. Bert from Eltham at 15:13 PM on 25 October 2011
    The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    As a retired physicist who was taught to look for internal consistency with ALL the evidence for any hypothesis. I find the posts on WUWT merely an exercise in partitioning the bits of evidence that fit their preconceived beliefs. I must admit my bias as I have read this (SkS) site in totality before posting and found it completely self consistent. I read as much as I could stomach at WUWT and concluded it was a waste of time. It is all over the place with no coherence scientifically. It seems to be trying to be the devil's advocate that pulls evidence out of thin air. They seem to be looking for counterfeit dollar bills to prove that all the other bills are counterfeit. Conversely I have learned a lot that I had not even considered from SkS that fills in all the missing bits as I am not a climatologist. Thank you to all here for clearing up quite a few of my misconceptions. When I get fully up to speed may be able to contribute more. Bert
  41. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, I must have missed your answer to my question - how do you explain palaeoclimate variations (glacial-interglacial cycles and so on) with a net negative feedback? Maybe you can provide an answer where Pielke, Spencer and Lindzen have not (to my knowledge)?
  42. Michael Hauber at 15:05 PM on 25 October 2011
    9 Months After McLean
    Being picky I could argue that McLean's predictions being for 'coolest year since 1956 or even earlier' means he only has to be colder than 1964 to be correct. That makes him out by about 0.45 degrees so far instead of 0.5. I can't help wondering whether he knew his prediction was absurd, and was just trying for a sensational hook to get maximum media exposure for his claims that AGW was false.
  43. SkS Weekly Digest #21
    Yocta, nice one! Daniel, I had missed that post, thanks. Not that I was unaware of clathrate potential, but that post is succinct.
  44. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica, Feedback is the response to changes in energy flux. I'm not sure I understand the question. Yes, the constant change and chaos fits well with what I'm saying. That's largely my point.
  45. Clouds provide negative feedback
    204, RW1, 205, RW1, In case I'm being too subtle, what I mean by that is stop playing games and answer the question.
  46. 9 Months After McLean
    winding: If you remove the long-term (rising) trend from the data, then it is indeed possible that 2011 may be at or below 1956 levels. In that case, though, what you're plotting is the variation about the trend, rather than actual anomalies. But that's not what was predicted, as far as anyone can tell. Bob Loblaw: Scientists don't speculate, they hypothesise... :-D But seriously, yes, I agree, speculation is good, so long as it's followed up by investigation and analysis.
  47. Clouds provide negative feedback
    205, RW1, Yes, we all know that. It doesn't answer the question. Except for the "from all the chaos that results in the constant variation" part. You added that just to make it look like it fits well with your own hypothesis, but you just made it up. Feedback is the response to the inputs. Period.
  48. Clouds provide negative feedback
    204, RW1, Yes, we all know that. It doesn't answer the question.
  49. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 203), Feedback, by definition, is the response to the changes in energy flux from all the chaos that results in the constant variation.
  50. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 203), "Can you explain how such variability could exist with a net negative feedback damping the system?" It's a highly dynamic and chaotic system with large changes in incident energy flux. Changes from day to night, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, etc., etc. It's constantly changing everywhere all the time.

Prev  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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