Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 Next
Comments 94401 to 94450:
-
mothincarnate at 10:23 AM on 25 February 2011Meet The Denominator
JMurphy, I had directly cut-and-pasted a comment thrown at me by an advocate of Poptech's silly list (spelling mistakes left for added hilarity - the character "indulges" in "humouring" and educating me, whilst continually demonstrating really basic spelling errors). I don't personally think that demanding the other to "debunk all these papers" is logical - hell, that's what the science community already does. But I am surprised that Poptech and his fan "Adam" (whom I'm quoting) and many others really think Poptech's list means anything.. But then again, they also support Monckton... -
MarkR at 10:14 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
Alex C: The model 'guess' is a reasonable one if you're not at all familiar with the models. Thankfully RC put up the effect of a 2% solar increase and it shows it very clearly: h/t to thingsbreak's post here. I've emailed Lindzen to ask how he calculated the fourfold response, I'm stumped. Perhaps he used a more complicated model, but there's not much point me running through more complex models until I know there's an answer there. I've wasted enough time doing detailed checks of 'facts' quoted as evidence against AGW that I think the onus is definitely on the accuser to support their point now. -
dana1981 at 10:07 AM on 25 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Yes, definitely human. Last time I checked, anyway. -
MarkR at 10:06 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
Alex: I think I know how you can massage out that 'fourfold' figure. Assume that the IPCC climate sensitivity is 4.5 C. Therefore the climate feedback parameter (definition here) = 3.7/3 = 0.8. If you look at the Soden and Held values can be seen in a graph here then pick the highest estimated lapse rate feedback (~-1.2) and treble it then you get a feedback factor of 3.2. This makes your climate sensitivity = 3.7/3.2 = 1.1-1.2 K and yes, you've almost cut the value to a quarter. That's one way of doing it, but it's so far wrong I refuse to believe that's how Lindzen did it... so I'm going to try and find out how he did. It's the sort of thing that would turn up on WUWT. -
RickG at 10:03 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
@ #111 "No, the problem is no one is answering my question. Or perhaps its just not the answer you want to hear. -
RW1 at 09:54 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, My question isn't related to what the number for the window is. scaddenp, No, the problem is no one is answering my question. -
Albatross at 09:39 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
ClimateWatcher @12, Are those the trends from 1979 through 2006? It would be nice to have data up until and including 2010. One can see the polar amplification (a predicted consequence of a warming planet) over the Arctic nicely in most datasets. IMHO, one of the problems in identifying the elusive tropical "hot spot" is that it is expected to be close to the tropopause, and that is especially problematic for the coarse satellite data. -
RickG at 09:37 AM on 25 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
95 Fixtures23, Oh my! Welcome to the site, the folks here are very open-minded and love discussing science. I see JMurphy has already suggested that you visit the "Newcomers Start Here", "The Big Picture" and Most Used Skeptic Arguments". Also, be sure to check the comments policy. I think you will find them very helpful. Cheers! -
Rovinpiper at 09:35 AM on 25 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Tell me if I have this right... The 100,000 Milankovitch Cycles are the result of eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. So, interglacial periods, like the present, occur when the planet is closer to the sun. -
ClimateWatcher at 09:28 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"So, does the hot spot actually exist?" No. I did this check four years ago:
Upper Left: NASA GISS Model through 2006
Lower Left: RATPAC Raob data through 2006
Upper Right: UAH MSU (LT, MT, LS) through 2006
Lower Right: RSS MSU (LT, MT, LS) through 2006
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed image HTML tag. -
JMurphy at 09:27 AM on 25 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Wow, fixtures23, you could do with some reading on some of those claims you are making - quite the Gish gallop, eh ? For your enlightenment and further education try these links : Newcomers Start Here The Big Picture Most Used Skeptic Arguments That should help you become more aware of the facts. As for Popular Technology, trawl your way through this link and see what you are aligning yourself with. By the way, where did you get all that false information from in the first place ? -
shalayka at 09:16 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Dana, I know it can be upsetting to be verbally attacked by someone, but don't let it get you down. When someone attacks me personally, I generally smirk and make popcorn. I was only trying to heckle you for your loose language. You're otherwise clear in your writing, and so it's obvious to everyone that you're not actually illiterate or anything of the sort. I had a right to be ticked off at Acton last year, specifically because of his loose language that made it seem like CRU couldn't release their data because Canada's some kind of a draconian datapig. So, I do get a little testy when I see people beaking off about climate science. Anyway, please don't put me on your list of deniers quite yet. I shovel snow for a living, and so I'll be my own judge, in due time. For what it's worth, I'm crazy enough to believe that chaos exists in the ice age cycle. I mean, it's cyclical, but never ever exactly repetitive. Sounds like the work of a chaotic attractor to me -- an idea that I can guarantee that Lubos Motl would think is naive. So please don't think of me or anyone in particular as part of a Motl-ey crew. That's way too black and white a model of reality. Shawn Halayka -
invicta at 09:15 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
since starting to research the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change a couple of months ago I have visited a good few websites and blogs and have found that even without a scientific background it is remarkably easy to judge whether a site is likely to yield any good information or is simply a front for some vested interest or inflamed ego. I started with an open mind but very quickly realised that the sites that openly discussed the issues and the science were those that accepted AGW as fact. Most 'denier' sites seem to be a triumph of (poor) style over substance. This site may be about the science, but it is the willingness to discuss the facts and engage with the contrarian view however tedious that make it work and worthwhile -
fixtures23 at 09:15 AM on 25 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
The evidence that the climate is being changed by man does not exist. The IPCC predicted an average trend of 3.9celsius/century from theoretical computer models. these models are not based on observations. they respond to what the modeller puts in to them(not very scientific) However actual satellite observations from the RSS and UAH satellite data sets show this trend to be a mere 0.3celsius/century(see SPPI global temperature data index.) Since coming out of the Little Ice Age in 1850 it is to be expected that there would be some warming. however the rate of warming in the second half of the 20th century has been exactly the same as the rate of warming 1918-1940 when clearly human carbon dioxide could not possibily have been the cause.One must consider all of geological time not the small 130 years of the instrument record. This geological record shows for example the MWP(Medieval Warm Period 950-1300) to be four degrees warmer than today. Pollen samples taken from Baffin Island also show that temperatures 5000 years ago were five degrees warmer than today. the alarmists are wrong! As for numbers Dr Spencer and Professor Lindzen are in good company. In fact Dr Art Robinson has listed over 31 000 graduate scientists including over 9000 PHds who reject antropogenic global warming as responsible for climate change.(see www.petitionproject.com) Also populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed----------html lists 850 peer reviewed scientific papers who all reject AGW as the cause of climate change.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that newcomers do as JMurphy has just suggested to you below. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. When you have questions, please post them on the most appropriate thread. Remember to use the Preview function (avoids html tag errors) and to construct your comments in compliance with the Comments Policy. I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level. Only the anthropogenic contribution (which did not exist in the paleo record) completes the picture, explaining the warming we can empirically see and measure in the absence of other forcings. Else we would be measuring a decades-long cooling trend. Which we aren't:Forcings, except for CO2, have been flat for nearly 40 years. Temperatures continue to climb, and that rate of climb is still increasing (as are CO2 levels).
-
johnd at 08:53 AM on 25 February 2011Models are unreliable
Dikran Marsupial at 20:45 PM on 24 February, 2011, re "Large uncertainty does not imply unreliability. In fact it means that models are more likely to be reliable as the model projections cover a wider range of possibilities." Whilst that may satisfy the academics, the question that arises for those looking for something worthwhile to work with, is at what point is any usefulness lost? As an example, in Australia, BOM and CSIRO found the secret to increasing realibility of their medium to long term forecasts was by issuing them in terms such as one frequently offered "there is a 50% chance of above average rainfall". The classic however was a seasonal forecast of a 40% chance of above average rainfall. However, as is painfully obvious, but as was also observed in a recent Parliamentary inquiry, such forecasts are somewhat less than useful. Reliability is meaningless if it has been gained at the expense of usefulness. -
invicta at 08:33 AM on 25 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Tom Curtis @102 Thanks for the extra enlightenment I was surprised by dana's reply but glad to see he is human -
John Mason at 08:30 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Started reading, saw the personal stuff and gave up. If he cannot make points without feeling the need to embellish them with unpleasant personal stuff, then frankly his arguments aren't worth following up. Cheers - John -
citizenschallenge at 08:28 AM on 25 February 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Very interesting. So the Maue graph is misleading because it is missing an important metric - rainfall(and its energy release). If that were included that graph would look much different. Thank you for info and those links. -
scaddenp at 08:23 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
The problem of getting your "physics" from George White instead of from a textbook. Is George untroubled by lack of match with empirical data? -
muoncounter at 08:18 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
What do you expect from a blog carrying a link to 'the list'? -
muoncounter at 08:10 AM on 25 February 2011Models are unreliable
"... in many journals, missing, flawed and uncertain physics, are discussed" That is an utterly devastating argument. Of course, one could equally say 'in many journals, complete, correct and convincing physics are discussed'; another utterly devastating argument. No, rebuttal of science must be made with science and not with vague generalization. This is an excellent example of the poverty of argument in denierdom: At some point, the denial always reduces to merely another version of 'No, its not. Because I said so.' An interesting non-technical review of the state of climate science modeling appears in the Winter 2010 Tau Beta Pi magazine: ... climatology is a young science. Its practitioners rarely work in laboratories. They must rely on highly variable field measurements and complex mathematical models that have very visible limitations. Arrayed against them are a smaller number of scientists and engineers. Only some have degrees in climate-related sciences. They charge that governments and climate activists have a pro-global warming agenda that stifles true scientific debate and that climate data and models are flawed. Many of these so-called skeptics have a clear agenda. They seem bent on denying climate change at any cost. Few do original research or publish in peer-reviewed climate journals (some submit articles to friendly journals in unrelated fields). Nor do they propose research to resolve the contradictions they claim to find, a common practice among the climate scientists whom they also claim lack skepticism. It is a recipe for controversy. And on the Internet, these scientific debates take on a life of their own. ... But key to the question here, If models raise so many questions, why does anyone trust them? The answer is that they do a surprisingly good job of predicting climate. -
LDW at 08:02 AM on 25 February 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Any loss of land or sea ice due to melting increases sea levels which threatens those in Florida waterfront real estate. In fact the majority of the state at such a low sea level may be threatened even while more and more people migrate south. -
XPLAlN at 08:01 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Dikran: “This seems to me to be making a mountain out of a molehill.” It’s just possible that back in 1990 someone at the IPCC made a comment similar to mine and someone else there made a comment similar to yours ;-) -
gsanmartin at 07:44 AM on 25 February 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
NOAA PR, Feb 24, 2011: Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html Partial excerpt: At the request of U.S. Sen. Inhofe, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails stolen in November 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and found no evidence of impropriety or reason to doubt NOAA’s handling of its climate data. The Inspector General was asked to look into how NOAA reacted to the leak and to determine if there was evidence of improper manipulation of data, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with Information Quality Act and Freedom of Information Act guidelines. “We welcome the Inspector General’s report, which is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information,” said Mary Glackin, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science.” The Inspector General’s report states specifically: “We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11) “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11) “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.” (Page 12) “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (Page 16) PR truncated here - read the rest here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html No backlinks to this page exist yet as of this post. -
John Hartz at 07:31 AM on 25 February 2011500 scientists refute the consensus
Something is amiss. On the "Listing of Arguments" page, the "What the Science" says blurb for this argument is: "Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming." This statement does not appear in the above rebuttal article. -
johnd at 07:25 AM on 25 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Daniel Bailey at 02:12 AM on 25 February, 2011, the infomation in the graph below is the basis of the study referred to and helps visualise the historic perspective of the regular cycles.
Measurement of oxygen isotope ratios (red) and grayscale (black) arranged to show drought cycle duration and intensity with 20th century wet period indicated. Credit: Mark Abbott
.
Whilst this study is for what has occurred at one particular location, being linked to the El-Nino/La-Nina cycles ties it in directly to what will have occurred elsewhere in the region, and by extension neighbouring regions, because what El-Nino brings to one man is what La-Nina brings to another.
Add to this the systems that have been identified in other oceans, also with regular cycles that do not necessarily oscillate with the same frequency or pattern, and what seems to be chaotic takes on some form that becomes more predictable.
For example, the primary driver of the conditions most recently affecting Australia is the coinciding of a La-Nina pattern with a negative phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole, the last time both a La Nina and IOD-ve combined was in 1975, when there were three consecutive La-Nina years resulting in the overall wettest period for Australia since first settlement.
In Australia too, some years ago the realisation come about that much of the planning for our water resources was based on a period that rather being the normal, was in fact just the opposite.
Perhaps with the pattern that appears to be forming now, those responsible for planning may have been handed a get-out-of-gaol-free card with a generally wetter period of some decades that should allow them some breathing space to make more realistic plans for when "normal" conditions return.
-
Don Gisselbeck at 07:04 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
We are dealing with an industry (oil, gas and coal) that probably has more than $1 billion a day in profits. Some people who work less hard than a tomato picker make thousands an hour from this industry. Banning people from a blog is on the low end of what has been done for much less money. It will get worse. Many of them apparently think the survival of western civilization is less important than more money. -
Riccardo at 07:03 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
The rise and fall, it's really sad to see how low a scientifically trained man can fall. I know many physicists, many conservatives, but no self-proclaimed "conservative physicist"; what does this suppose to mean? The disclosure of his political bias in science? Dana ignore him, for he (hopefully) does not know what he's saying. Keep going with your very informative posts; luckly, only a few share the not-so-enviable destiny of crashing years of study under their own feet. -
Lou Grinzo at 06:58 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
A very concise and revealing example of Motl's view of the world and climate science can be found in his explanation that a rise in global temps of 13C would be just peachy. (Actually, he's talking about the Czech Republic being 13C warmer, which would result in much greater Arctic warming and who knows what horrors from the knock-on effects of rapidly melting that part of the world.) The post in question: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/13-c-of-warming-would-be-fine-for-life.html -
Alex C at 06:56 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
I'm not sure how Monckton relates evaporation to climate sensitivity in your last quote. Can someone fill me in on what train of thought he was using? Probably regarding the "fourfold" part too, but I think that might just be him taking a figure form the lower end of that range of 1-3%. I also wonder if anyone will try to write off the hot spot in the second graphic as being too small to be definite or outside of error (i.e. a glitch in the model matrix). Props for the title too, very funny! -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:53 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"Their errors were identified by others." Not only that, but they continued letting the old erroneous data being used for political purposes by non scientists. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
And we'll continue hearing the endless belly-aching of so-called "skeptics" about being censored here on SkS. Same old. -
RobertS at 06:46 AM on 25 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Wow, I completely missed that section just below regarding hot MWP and high climate sensitivity. My apologies... -
MattJ at 06:31 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
Oh, and when I say "last sentence", I am not counting "Confused?", for which I now make the excuse that it is not a full sentence;) -
MattJ at 06:30 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
The final sentence is an excellent summary of the whole article. It is a great example of how to summarize the point of an entire article in one simple, memorable, powerful antithesis. Cicero would be proud! -
Chemist1 at 06:25 AM on 25 February 2011Models are unreliable
Muon I guess you will have to purchase the article to see what I mean. I also notice you do not address the other abstracts. Here is a hint, on google scholar, google books, and in many journals, missing, flawed and uncertain physics, are discussed. Dikran I am done posting here You are simply mistaken -
MattJ at 06:12 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
You say, " I have to admit, I was rather stunned at being banned from a site for doing nothing more than posting four polite comments pointing out an obvious error made by its author." I would not have been stunned by such behavior. Despite all the bland pronouncements of a new age of opennness the Internet has started, I knew all along that such dishonest banning still rules the day. The Internet has done nothing to even moderate such bad behavior, far less to ban it. The public discourse is still controlled by the criminally dishonest. -
Rob Painting at 06:08 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
MarkR -Spencer and Christy made a genuine mistake and found out how to fix it, then fixed it. No. For 10 years or so Spencer & Christy claimed that the surface temperature record was wrong. Rather than go over their data to check it's accuracy, they chose to do diddly. Their errors were identified by others. -
Motl-ey Cruel
I had the same experience on Spencer's blog. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:14 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Likewise I was surprised (and dissapointed) that my posts on Roy Spencers blog ended up in permanent moderation limbo, also for no apparent reason. -
dana1981 at 05:07 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Agreed Rob, as I said I was shocked and disappointed. Motl immediately began backtracking and moving the goalposts on his hot spot fingerprint claim. After just 4 of my comments on the issue, he folded and banned me for no apparent reason. It's no way to behave if you want to be taken seriously in the climate debate. -
dhogaza at 05:01 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
MarkR: Just FYI, Spencer and Christy aren't the ones who fixed it.
If you remember the beginning of W's first administration, one of the administration's storylines was the need for more research to determine whether or not global warming was true blah blah blah. Much of that was based on the claims of Christy and Spencer. There was a conference fairly early in the administration attended by Christy (and maybe Spencer) and the RSS guys and others, that pretty much led to the conclusion that the UAH people were wrong and the RSS people mostly right (there were a series of errors that had been found, and corrections made, by UAH over a period of a couple or three or so years). It seemed apparent that the administration had held out hope that sponsoring the event would lead to UAH being shown right, but no such luck. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:57 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
I was watching some of the debate at Motl's site as this was going on. I was completely surprised how fast Motl caved. I was excited to maybe see some interesting exchanges and maybe have the chance to learn a thing or two. But... zilch. -
JMurphy at 04:42 AM on 25 February 2011Meet The Denominator
MothIncarnate has suggested a tongue-in-cheek response like this to those who think the 850 list is worth mentioning : [W]hy don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the (200+ recent) papers on MothIncarnate's list. [W]hen there are over (200+ genuine recent) scientific papers supporting AGW, surrely to any same person, that would at least provide some reason to back the theory.Moderator Response: URL fixed. -
Michael.M at 04:39 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Well, again its "pseudo-sceptics" rather than sceptics. (No surprise there) And - as nearly every time - its also easier to disinform than to explain real science. That is why the work here at sks is so important: rebuttals from basic to advanced to point to, ready for informing the really interested. -
les at 04:36 AM on 25 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR - not at all, I was alluding to 350 damorbel (where one moment all the radiation is returning to earth and the next it's radiating to space) and 351. Your excel and SoD's series are, IMHO, spot on. That people don't find they match their thought models is, IMHO again, because those thought models are wrong. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les - "A number of these 'models', designed to contradict the standard physics..." I hope you're not talking about the simple Excel models I posted earlier. They both support standard physics, and were intended to demonstrate to various people that greenhouse gases warm the surface. -
muoncounter at 04:26 AM on 25 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"R W Woods built two greenhouses – one rock salt, one glass" Call me curious, but a rock salt greenhouse? Watering time for the plants must be interesting. The experiment by RW Wood was done in 1909. WM Connelly aka Stoat pointed out the error in comparing this exercise to the greenhouse effect here. -
les at 04:14 AM on 25 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
A number of these 'models', designed to contradict the standard physics - as well described by SoD - reminds me of the joke: A biologist, a physicist and a mathematician were sitting in a street cafe watching the crowd. Across the street they saw a man and a woman entering a building. Ten minutes they reappeared together with a third person. "They have multiplied", said the biologist. "Oh no, an error in measurement", the physicist sighed. "If exactly one person enters the building now, it will be empty again", the mathematician concluded. (although, personally, I'd expect better of the physicist) Even though the SoD series uses simplified models here and there to explore specific aspects of the physics, overall you can only understand what's happening by understanding the full system and physics. As said above, if a body is illuminated - with photons from any part of the spectrum - from another body, it'll reflect some, absorb others. Those absorbed (depending on the absorptance and spectrum) rise the temperature... the body will always radiate photons (not the ones absorbed, of course) depending on it temp, a la Boltzman + emissivity ... some or all of which (depending on geometry) will impinge on the original body doing the illumination, which will do the same physics. Then, you must account for the spectral nature of absorptance and emissivity, so that the respective conversion to heat and reflection won't be symmetric. Build the model properly, in your mind at least, otherwise you'll end up like our trio above. -
JMurphy at 03:50 AM on 25 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Zvon.org lists 785 Journals referred to by the last IPCC Report, and the top ten have a total of 3979 unique article citations between them. The IPCC itself used "500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers" and it "confirms that climate change is occurring now, mostly as a result of human activities; it illustrates the impacts of global warming already under way and to be expected in future, and describes the potential for adaptation of society to reduce its vulnerability; finally it presents an analysis of costs, policies and technologies intended to limit the extent of future changes in the climate system". That is the conclusion, based on all that work. Makes you see how insignificant that other little list is, doesn't it ?
Prev 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 Next
