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  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  Next

Comments 84501 to 84550:

  1. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "However, I think the 'enhanced' warming of 3 C cannot be supported. What does that make me? " Someone who has been puzzlingly unable to understand the science despite the enormous effort some people have explaining it to you .... or a wishful thinker who blanks out evidence that is challenging to your position.
  2. Eric (skeptic) at 07:47 AM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    KevinC, the link on Prall's site leads here http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/list_sources.html which contains lists of "activist" documents and statements (their wording) that is an incomplete starting point for examining the whole of the science. OTOH, starting with a list of papers the way Rob Honeycutt did here http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html can ultimately separate AGW with CAGW which have two different bodies of evidence behind them (with some overlap). Then one can say that 97/100 climate experts support the need for immediate action (or something similar). There's a good chance that the (relative) 100 will increase faster than the relative 97 if Prall moves beyond lists of activists.
  3. Can we trust climate models?
    Tom Curtis @61 "The GISS model is not updated annually with real temperatures". The GISS model hindcast was updated each year with the real forcings. In fact, the GISS-E model was able to look forward into the future and know the forcings for the coming year to make the forecast for that year. The naive model of "next year same as last" didn't get to look into the future as did the GISS-E hindcast. I further handicapped the naive model by not adjusting the mean guess. For the GISS-E model, I reduced the error by adjusting the anomaly mean to match the observed mean.
  4. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    @Jampack: I would tend to think that those that have been grouping these papers are more careful than that. Did you go to the page that has the papers (so on) sorted by argument? There is an option to only filter down to peer reviewed papers, were you sure to click on that?
  5. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Bern & Dhogaza : I don't understand what you mean by local effects and land rising - I thought that satellites measure only the sea level, so why would they be influenced by land rising and anything that happens to coastlines ? I understood that GIA was a global -not local - effect increasing the overall volume of the ocean basin, but it is a real effect. In any case it doesn't change anything to the acceleration term Albatross : the plot of Church & White 2006 is without GIA correction, so actually the rate would have been 3.4 mm/yr in 2006 with GIA correction, and now it is only 3.1 mm/yr, right ?
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), or isostatic rebound, is a regional effect, confined primarily to areas formerly and currently covered (but losing mass) by continental ice sheets and the areas immediately adjacent to them.  As the basement rocks are relieved of the immense overburden of ice, they rebound upward.  Since the areas next to them had been pushed up slightly while the glaciated areas were depressed, those adjacent areas tend to sink back downwards. This is all well-studied and understood and is incorporated into tide gauge and satellite data.

    For further reference, I suggest this Wiki page as a start, plus this page at SkS:  Greenland-rising-faster-as-ice-loss-accelerates

    You may want to look into the Geoid and Datums if you want even more detail.

  6. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Readers Please note that damorbel has a history of arguing for the sake of arguing.. this includes contradicting himself to prolong a discussion. The'2nd law of thermodynamics' thread shows this clearly. I'm seeing the same pattern starting here.
  7. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    The possibilities inherent in this graphic approach are stunning for so many areas of human discourse. However, in this case, I wonder about the use of the term "peer-reviewed" when it seems that a skeptic argument published in a known echo chamber for a specific political agenda is given, at least visually, the same weight as a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. The first skeptic article I checked was published in "American Thinker" which is not a science based publication.
  8. Mike Lemonick at 06:40 AM on 31 May 2011
    Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
    Rob@109: I wasn't entirely clear, I think. I totally agree with the policy of refuting Happer's ridiculous claims, thoroughly and often. The "banging your head against the wall" comment refers to the idea that Princeton can do anything about him.
  9. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Damorbel's riding that galloping horse hard ...
    A feature of historical climate change are the ice ages; these were times when large sheets of ice formed over the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere
    45 south is in the middle of the ocean (the "roaring 40s"). 45 north lies about about 30 miles south of where I'm sitting in Portland, Oregon. South America's a thin finger pointing southward, Africa's a blunt thumb, neither is in the least as massive as north america or eurasia and of course the latter two lie at much higher latitudes on average than the southern continents. Antarctica already had a large sheet of ice, BTW.
  10. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Kudos to RW1 for being honest enough to declare that yes, he is a denier, rather than respond with faux "how dare you equate me with holocaust deniers" etc blah blah blah. Refreshing honesty ..
  11. DaneelOlivaw at 05:56 AM on 31 May 2011
    An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Would it be possible to see the raw data in a spreadsheet format? (just like Information is Beautiful usually does)
  12. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Albatross: I have no quible with your post at 76, nor am I alarmed by it at present. Sea Level. 1. first off, what are the error bars of the satillite data. The authors of the papers take them into account and present them. 2. GMSL.....both papers that are being talked about express the difficulty in even DETERMINING current GMSL. 3. GPS as an added source to verify information. Not enough time yet, but hopefully within the next 10 years this valuable tool will provide insight into sea level rise, rate, and actual GMSL.
  13. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Camburn, I repeat, "Are you going to deny the findings in the scientific literature that I posted @76?"? Also, I am not sure how your quote @85 is meant to support your argument...nice cherry picking too. From Church and White's (2011) abstract: "There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year-2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year-2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports" Sea level change for 1870-2001, based on tide gauge measurements, from Church J.A. and White N.J. "A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise" Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006; 33: L01602. University of Colorado data are shifted to have the same mean for 1993-2001 as Church and White. The trends were computed for 1870-1920, 1920-1975, 1975-2001 for Church and White data, and 1993 - late January 2011 for University of Colorado data. [Source] As for the recent increases, from Tamino's analysis: "Well well … there seems to be change after all, with both acceleration and deceleration but most recently, acceleration. And by the way, this fit is significant." Tamino also makes this sage observation and calls the 'skeptics' on their game: "And now to the really important part, which is not the math but the physics. Whether sea level showed 20th-century acceleration or not, it’s the century coming up which is of concern. And during this century, we expect acceleration of sea level rise because of physics. Not only will there likely be nonlinear response to thermal expansion of the oceans, when the ice sheets become major contributors to sea level rise, they will dominate the equation. Their impact could be tremendous, it could be sudden, and it could be horrible." Next...
  14. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Fab! I've dropped a heads up to Info is Beautiful.
  15. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    This is very cool and highly useful for tracking recent research, but I have to wonder about the accuracy of the early tabulations. For instance, Fourier's 1824 paper is listed as 'pro AGW'... but the concept of AGW wasn't even suggested until Arrhenius in 1896. I can sort of see this as 'pro AGW' in that Fourier detected the existence of additional warming which we now call 'the greenhouse effect', but he thought it was most likely due to cosmic rays... which we would now call a 'skeptic' argument. It could be said that Fourier's paper 'supported basic AGW principles' and the things it got wrong were reasonable mistakes at the time (in contrast to arguing cosmic rays NOW)... but it's a fine line. The other thing is that I have to wonder how complete the database is in regards to failed ideas in the early years. There were unquestionably alot of papers on the glacial cycle which suggested all kinds of causes having nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Again, taken a certain way it could be argued that as the AGW theory was not well known (or yet extant) at the time these papers were not 'skeptical' of it per se... but that inherently introduces a paradigm where papers would be classified as 'skeptical' more often as AGW theory became more established. Still, a great resource... and these definitional issues fall away as we get closer to the present and the most up to date science. Indeed, I'd love to be able to exclude years and thus easily see just what 'each side' has put out in the past few years.
  16. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Dikran: If you cared to read the whole Houston and Dean paper, you will realize the analysis is much more than US tide gauges.
  17. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    I can only urge you folks to read both "Houston and Dean" and Church and White. Using statistical analysis, including error ranges, there is not a lot of difference in their findings. In fact....from Church and White "As in earlier sutdies (using 10 and 20 year windows; Church and White 2006; Church et al 2008), the most recent rate of rise over these short 16 year windows is at the upper end of histogram of trends, but is not statistically higher than the peaks during the 1940's and 1970's."
  18. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    To be fair, you can argue for 0.5°C sensitivity if you also argue that much of the recent warming is due to internal variability (which is another denial argument, but one which Spencer/Christy/Lindzen use to justify their ridiculously low sensitivity denial - i.e. see Lindzen Illusion #7).
  19. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RW1: "Not more than about 1 C and probably more like 0.5 C or less." We passed 0.5 C a couple of decades ago. So, the only 'logical' way you could still hold such a position would be if you deny the accuracy of the surface temperature record... and the various proxy records which corroborate it. You'd also have to deny that the consistency of the satellite temperature reconstructions for the period of overlap supports the accuracy of the surface records... AND ignore the fact that those satellite records are now themselves approaching 0.5 C after just 30 years. In short, if your position can only be maintained by denying the validity of all available evidence then you are definitely not a 'skeptic'.
  20. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Congratulations and kudos to all involved!
  21. Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 31 May 2011
    An Interactive History of Climate Science
    It might be worth while to add tags that allow this to come up in google searches along side Pop[you-know-who]'s 900 papers.
  22. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Yes, to the extent possible (of 3 C rise), I'm a denier.
  23. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Indeed Dikran @83, if anything the 'skeptics' and those in denial about AGW are very consistent....normally that would be a good thing, but not so in this context.
  24. Dikran Marsupial at 03:42 AM on 31 May 2011
    The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Albatross There is a certain irony in Camburn claiming that "Some of us contrarians like to try and view SLR in its entirety" immediately after directing you to a paper analysing SLR focussing on a small sample, of tide gauges from the US. ;o)
  25. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Great job with the app Paul, it's super cool. And nice work by Ari and Rob P to add so many papers, too!
  26. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Nice analogy @80 JMurphy.
  27. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    You are making a strawman argument @78 Camburn, and you know it. Are you going to deny the findings in the scientific literature that I posted @76? Houston and Dean is not good science-- I expect some poor overworked scientist who is an expert in the field now has to waste time refuting yet another dodgy scientific paper published by 'skeptics' in the scientific literature (peer-review is just the first step in establishing whether or not a paper is any good). It was probably also written to feed fodder to those in denial about the seriousness of AGW; people like you Camburn who will uncritically accept their convenient findings. In contrast, the findings of Church and White (2011) [I suggest that you read that, it is comprehensive and rigorous, much more so then Houston and Dean] are not convenient for me, nor do they make me feel better about the reality we are facing. But I am not going to think of every reason under the sun to delude myself that there is not a very real and serious issue that needs to be dealt with. Here is a yet reminder for you: [Source] Until an official refutation of Houston and Dean appears in the reputable literature, we will have make do with this critique of Dean and Houston by a professional statistician. To quote Tamino: "Why do they use tide gauge records from just U.S. stations? Why not a global sample? Why use individual tide gauge records when we have perfectly good combinations, from much larger samples, which give a global picture of sea level change and show vastly less noise? Why do they restrict their analysis to either the time span of the individual tide gauge records, or to the period from 1930 to 2009? Why do they repeatedly drone on about “deceleration” when the average of the acceleration rates they measure, even for their extremely limited and restricted sample, isn’t statistically significant?" And "As for the “bombshell” research from Houston & Dean, I have one more question: with bombshells like this, who needs creampuffs?" Next....
  28. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Ken Lambert wrote : "This cannot mean anything else than SLR slowing or decelerating - not accelerating." That is so obvious, if you're a so-called skeptic, is it not ? In fact, to take the 'obvious' further, into temperature increases, it is 'obvious' that while temperatures increase as Spring moves into Summer, eight or nine or ten days of cooler than average temperatures mean that temperatures are slowing or decelerating - not accelerating. It cannot mean anything else...if you're a so-called skeptic.
  29. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Re #14 MarkR You wrote:- "at 1200 km separation the temperature change correlation coefficient dropped below 0.5, so used 1200 km as their cut off for weighting." For a start a correlation coefficient of 0.5 is rather low. Also it is only related to climate change of any cause, the figures are just as valid for Svensmark's cosmic ray theory as for CO2. As far as HL87 is concerned, it is about 'filling in for missing stations' A feature of historical climate change are the ice ages; these were times when large sheets of ice formed over the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere. During the ice ages Antartica and the Southern Hemisphere did not acquire large sheets of ice, substantially beyond what they have now. The meaning of this being that climate change is not correlated over the Earth's surface.
  30. Dikran Marsupial at 03:26 AM on 31 May 2011
    The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    camburn@78 Looking at the number of times the paper has been cited and in what context is usually a good start. Looking at the publication record and expertise of the authors is another. It is always a good idea to apply some skepticism to any new paper, because until there has been time for the research community to digest and either refute, take up or ignore the ideas it puts forward, we are not in a good position to judge its value. This is especially true of papers adopting a controversial stance, they generally turn out to be wrong - for every Galileo, there are thousands of scientists who are simply mistaken. This happens in all fields, not just climatology, I can tell you for certain there are loads of dud papers that get published every year on statistics. Generally their fate is that they are ignored and receive no citations. Most of the papers that form the underpinnings of AGW theory have been in print for a long time, have been widely discussed/criticized, and have withstood the criticism. That means they are very likely (but not certain of course) to be correct.
  31. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Daniel@4 one of the ideas for a future version is to have a search option, so that you could select a topic and it will display the number of papers in each year for that topic in the appropriate 'argument'.
  32. DaneelOlivaw at 03:18 AM on 31 May 2011
    An Interactive History of Climate Science
    I'm not sure about that categorization. I think that what's relevant is how many papers agree with the basic consensus that the Earth is warming and we are the primary cause. Many of the skeptic arguments wouldn't undermine that conclusion even if true. Overall I think that Oreske's method is simpler, clearer and more relevant to the discussion. If you want tu pursue this type of classification, maybe you could filter by argument. So the graph could tell you, for each argument, how many papers are for, and how many against.
  33. Rob Honeycutt at 03:07 AM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RW1 @ 21... "Not more than about 1 C and probably more like 0.5 C or less." You original question was, "What camp does this put me in?" This would clearly put you in the denier camp because to accept that proposition you have to deny a wide range of existing research that suggests otherwise, all consisting of papers which appropriately apply scientific skepticism.
  34. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    And Albatross: How do you know your papers are correct verses other papers written by distinguished scholars?
  35. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Albatross: I can only suggest that you read this paper. Some of us contrarians like to try and view SLR in its entirety.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] hot linked paper
  36. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RW1 @21: claiming sensitivity is just 0.5-1°C for doubled CO2 (3.7 W/m2 forcing) denies the massive body of research using many different lines of evidence that all consistently shows otherwise. Just as one example, it's nearly impossible to explain the ~5°C warming between glacial and interglacial period if sensitivity is that low. Also see the forthcoming Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity which is due to be published sometime in the next week.
  37. Dikran Marsupial at 02:54 AM on 31 May 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    Charlie A@60 In addition to Tom Curtis' comment (which is spot on), the errors depicted in your graph are dominated by high-frequency annual variations, something that no model would claim to be able to predict. However, there is no long term trend in the errors, which shows that the models predict climate (which is what they do claim to be able to do) rather well. I am assuming that the GISS model E prediction is actually the mean of an ensemble of model runs (comparing the observations with a single model run would be an obviously unfair test). If this is the case, you appear ignorant of the fact that the models attempt only to predict the forced component of the climate. Whereas the observations consist of the forced component and the effects of unforced natural variability (which the averaging of the ensemble is designed to eliminate). Thus anyone with a sound understanding of what the model project means would not expect there to be a close match on a (say) sub-decadal basis, as on that timescale unforced variability dominates.
  38. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    The "Lukewarmer" position is a disingenuous cop out, and allows one to cherry pick one's way thought he science and debate. It also allows one to play games as has been so effectively done by some people like Steven Mosher. I could claim to be a "lukewarmer" because my reading of the science leads be to think that climate sensitivity is close to +3 C rather than say + 5 or +6 C for doubling CO2. Advancing that as a reason to claim that there is nothing to be concerned about or as a reason to not dramatically reduce our GHG emissions is not acceptable though. And it doesn't make the ocean acidification problem go away. Moreover, claiming to be a "lukewarmer" only goes to show that the former deniers of AGW and 'skeptics' have painted themselves into a very tight corner, so their only way of trying to save face and appear to be reasonable is to claim to be a "lukewarmer"...well sorry, people are not going to buy into that type of weaseling.
  39. michael sweet at 02:39 AM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RW1, Since the world has already increased in temperature by more than 0.5C and we are not even near doubling yet, how do you explain current warming with a 0.5C sensitivity? Do you expect it to cool for the next two decades?
  40. Can we trust climate models?
    Charlie A @60, the GISS model is not updated annually with real temperatures. Consequently to do a proper comparison with the "skeptic model" you should not provide it with that data either, ie, you should program in the initial conditions, predict 1881 temperatures from that, then predict the 1882 temperatures from the model prediction, and so on. The result will, of course, be a straight line with all temperatures predicted as equalling those of 1880 - a much worse performance than that of the GISS-E.
  41. Can we trust climate models?
    PaulFP @59 "Even climate skeptics use models but, for many, the model is simply that next year will be the same as last year. That sort of model is indeed unreliable." While the snide humor may be appealing, your observation is wrong. The GISS-E model run for AR4, using the actual observed forcings for the period 1880-2003, does a poorer job of predicting the GISS global average temperature anomaly over that period than the simple "next year will be the same as last year". The GISS-E model is worse in both correlation factor and in the rms error. RMS error for both the "next year same as this year" and the GISS-E hindcast using actual forcings were around 0.15C, with the GISS-E model being slightly higher. Red is GISS-E errors vs GISS anomaly, black is "skeptic model" error.
  42. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    DSL@65 "You suggested SoD work on Miskolczi. SoD did" Yes I know. I have been in contact with Miklos Zagoni by email to pass on to Ferenc an interesting correlation I found between specific humidity at the tropopause and solar activity. Along with my work on the solar activity level - ocean heat content coupling, it explains why the Sun has been able to simultaneously cause the cooling of the stratosphere and warming of the ocean in the late C20th. No tropospheric hotspot required. This forms part of my own tentative hypothesis accounting for some as yet unquantified proportion of climate variability. Your comment below that link seems to be a kind of 'all or nothing' argument. My view is that many different factors are involved in climate variability, and that the proportions of the individual contributions are not as well constrained as the IPCC reports say they are. My aim is to make a contribution by helping to better determine the solar contribution, and discover the underlying cause of solar variability, in order that testable predictions can be made. Working on that doesn't leave me with enough spare time to worry too much about the ephemeral arguments from people on either side of the debate. Moreover I don't feel the need to get involved in their arguments because I am already doing all I can to lead a low impact lifestyle. It is my belief that actions speak louder than words in encouraging people to follow good examples and practices.
  43. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    67 - albatros. I think you over rate him. Note how 64 & 65 are so clearly on the money that all he can do is the switcheroo. Sure, best to change the subject before someone asks the discussion on his bog reflects science being done to the highest standards. Sorry - that's trolling 101. Credit where credit is due, the "psychologicalising" gambit could have gone somewhere... in more capable hands. But this is just more bargain-basement troll stuff. I said it before, SkS is in an awful state as judged by the poor quality of the trolls it's attracting. Feel free to delete this.
  44. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    To Humanity rules @ #5 and #6 (and any other lukewarmers): In reality, the only argument that those who want to do little or nothing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases have that makes any sense is if the climate sensitivity is much less than the majority scientific view says it is. The whole of the bizarre cacophony of conflicting views of the rest of the denialist/sceptic crew is justly deserving of the scorn that it attracts for its sheer wrongness. If this was just like a scientific debate about, say, how many dimensions string theory needs then the "low climate sensitivity" crew would be, if not welcomed with open arms by the "consensus", at least respected for their different opinions... but it is not. In the case of climate science it is not just academic reputations that are at stake - it is the future living conditions for humanity, not to mention all the eco-systems that support life as we know it. There is no simple experiment we can run to directly determine the short term/long term climate sensitivity; it can only be done by inference and deduction. If we had a time machine to go back 100 years multiple times so we could try altering emissions to see the varying effects then we could nail it, but we don't. As we are stuck with inference/deduction to work out whether what we are doing to the atmosphere will end up with benign, no-change, irritating, dangerous or catastrophic results, the political/industrial/lifestyle strategies that we should develop from the knowledge we have cannot wait for absolute certainty as to the outcome. It comes down to risk assessment. What is the best strategy faced with Dirty Harry's Magnum when you don't know for sure whether there are any bullets left in the chamber? Rush him and find out that he was bluffing, steal his winning lottery ticket and live happily ever after? Slim chance. As this is an analogy for the climate system, there isn't just one possible bullet but an uncertain number, each of a differing degree of danger plus you don't know how good Harry's aim is. Taking a chance that your belief is correct is rather foolish when the odds are probably against you, but you do have a perfect right to risk your own life and future. If it was just you - nobody else around - no web of life to disrupt - I would say let your fossil fuel emissions rip and have fun. What you don't have is a right to risk everybody else's lives and futures in the service of your beliefs - that is why it is irresponsible, bordering on a crime against humanity, for denialists and lukewarmers alike to muddy the waters with their beliefs and thereby potentially fool the voting public that adopting those beliefs might be a sensible strategy.
  45. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RW1: since you asked, you're a denialist.
  46. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Oh. Of course. Thanks Mark!
  47. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke @66, I need not remind you that the mean climate state is not the only means used to estimate climate sensitivity. Granted that range of uncertainty of measured TOA energy balance is large, and that means climate sensitivity estimates based on the recent climate state may be significantly smaller than previously thought (or larger, as uncertainty cuts both ways). But that does not effect other methods of estimating climate sensitivity, and they continue to show climate sensitivities in the IPCC range. So, taking all evidence into account, it is highly unlikely that climate sensitivity will below 2 degrees per doubling of CO2 as you claim. If you have five or six radar stations tracking the position of an aircraft and one other that cannot track it, the correct conclusion is not that you are almost completely in the dark about its location, but that your error on the location may have slightly increased. Your response, however, seems to be the equivalent to turning of the monitors on the six tracking radars, then calling out the search parties.
  48. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    You have to scroll down, Alexandre!
  49. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Albatross (RE: 20), "So pray, please enlighten us how much the planet will warm for doubling CO2. A number please." Not more than about 1 C and probably more like 0.5 C or less.
  50. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RW1 @19, Here we go ;) So pray, please enlighten us how much the planet will warm for doubling CO2. A number please.

Prev  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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