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  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  Next

Comments 75301 to 75350:

  1. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn#2: "studying, with validity, the link between GCR and climate." Validity? I wonder. An FD occurs in response to a solar coronal mass ejection. The influx of charged particles enhances magnetic shielding of the earth, resulting in a lowered CR flux at the ground (hence the counter-intuitive decrease following a solar 'storm'). The typical FD has a sharp onset and an exponentially decaying tail lasting a few days. Your linked paper (Dragic et al 2011) shows a measurable effect for only FDs with at least 7% decrease from prior background. That cuts the population down enormously, as weaker FDs are much more frequent. The authors have a dataset running 41 years (1954-95); there are a grand total of 35 7% FDs in that period. If this is what is causing clouds to form, there isn't even 1 cosmic ray induced cloudy episode per year! It gets better. From the paper: We have decided to avoid the direct use of cloudiness data in the analysis of CR-cloud connection and replace it with a different, well defined physical quantity: diurnal variation of surface air temperature (DTR), which should be inversely correlated with cloud cover. The rationale for this is the following: if cloudiness is high in the daytime, more sunlight is reflected back to space and the daily temperature maximum is lowered; in the nighttime, less infrared radiation from the earth surface is emitted into outer space and the daily temperature minimum is increased. Therefore - more clouds means lower DTR. So we're not even talking 'cosmic rays cause clouds' anymore. Here's the new mechanism: 'A decrease in cosmic rays causes a temperature change that might or might not result from fewer clouds.' However, when the authors broaden their sample to include 5% FDs, the DTR increase disappears; hardly a robust result. But it is not necessarily true that this 'mechanism' works the other way: Does higher DTR only mean fewer clouds? Figures in the paper show that 3-4 days after onset, DTR peaks on the order of 0.5C difference. Why does the peak in DTR occur as the FD is declining or quite possibly over? Does it take that long for the cosmic-ray cloud connection to stop making clouds? Is there going to be some sort of mystery lag between FD onset and DTR increase? Or are there other causes for these short-term DTR increases? With studies like this posing as evidence, the cosmic ray-climate connection looks weaker than ever. That splitting sound you just heard? Another nail bent.
  2. There is no consensus
    The topic of this thread it states: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming." Is this saying that without any man contributing CO2 the globe would not be warming?
  3. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    I have a question: How much CO2 ppmv is needed to raise global temperature 1 degree Celsius?
    Response:

    [DB] Under what timeframe?  Are other forcings and feedbacks being held to zero?  How about aerosol emissions?  The answer...depends.

    Unless you are reading the Tucson Citizen.  Giddyyap.

  4. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Camburn @45, that is an odd response by you. You are on record as saying, "Spencer is not the only one who shows that the 20 fold is .....a large large stretch to say the least." Note, the ellipsis is your original not very subtle attempt to imply some suitable ad hominen should be included, but it turns out on the most detailed analysis to date that 20 to 1 is a very good estimate, and that Spencer's 2.2 depends on assuming (at best) an unrealistically shallow mixed layer, and on the very dubious switch to three monthly (seasonal) data. Given that he claimed to be using 100 meter data, the apparent use of 25 meter data is very damning. Unable to defend your original assessment of Dessler 2011 (and Spencer and Braswell 2011), you resort to distraction by drawing attention to Bart's blog comment analysis. Others have justly drawn attention to the discordance between your apparent extreme skepticism of peer reviewed papers and your credulity towards "blog comment science". I would rather address Bart's analysis directly, specifically, the claim that:
    "“The approximate period of the ENSO cycle is around 5 years.” I’m not talking about a cycle time, though. I am talking about the time it takes for clouds to react to temperature changes. That is, if you increase global temperature by 1 degC (and could hold it there), within 4.88 years, you will be 1-exp(-1) = 63% of the way to creating an opposing 9.5 to 10 W/m^2 reduction in insolation. The unit step response is plotted here."
    For clarity of discussion, here is the step response plot referred to: So let's put this into perspective. "Bart", an unknown commentator on a blog performs a statistical analysis which purports to show, without any physical mechanism, and on just 10 years data, that the climate response to a doubling of CO2 will be to reduce temperatures by approximately 1.5 degrees C. Oddly, you do not find this highly suspect, but rather "an excellent analysis". Without going into technical detail like Nick Stokes, I find this claim simply incredible, ie, not possible to be believed. A negative feedback of such strength would either force the Earth into a Snowball state within 50 years if it only cools; or if it is a negative feedback on warming as well, would force the climate into wild multiple degree oscillations in mean global temperature on decadal timescales. What is more, I cannot help noticing that his data (10 years) is to short to determine if the response he is detecting is cyclical or not. Given that, the apparently coincident timing with regard to the average return interval of ENSO events, and more compellingly to me, a half solar cycle, is highly suspect. To the extent that he is detecting anything, it seems far more likely that he is detecting a residual response to cyclical (Solar Cycle) or quasi-cyclical (ENSO) events. He provides no analysis rebutting that possibility.
  5. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    cynicus: yes, that's the sense I meant 'one-sided' - the vast majority (almost all) of the evidence points to global warming being real, driven by human GHG emissions, and a serious problem. Talking about the range of possibilities that you mentioned is just hand-waving - particularly when all of those possibilities are bad, and only the degree is different. Even the low end will have nasty repercussions, the most likely values will be disastrous, and I really, really hope the actual values don't lie in the upper part of the range...
  6. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Eric @ 96, I really don't comprehend why you want to send me on a fishing expedition for what you want to say, but I did read the little brief on IR satellite images. Interesting, but perhaps you got the wrong link? Or maybe I'm missing something? I'm open minded, just let me know how my admittedly simple exercise in first approximations is wrong, then point me to the correcting information.
  7. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Sphaerica @ 97: OK, that is a bit confusing What I was trying to do, in keeping with the spirit of the original post, was to come up with some simple example of why "trace" does not mean insignificant. A 6.8 meter "layer" of CO2 sounds a little more significant than 0.039% for those who don't easily grasp numbers. But I can't say 'layer', because the science sticklers here might make me do the calculations to bring it all to a uniform pressure and then calculate the optical depth of the layer, not to mention explaining the quantum mechanics of absorption and all the other physics ;) So I chose path length. 390 pmm CO2/1,000,000 ppm Atmosphere, is a ratio. The 'ppm' cancels. (I rounded to 400ppm because we'll be there soon enough.) Consider a cylindrical volume of any diameter straight up through the troposphere. By the Ideal Gas Law all gases occupy about the same volume at a given temp and pressure. For any given diameter, the volume of the cylinder times the percent concentration of a gas component, gives the volume of that gas. The cylinder is uniform, and CO2 is well mixed, so the ratio of CO2, times the length of the cylinder, ALSO gives the effective length that a photon must transit of that particular component were it all in one place (Albeit at different pressures and temperatures along the path.) What I was trying to say is that yes 0.039% of something doesn't seem like much. But if that something is large, like a layer of atmosphere 17 km thick, it's actually a lot more than it first appears. (I'm not a PhD, but I do get to use IR instruments on occasion, it doesn't take a whole lot of CO2 to make the instrument useless for measurements in and near the CO2 absorption band because of how effective an absorber it is.)
  8. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    I like it, but it could benefit from including the critical graph--the one that shows how drastically current CO2 levels are off the previous charts.
    Response:

    [DB] You mean like this one?

    CO2

  9. IPCC is alarmist
    Hang on lancelot. The full quote reads "What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target." He said it in 2009. The CO2 concentration was already blowing past 380ppm. The 350ppm target is really very, very ambitious because it requires us not to just cut emissions, but to reduce concentrations. I don't know what kind of policy/financial work you do. But if someone comes to you with a proposal to quarry, crush and distribute dusts & gravels of CO2 absorbing rocks, do the world a favour and set them to work.
  10. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations! There was never doubt in my mind that John and SkS are in the class of their own. It is about time that someone noticed and more awards will certainly follow.
  11. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn, #1 Given theres no discernable trend in cosmic rays over the last 60 years, any link to climate must indicate that the climate is incredibly sensative, wouldnt you say?
  12. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Dana: It would help readability if you were to enlarge Figure 1.
    Response:

    [DB] Now thumbnailed; click on it for larger 1050x454 native resolution.

  13. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    ThingsBreak also has an excellent overview of the scientific literature, well worth the read (Camburn and fellow "skeptics" I'm looking at you). Some quotes from the ThingsBreak piece: "Basically, what’s actually been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. isn’t at odds with the IPCC. What is at odds with the IPCC hasn’t been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. And the claims by Svensmark, Shaviv, and other ‘GCRs drive climate’ proponents have been debunked at pretty much every step of the way. GCRs may have some influence on cloud behavior, but they’re not responsible for significant climatic changes now or in the geologic past." "After the initial furor of “skeptic” blog-spinning dies down, cosmic rays will probably find themselves falling out of favor once again. But there’s no such thing as too debunked when it comes to myths about climate change, and there’s little chance this will be the last time cosmic rays will be trotted out to claim that we don’t need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.' But I understand that 'skeptics' and those in denial about AGW have to continue to fabricate debate and uncertainty, it is what they do. Readers, don't fall for their misinformation and distortion and cherry-picking.
  14. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Hot of the press... "New evidence of sea-level oscillations during a warm period that started about 125,000 years ago raises the possibility of a similar scenario if the planet continues its more recent warming trend, says a research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)." Source: "Sea Levels Much Less Stable Than Earlier Believed, New Coral Dating Method Suggests'" Science Daily, Sep 12, 2011 To access this article, click here.
  15. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations to everyone here at SkS but particularly John. In the beginning it was John, popping in at other sites and spreading the word (and links). Nice vision John and great follow through.
  16. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn, The paper you'v cited ignored ~10 other studies that yields contradicting relationships between cloud cover and decrease in GCR (Forbush decreases). (For example see references in Laken et al. In addition, Laken et al demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between the decrease in solar irradiance prior to an FD event, and thus just relating FD event to a change in cloud cover does not necessarily say anything about GCR, as the effect of a change in TSI can't be isolated.
  17. IPCC is alarmist
    lancelot - it's not a misquote or typo. Some argue that current CO2 levels are too high because as Dikran notes, we have not yet experienced the full climate effects of the CO2 we've emitted thus far. Looking at historical data from when CO2 levels were this high in the past, sea levels were significantly higher, for example. See this post. On the other hand, realistically it will take a major effort just to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm. Personally I think that should be our target, and in the future maybe we can find ways to reduce the level back down to 350 ppm. See this post about the global warming 'danger limit'.
  18. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    There's a more subtle version of this... since climate has changed in the past we can't be sure that it isn't natural now... followed by since Obama didn't get excited about it in the last state of the Union, and Gore doesn't live like the Amish the we can be sure it isn't really problem. We can judge this by how political leaders walk the walk, rather than taking the trouble to examine the science ourselves.
  19. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn @2, ditto what Riccardo said @5. I don't know why you say now, since climate scientists have been studying cosmic rays for years. See all the studies referenced in the cosmic rays rebuttal, for example. Ian, thanks for the correction on the spelling of Kirkby.
  20. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Although the wording on the box of nails is probably not legible, it actually reads: "Made in Deniersville."
  21. Dikran Marsupial at 04:44 AM on 13 September 2011
    IPCC is alarmist
    lancelot The warming from increased levels of CO2 is not instantaneous, the thermal inertia of the oceans means that it will take a century or so for all of the warming to which we are already committed to be fully realised. Thus even though we are now above the 350ppm figure doesn't mean that the "climate tipping point" should already have happened, but that if we stabilise at that level the tipping point may occur before the climate reaches its new equilibrium. Essentially there is no contradiction there. Just because we have reached a level of 385ppm doesn't mean we can't stabilise at 350ppm.
  22. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Well, as a modifier to my previous comment, the theory is fine in principle but still far from being demonstrated in full. There are still several indirect indications that GCR have not been the driving force of warming during the last several decades.
  23. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Chris, as you can see it is not the argument that some are attempting to seal in the coffin, it is AGW itself. The graphics poke at the "final nail in the AGW coffin" that is always reported by the MSM, for instance. The most recent situation with the CERN GCR experiment is a good example. The theory is fine yes, just like that nail might have been fine had the person with the hammerer looked where they were swinging.
  24. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Kirkby is easy to misspell. Also, Bill Chameides gets it right in his post, but gets it wrong in the URL. I also think the overlay of solar cycle and GCRs on the same graph is illuminating, a very quick way to show that it isn't the sun, and, because they are correlated, it's not cosmic rays either. A good post, but I'm not entirely comfortable blurring the distinction between a theory that is alive and well because of its robustness, and the zombie arguments still walking around despite being well dead. It might be more humorous to show AGW standing nearby, alive and well, as the nail is being driven.
  25. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn there has been a whole lot of studies on the cosmic ray influence on climate. Saying that scientists are now studying it is simply untrue. But don't believe my words, go check the scientific litterature.
  26. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Muon, Yes, minimum temperatures definitely increased since the mid-70s. Precipitation increased also, but your link to the NOAA graph shows that precipitation decreased from 1910 to 1970, and has increased since. The past decade looks similar to the 1910s in both absolute and filtered values. Can you confidently say that total precipitaion in the U.S. today is significantly different than one hundred years ago? I would be hesitant to proclaim a new precipitation normal if a similar normal occurred a century ago.
  27. IPCC is alarmist
    Hello, I'm a newcomer in this field. I have read most of the arguments on all sides. This site by the way is really good. Keep up the good work The point of my question here is - OK, AGW is real, but for policy and decision makers, how much confidence can be placed in IPCC predictions, and how much weight should we attach to them? In Wikipedia article on IPPC the Chairman biography link is given here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri] and the following is stated: 'On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change. Pachauri has been vocal on the issue of climate change and said, "What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target." 350 refers to the level in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that top climate scientists such as NASA's James Hansen agree to be a safe upper limit in order to avoid a climate tipping point.' AS the current CO2 levels are 385 ppm, in excess of 350 ppmv, my questions are; 1. Is thus is a misquote from either of the two sources? 2. If so, should the Wiki text be corrected? 3. If not, what are the consequences in terms of confidence in future IPCC predictions, for policy makers? This is not an idle question, it is a question which concerns me when having to make financial decisions on allocation of public resources. It would be great if any replies could be objective, rather than emotive.
  28. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    BTW, Chameides' article includes a NOAA graphic that one of the more technical savy SkS authors could import to this comment thread.
  29. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    As they say, “Brilliant minds think alike.” Bill Chameides has posted a similar article today (Sep12) on his “TheGreenGok” blog. To access Chameides’ “Climate’s Cosmic Connection?,” click here.
  30. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    The best thing in all of this is that scientists are now studying, with validity, the link between GCR and climate. A serious study of the link between GCR and effects on climate Svensmark has stated this before, and this is a moderate confirmation of his link.
    Response:

    [DB] "and this is a moderate confirmation of his link"

    Nope; this has been pointed out to you before & still you repeat the meme.

    Also, you are still ducking Albatross' questions here.  A real skeptic would embrace challenges, not hide from them.

  31. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Jonathon#15: "Is it a new "normal," or a return to a previous one?" New. The graph I linked to at Climate Extremes Indices clearly shows an abrupt change in trend starting in the mid-70's - right about when the most recent warming spell ramped up. "unless the pattern persists, it will be just a short-term blip. " Have to agree with you there; short term blips aren't of too much interest. Please be sure to remind anyone who rejects the on-going warming trend with an 'its el Nino' of that point.
  32. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    tblakeslee#23: "The paper does confirm Svensmarks earlier experiment" No. From the earlier experiment: ... the researchers found that this effect also took place when they used a radioactive sodium source, which produces gamma rays, and as such claim that similar measurements in the future will not require expensive accelerators. -- emphasis added If low energy gammas produce sufficient ionization for cloud nucleation, why don't we see all clouds, all the time? Gammas are not modulated by the interplanetary magnetic field, so the entire basis of the GCR->cloud hypothesis is blown. The Kirkby paper says nothing about any of this. For the rest, please stay on topic and avoid citing WUWT, which is never considered a credible source. Refer to the Comments Policy; off topic comments are often quickly deleted.
  33. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    22, tblakeslee,
    The real test of a theory is its ability to accurately predict. So far Svensmark's theory looks like a winner.
    This combination of words make no sense. Your criteria is an ability to accurately predict. Fine. What has Svensmark accurately predicted so far? How do you jump to "looks like a winner?" In September of 2009 he said:
    “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable."
    Too bad we keep seeing record temperatures. You call that "cooling?" You call that an "accurate prediction?" Same for Achirbald. I read your link (as much as it made my skin crawl to visit WUWT). It's nonsense. It borders on a laughable joke. What of any value did you take away from that tripe?
    it won't be hard to do better than the dismal failure of the dire predictions based on the CO2 warming theory.
    And this is just a pathetic falsehood. Try How reliable are climate models for starters, and please spend less time just making things up.
  34. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    It is ironic to note that the "very important first step" was actually performed 100 years ago by Scottish physicist Charles Wilson. Wilson received the Nobel Prize for his studies using a cloud chamber. Being Scottish I'm sure he would have spent far less than CERN spent on repeating his experiments. The big problem with this line of research on cosmic ray effects is that cosmic ray flux has not been increasing over the past 50 years or so whereas both temperature and CO2 concentrations have been increasing. By the way it is "Kirkby".
  35. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    For a better understanding of why Governor Perry has taken such a hard stance on climate change science and climate scientists, check out: “On Global Warming, Texas Governor Perry and Glass Houses,” by Bill Chameides, The Green Crok, Aug 18, 2011 To access this informative article, click here.
  36. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    Your arguments confuse Kirkby's beliefs with what he was forced to put in the paper during the more than a year of negotiations with reviewers to get it published. The paper does confirm Svensmarks earlier experiment which was condemned by people in the IPCC who are in denial that they could have made a mistake by betting on CO2. We will soon see whether Svensmark is right that cosmic ray and therefore clouds are a significant driver of climate. Though the solar wind has an 11 year cycle, that cycle has significant variation in period that correlate very well with La Nina/El Nino cycles. Theodor Landscheidt wrote a paper ten years ago showing an amazing connection. ttp://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm Here is a later paper pointing out that the predictions were remarkably accurate. Archibald has done another prediction to 2050 based on a model that backtests amazingly well. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/archibald-climate-forecast-to-2050/ The recent La Nina, which caused all of this year's terrible weather was part of that prediction. The future prediction is for a return to La Nina and another two decade spell of cooling. The real test of a theory is its ability to accurately predict. So far Svensmark's theory looks like a winner. We will see who is right in the near future. it won't be hard to do better than the dismal failure of the dire predictions based on the CO2 warming theory.
  37. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Sphaerica @47 says basically the same as me @19 - Dessler's paper is peer-reviewed. Spencer's blog post is a blog post, and commenters have already found a number of errors in his calculations. If Socractic's numbers are right, then it essentially confirms that Dessler was right and Spencer wrong. We'll have to see what Dessler and Spencer come back with. But in general, disparaging a peer-reviewed paper as "not good" for no apparent reason, while fawning over blog posts and their comments, is not a sign of true skepticism.
  38. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Sphaerica@47 Like Monckton! He is an a self proclaimed expert in both climatology and medicine.
  39. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Muon, The question would be, how does this affect global sea level? Looking at the total U.S. precipitation, there was a dip in the middle of the 20th century (1940s, 60s, and 70s), but otherwise recent precipitation is similar to a century ago. Is it a new "normal," or a return to a previous one? One would expect the added precipitation to raise lake levels and advance glaciers, both of which would act to lower global sea level. While the drop is of interest, unless the pattern persists, it will be just a short-term blip.
  40. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    A belated congratulations to John and the rest of the Skeptical Science team. I know it really opened my eyes to what was going on.
  41. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    Great series, really enjoying the videos. Nicely done to all involved.
  42. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    camburn#12: "Was there a weather event" Yes: by definition, a tropical storm is a weather event. But that is, of course, an utterly irrelevant question. In case you missed it, the 'normals' changed. Have a look at the graphs of US Climate Extremes Indices, particularly this graph of 'extremes in one day precipitation'. The relevant questions are: What is causing the rise in extreme precipitation events? What is causing the 'normals' to change? Note the use of the word 'extreme' in the title of this post. Why are we hearing that word so frequently? But you seem to cling to the 'its fine' school: Climate change is always in the future. What we are seeing is merely weather. It is in the nature of Climate change that you can never observe it because only weather is observable. So everything is fine...
  43. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 00:16 AM on 13 September 2011
    Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Ditto, Paul D. Congrats everyone - great achievement, and I'm glad John and SkS are finally getting the attention they deserve.
  44. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Well I've learnt something even with this post, regarding 'just deserts'!
  45. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    Is there a menu that lists all the videos? Also how many in total will there be?
  46. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    It's really cute the way Camburn dismisses an actual peer reviewed scientific paper as not very good, but loves to go on and on about how masterful a blog analysis or two appears to him. People are advised to realize that not only aren't the two anywhere near equal, but the comparison is laughable. You may be tempted to think to yourself that scientists do not have a monopoly on science and good methods. This is true. Nor do doctors have a monopoly on medicine. You are welcome to allow yourself to be treated by someone who never went to medical school, and just reads and posts whatever he wishes, without critical review or consequence, on his blog "How I Can Cure You When Doctors Are Stupid Compared To Me, Especially Since, Unlike Them, I Will Tell You What You Want To Hear."
  47. CO2 is just a trace gas
    95, Pualie200, The equation you gave is ppm / km. This means that the units of measure of your answer is in ppm / km, not km. This basically represents molecules-of-CO2 per molecules-of-atmosphere per kilometer of depth, which is a fairly meaningless number. I'm not sure what you were driving at, however, by your post. Can you explain what you are trying to do?
  48. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congrats to JC and the SkS team.
  49. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    You must have done some research on those numbers. Care to share what those numbers are?
  50. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    It amazes me how many "skeptics" simultaneously believe that the earth's climate wildly varied in the past, while also believing the earth is only 6000 years old. I would pay a million bucks for a report to ask Governor Perry about this apparent contradition of his anti-scientific views.

Prev  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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