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  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  Next

Comments 71751 to 71800:

  1. 9 Months After McLean
    Hans @23, Not to get too distracted by the red herring introduced @21 above, but some key points: 1) McLean made his forecast for 2011, not 2010. 2) He also made it for global surface temperatures not any specific location, certainly not for Central England. 3) Regardless, the CET data for 2011 (up to 25 October) are almost +1 C above the 1961-1990 average, and contrary to what Fred says, since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming. 4) As Riccardo and Daniel showed, Fred needs to calculate trends properly. 5) The long-term upward trend continues. So five strikes against that red herring.
  2. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    A couple of issues struck me while reading through the BEST reports; They note that HadCRU results are lower than the other temperature series and express surprise that this hasn't been remarked on before (though, of course, it has been - extensively). They then speculate that perhaps HadCRU averages ocean temperature readings 'over' adjacent land forms (e.g. coasts and islands) and would thus be incorrectly averaging cooler ocean surface temperatures in with land temperatures in these regions. Offhand, I don't know if that is the case, but the usual explanation I've seen for the difference has been that HadCRU doesn't adjust for poor coverage in the Arctic and thus isn't reflecting the full impact of Arctic amplification. Also, they express confidence in their 'global land surface temperature anomaly' reconstruction with fairly narrow uncertainty bands all the way back to 1800... but the first several decades are based on data from only the eastern US and northwestern Europe. Given what we know about the 'hemispheric see-saw' effect with global temperatures (c.f. the hemispheric warming study just released by Svante Björck), AND that Europe was going through the 'little ice age' at the time, I have to wonder whether they might have a significant 'cold' bias in that early data. The Björck study looked at the LIA specifically and found (like many previous studies) that while Europe showed significant cooling around 1800 there was no evidence of anything similar in the Southern hemisphere.
  3. Bad, Badder, BEST
    What a hoot!
  4. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Suggested reading: "2010 Amazon drought released more carbon than India's annual emissions," Mongabay, Oct 9, 2011 To access this informative article, click here.
  5. 9 Months After McLean
    Very nice Riccardo. BTW, do you know when the last data value occurred?
  6. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Oh for goodness' sake, can we please have no more talk about "tone" and instead talk about the actual scientific content and evidence in the video? The same content and evidence that completely blows Watts and his ilk out of the water. Peter Sinclair did an excellent job on calling out Watts and Inhofe and others who are in denial about AGW. The fact that Anthony Watts et al. now look like fools and hypocrites concerning the robustness of the US and global temperature record is completely their own doing. There is nothing wrong with Peter exposing that and him shining the bright light of truth on that. I bet Anthony Watts is going to try and censor this video, as he has tried to do before.
  7. CO2 has been higher in the past
    I am also well versed in computer science and physical modelling; physics, math & computer science in college. I eventually got fed up with being laid off though and went back to school. Now, I am a professional gardener at a large botanic garden.
  8. 9 Months After McLean
    Fred Staples this is the way you look at trends: Really great, no questions.
  9. 9 Months After McLean
    What a pity Mr McClean did not base his bet on the Central Engand Temperature Record, The longest in the wirld measured by thermometers. When it began in 1659, the average temperature for the year was 8.83 degrees Centigrade. In 2010, 351 years later, after the industrial revolution, de-forestation, a ten-fold increase in population and vast urban growth, at the end of the warmest global decade on record, the average temperature was 8.83 degrees Centigrade.
    Response:

    [DB] "The longest in the wirld measured by thermometers"

    Which is nice, for Central England.  But not of any substantive use when working out global trends.

    Apples-n-oranges.

    But then again, the CET pretty much agrees with BEST:

    CET

    [Source]

    (Note to self: Don't ever link directly to images in the Archive)

  10. CO2 has been higher in the past
    55, cjshaker, 59, Dikran, For the record, I am also a "computer scientist" (well, my degree is in computer science, but my profession is really more that of an engineer -- software developer, not research scientist -- as much as I wish that was the direction I'd taken my life).
  11. Bad, Badder, BEST
    The "Junior Woodchuck" comment is a sort of reprise from one of Peter's earliest videos on Anthony Watts. Watts up with Watts? Well worth watching.
  12. Dikran Marsupial at 02:28 AM on 27 October 2011
    SkS Weekly Digest #20
    Prof. Pielke also makes a big play on the argumentative nature of the discussion. Well if you refuse to give direct answers to direct questions in a scientific discussion, then IMHO that is both rude and unscientific (science aims to seek the truth, and giving a direct answer to a direct question is a more direct route to the truth than evasion). Had Prof. Pielke been willing to properly address or even engage with the points being made to him, the discussion would have been both more constructive and less argumentative.
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 02:18 AM on 27 October 2011
    CO2 has been higher in the past
    cjshaker wrote: "It appears that Geologic processes bind the CO2 into rock, if I understand the previous answer correctly." Yes, that is correct, on geological timescales. As to your comments on climatologists. Well I am also a computer scientist, and I have worked with climatologists and have always found them to be perfectly happy to discuss the shortcomings of climate models. Gavin Schmidt @ RealClimate is a leading climate modeller and there are several RealClimate posts where he points out areas where there are problems with the models. However, if you go to any scientist with the "attitude" you display in that post, it shouldn't be surprising if you get a hostile response. Is there some way to subscribe to updates to only the questions that I have posted questions or links on? I do not have time to wade through emails of all updates to all questions on this website, but I am interested in updates to the questions in which I have posted." How about doing what I do, which is to remember the articles on which I am participating in the discussions and visit them occasionally to see if anyone has posted anything interesting? To save time, you could bookmark them on your browser. However, if you don't have time to keep track of the discussion, that does suggest that my point regarding posting lots of questions at the same time might have some value.
  14. Dikran Marsupial at 02:04 AM on 27 October 2011
    Ice age predicted in the 70s
    cjshaker wrote: "It seems that asking questions and then thinking about the replies is a problem?", no, not at all, but after thought about the replies, it is both polite and constructive to post your thoughs regarding the replies, rather than to simply move on.
  15. Bad, Badder, BEST
    With regards to the tone of Peter Sinclair's video, I suggest that that has long been his style, and it works. Certainly he does a very good job of discussing the science at a level accessible to the layperson, and exposing hypocrisy and misrepresentations on the part of contrarians. Skeptical Science has kept to a much higher standard of tone in its posts, and the comments are kept from getting too out of hand by the comments policy. For my part, I do not think contrarians have any ground on which to stand to make complaints based on 'tone', when one considers remarks such as those made by Monckton, the level of discourse at, say, WattsUpWithThat, or the contrarian commentary that has positively swamped physicist Ethan Siegel's most recent blog post on the subject - despite Ethan also keeping to a higher ground on tone. I would conclude by suggesting that it takes all kinds of responses to climate science skepticism, doubt, denial, and denialism, from high-minded responses such as those by Ethan or Skeptical Science, to more biting, sarcastic rejoinders by the likes of Sinclair.
  16. Bad, Badder, BEST
    9, Dennis, Good! Let them get away from faux-science (they have never, ever discussed actual science, so I won't deign to label what they've ever done as science). They look that much more foolish when they wander off onto shrill political and ideological rants, cartoons and name calling. That we throw it in as a chuckling, can-you-believe-these-people comment does not diminish our position, because we really do have the facts and the science behind us. In the end that is what will win the debate (that, and the fact that the physics doesn't care what anyone says, and it and the temperatures are going to march onward and upward), but there's no reason not to fight the battles by identifying Anthony, Monckton and the others as exactly what they are, in whatever terms are appropriate. Let it bother them. Also let them know that their behavior is not without consequence, both near and long term.
  17. Bad, Badder, BEST
    I would have to say that Peter Sinclair's video is entirely appropriate - in large part satirizing the positions and actions taken by the skeptic/denier crowd, not personal insults. Hence it's not ad hominem in nature. Sinclair is to some extent mocking the positions, then associating them with those maintaining those positions. Compare and contrast: Ad homenim (fallacy): Denigrate the person -> claim that hence their argument is invalid. Judgement call (not a fallacy): Demonstrate that an argument is invalid, if not ridiculous -> judge that the person presenting it is suffering D-K / is being disingenuous / requires fitting of a tinfoil hat. Note the difference! Even if you judge some person to have, for example, poor background in the field based upon some argument they have presented, that is no justification for not fully considering additional arguments - although their history may induce you to start with a more critical eye. --- Quite frankly, those positions of denial are not worthy of any reverence - a bit of mockery for the actions of denial is entirely appropriate. Particularly in this case, where the denialsphere is turning on someone they considered one of their own - because he had the temerity to report what the data indicates.
  18. Bad, Badder, BEST
    11, Tom Curtis, Agreed. Lunatics need to be identified as such, not merely politely tolerated. And it is, in fact, lunacy. I dearly hope to live long enough to see history pass judgment on these clowns. I want to read the high school history texts that discuss this period in modern history, and I am very hopeful that some key names and faces will get prominent exposure in those texts. Some advice for them:
    It's always easy to believe in what you are doing. The harder challenge is in believing in what you have done.
  19. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Dennis @9, WUWT can realistically draw attention to issue of ad hominens when they stop publishing Viscount "that is a fascist point of view, Zeig Heil, and on we go" Monckton. The simple fact is that many of the climate change deniers, including explicitly Monckton are conspiracy theorists of the tin hat variety. Monckton personal view is that global warming is a conspiracy by the UN to establish a "global, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship" to achieve world government which will "... not, I repeat not be democratic government". This is not an ad hominen, except to the extent that describing Monckton's views in print since 2009 (at least) is ad hominen. What is absurd is that this tin hat conspiracy theorist is lauded by the press, and taken seriously by the majority of climate change deniers. I do not share the delusion that we should maintain the illusion of Monckton (and other deniers) rationality by carefully keeping concealed the absurdity of their purported beliefs out of some misplaced sense of politeness.
  20. Bad, Badder, BEST
    "Or how about the idea that when you're working in a broad coalition you save your ammunition for firing at the opposing side?" Ah, that is surely why septics provide such a large range of theories, which are often mutually exclusive, as alternative to the GHG theory without breaking into a fight amongst themselves. Please pick your pet theory as long as it isn't GHG's.
  21. Bad, Badder, BEST
    I think Peter Sinclair's video is excellent, except I agree he should have left off the "Junior Woodchucks" and similar comments. It simply gives places like WUWT a reason to deflect their response (if they do respond) away from the science -- where they are getting increasingly incomprehensible and contradictory -- towards complaints about ad hominen attacks from the "warmists."
  22. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Dave123 - 3 It maybe Pogo, but some other dude has another take on it: Ya gotta smile from time-to-time.
  23. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie: "What happened back in 1915-1925?" I'm only guessing here, but the second figure on this page might contain a clue. Look at 60N from 1900-1920.
  24. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Yep, calling people "Junior Woodchucks" - that's 'no holds barred' and will drag us all down to a 'base level of reality'. And fails to 'maintain standards of integrity'. Sure. Is there anything that Sinclair does that actually could hope to meet these exalted standards? Heck 'Climate Crocks' as a name, that's really disrespectful, isn't it? It's amazing how popular the series is, though, don't you think? Perhaps because it's both punchy and funny? There's this thing we call 'satire'... Are you familiar with injunctions not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good? Or how about the idea that when you're working in a broad coalition you save your ammunition for firing at the opposing side?
  25. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Dave123 you are so wrong. Accuracy and keeping to the subject at hand without name calling has a long term and moral advantage. It depends on the situation and context. Peter Sinclair IMO is looking at the subject from an American political context, where the polarisation is significant and integrity has been dragged down into the gutter. The environment that you live can taint the language you use. If you are confronted by TV and Radio with poor news coverage but with a lot of opinion that invokes antagonism then it is difficult to not join in I guess. The question is, does simply doing what you want with no holds barred result in more and more people being dragged down to a base level of behaviour? Or is it possible to maintain standards of integrity, it probably depends a lot on individuals personality.
  26. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    cjshaker, no you didn't misread that... but it says "little-ice-age", while you said "ice age". These are not the same thing. The 'little ice age' was a brief comparatively minor cooling period centered around north western Europe. Technically, the term 'ice age' refers to any period where portions of the Earth are covered with ice caps... making the past several million years part of an ice age. However, the term 'ice age' is also often used to refer to glaciations (i.e. periods when the ice caps expand significantly)... which the quote you provided suggested could next occur in 20,000 years. Thus, reading your prediction of an 'ice age in the near future' as referring to a glaciation would be consistent with common usage of the terms. I have never before seen the term 'ice age' treated as synonymous with the 'little ice age'. One is a term used for two different types of global cycles that play out over hundreds of thousands to millions of years... the other was a localized phenomenon that lasted a couple hundred. That said, I wouldn't generally call 300 to 800 years from now the "near future" either. In any case, the topic of this post is global 'ice age' / glaciation. A return to 'little ice age' conditions would be a problem for Europe, but a non-event for most of the planet.
    Response:

    [DB] CBD, a technical note.  We are currently within an interglacial phase of an ice age, wherein ice age is defined as a period of time where continental ice sheets are existent upon the globe.  That being said, everything you say is still true.  Absent CO2 forcing, the globe had already started the long, slow return to glaciated conditions.  However, evidence suggests that the next glacial phase has already been skipped.

  27. Bad, Badder, BEST
    If you need a little light relief, the list of skeptic responses on Peter's next post is also worth a read: Deniers Eat Their Own in BEST Feeding Frenzy.
    Stephen (“not a scientist, not my real name”) Goddard: "Newsweek from 1975 refutes you, you, you... bad graph maker man..."
    I'm sorry, normal science will be resumed as soon as possible.
  28. Climate's changed before
    @DB #233 - great DB - thanks - hopefully he will be interested and I look forward to a possible future article on SS :)
  29. Bert from Eltham at 19:00 PM on 26 October 2011
    Bad, Badder, BEST
    We were misquoted! It was D'OH! Bert
  30. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    KeenOn350 20 years. No - but I wanted to concentrate on the effects of permafrost degradation rather than the magnitude and effects of CH4 emission. Wakening the Kraken (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Wakening_the_Kraken.html) warns of that danger and I have another essay (may be published soon) which looks at the likely role of CH4 in bringing about Abrupt Climate Change.
  31. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 234), Now you're at least asking some good questions. It's late though and I need to call it night. I'll respond tomorrow.
    Response:

    [DB] "Now you're at least asking some good questions."

    Actually, all parties have presented you with good questions.  If you are going to participate in the dialogue here, it is incumbent upon you to formulate good answers to those questions.

  32. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, you really are talking gibberish now. And my question was not off-topic in relation to the feedback from clouds, as palaeoclimatic variations include feedback from clouds (as I said in #221), thus constraining their magnitude. Is the total feedback demonstrated by palaeoclimate positive or negative? And remember we live on an Earth with some hefty ice sheets, sea ice and winter snowcover right now. All ready and willing to chip in on positive albedo feedback, right now. A large portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet lies below the glacier equilibrium line. Its mass balance is presently negative and accelerating negative. Do you think that all that ice is going to remain safe at high altitude under these conditions? Speaking of altitude, what was the average altitude of the Laurentide, Scandinavian or British ice sheets? Did altitude help them survive, too? I like your definition of positive feedback in #227. With a very slight alteration in wording I might use it myself... It really does totally invalidate your argument though! If your last sentence in #233 is correct, where's the cooling? #222 mc - I see, the D-K is strong with this one.
  33. Clouds provide negative feedback
    233, RW1, Nice try, but no. It has been very clearly calculated that the insolation and albedo changes alone are insufficient to produce the temperature swings seen between glacials and interglacials. CO2 changes are measured, and in fact are computed to account quite well for the difference when other positive feedbacks (water vapor, etc.) are added in. This would not be the case if there were a net negative cloud feedback. Goodness, you really, really want CO2 to be a non-factor, don't you? But even if your scenario were true -- why doesn't your strong net-negative cloud feedback counter the changes in insolation and ice albedo? If cloud feedbacks are driven by temperature changes, and temperatures rise, shouldn't there be more clouds, and a higher albedo -- keeping the earth covered in ice?
  34. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 229), "What "things"? How is this any different from today? Why can it appear to cause more change in those cases, but not now?" For starters, the positive feedback effect of melting ice from that of leaving maximum ice cannot be equated to that of minimum ice where the climate is now (and is during every interglacial period). There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of it is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out of the year with way below freezing temperatures. A lot of the ice is thousands of feet above sea level too where the air is significantly colder. Unless you wait a few 10s of millions of years for plate tectonics to move Antarctica and Greenland to lower latitudes (if they are even moving in that direction), no significant amount of ice is going to melt from just a few degrees rise in global average temperature. Furthermore, the high ‘sensitivity’ from glacial to interglacial is largely driven by the change in the orbit relative to the Sun, which changes the distribution of incident solar energy into the system quite dramatically (more energy is distributed to the higher latitudes in the NH summer, in particular). This combined with positive feedback effect of melting surface ice is enough to overcome the net negative feedback and cause the 5-6 C rise. The roughly +7 W/m^2 or so increase from the Sun is a minor contributor to the whole thing. We are also relatively close to the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbital component has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling.
    Response:

    [DB] Now you post gibberish.  It has become etremely evident that you are here simply to be argumentative, and that you simply do not have a background sufficient to realize that most of what you write above is, to put it delicately, "crap".

    Please make a considered effort to ensure what you write is consistent with the known physics of climate change; your persistence in forcing physics to contort to your electronics-based interpretation of things is admirable, but misguided.

    Shorter admonition:  less posting, more studying.

    A general note to the lay reader:  RW1 has a long history here of having these exact type of interactions on many previous threads.  He promulgates the same basic arguments which are promptly shown to have the same basic misunderstandings.  Not liking the answers, he has even taken the propositions to other websites like Real Climate, where he was given the same answers, to which he expressed similar reluctance in believing.  Let the reader beware.

  35. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, I second KR's suggestion. There is a wealth of information out there to be learned. Fill in the gaps in your understanding and come back with a model which is consistent with all of the facts, not just some. [We want to discuss science here, not magic.]
  36. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Daniel Bailey - Somewhere between Groundhog Day and Whack A Mole... RW1 - I strongly suggest actually doing some reading on radiative physics. You are once again demonstrating the D-K effect.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] End italics tags fixed.
  37. Clouds provide negative feedback
    KR, "You know, that's a perfectly reasonable definition - of positive feedback." I know what you're saying, but this isn't quite what I meant. What I meant is the other things are strong enough to cause more change than the net amount of change that would result from the net negative feedback alone.
  38. Clouds provide negative feedback
    227, RW1, What "things"? How is this any different from today? Why can it appear to cause more change in those cases, but not now?
  39. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1 - "These things appear to be strong enough to overcome the net negative feedback operating on the system and cause significantly more change than just what the change in net incident energy alone would cause." (emphasis added) You know, that's a perfectly reasonable definition - of positive feedback. You have just invalidated your last N+ posts claiming negative feedback, RW1.
    Response:

    [DB] RW1 is clearly trolling now.  His comments will be treated as such until he can offer up substantive dialogue supported by more than mere opinion and hand-waving.  This has become tiresome.

  40. CO2 has been higher in the past
    'It is very easy to get the impression that climate scientists don't want anyone questioning their assumptions, beliefs, code, data, nor science' And its very easy to get the impression that you dont want discuss the answers to the questions you make. Why not make ONE post of question that interest you, then discuss the answers properly, (only one part of the blog to look at), and then move onto the next question. What possible point could the be to posted questions that you dont listen to answer for?
  41. Clouds provide negative feedback
    225, RW1, Clear evasion. And gibberish.
  42. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 221), "The questions you must answer are: 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)? 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?" I'm sorry, but I still don't think you understand entirely what is meant by net negative feedback. The warming we've experienced in the last 30 years is entirely possible with net negative feedback operating on the system. I'm not sure what else to say in regards to this. As to the more 'broad fluctuations' in the climate that have occurred (whatever that means exactly), no doubt there are numerous reasons why. The main ones appear to be changes in energy distribution within the system (from Milankovitch orbital cycles) and the positive feedback effect of melting surface ice (like from glacial to interglacial) or growing surface ice (like from interglacial to glacial).
  43. Clouds provide negative feedback
    skywatcher (RE: 220), I can answer those questions, but they are off topic and not really relevant to what's being discussed at present. I'm primarily talking about the planet's current energy balance and whether or not net negative feedback is required to maintain this balance. The claim here seems to be that net negative feedback is not required, though I don't see this could be the case.
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, skywatcher's questions to you are both germane and on-topic.  You are clearly being evasive and avoiding answering questions for which you have no substantive answer.

  44. Clouds provide negative feedback
    It's like Groundhog Day...all over again.
  45. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Why? Because we're human and it's a can't win. If we don't show a little passion and humanity they lable us "spocks" and out of touch with ordinary people. If we descend to their level, we get the "you're scientists, you need to be professional" remarks. It's mostly a can't win. Besides, Jr. Woodchunks (I go back to Pogo) is sooo much fun.
  46. Clouds provide negative feedback
    sky#220: Not to worry; we're coming up on the one year anniversary of the net negative feedback gambit.
  47. Clouds provide negative feedback
    219, RW1, I don't think you understand what positive feedback means. It does not mean that only long-term changes can occur. It means the response to changes in 'forcing' or energy imbalance will be in the same direction or enhance those changes rather than reduce or negate them. Now that we're done with the absolute silliness, it had been left that you had your question answered quite clearly and succinctly. Indeed, I allowed you to provide the answer to the question yourself. Now you need, in order to carry the conversation forward, to answer the questions that have been asked of you, without evasion. These questions have now been asked multiple times and you have failed to provide answers. The discerning viewer will begin to come to the conclusion that you either do not have the answers, or you are chagrined at where those answers logically lead. The questions you must answer are: 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)? 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?
  48. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, I see you continue to ignore my question to you, put in #197 and #210. How do you explain palaeoclimate variations with a net negative feedback? The initial orbital forcings were much smaller than the resulting climate changes. Palaeoclimate variations, being real-world climate changes with real causes and real effects, already include the cloud feedbacks. I take your non-answer to mean that you, like Lindzen, Spencer and Pielke, do not have an answer to that question...
  49. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Not bad. But, why resort to name calling (Junior Woodchucks, climate cranks, etc...). If what you're saying is sound - you really don't need to do that.
  50. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Agnostic Typo in the para just below figure 2 ? "showing coastal erosion over the 30 years 1986-2005"... presumably either 20 yrs, or 1976? Nice post - but I wonder if there is enough clear emphasis on the frighteningly high GHG effect of CH4 before it oxidizes.. DaveW

Prev  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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