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  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  Next

Comments 95601 to 95650:

  1. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech @ 501: Please provide the objective method to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Its very simple. A qualified peer reviewer is one who publishes regularly in the field he is reviewing (climate science) with a reputation of scholarly works to his/her credit that stand the test of time. Most of the journals you list do not meet that criteria.
  2. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech at 503: The authors of the papers in question have the scientific background and disagree. Except when they don't, such as Pielke, in which case you ignore them in favor of your own "context".
  3. Meet The Denominator
    You do realize that with your ridiculous mantra that nearly everything is "subjective", you are basically arguing for scientific nihilism. And why should anyone respond to any of your inquiries, when your response will simply be "I disagree" or "Incorrect"?
  4. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    It is important to distinguish between the East (EAIS) and West (WAIS) ice sheets, the latter lying to the west of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains. The EAIS is a land based ice sheet loosing mass in a similar way to the Greenland ice sheet. The WAIS covers the land of a far-flung archipelago but is predominantly a marine ice sheet resting on the seabed. The WAIS is therefore far more susceptible to melting by coming into contact with the warming waters of the Southern Ocean and warmer currents flowing directly on to the ice from equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean. This is why it is now loosing ice at a rate almost three times greater (132 Gt/annum) than the much larger EAIS (54 Gt/annum). Contact of warmer seawater with the WAIS face rising from the seabed makes it particularly vulnerable (far more so than EAIS or Greenland) to erosion of its footing. Were this to occur, large areas of the marine ice shelf could, in a relatively short time, loose contact with the seabed and become floating ice. This would result in more rapid sea level rise than present levels of ice loss from land based ice sheets. Sorry if this sounds nit-picking.
  5. Berényi Péter at 12:34 PM on 17 February 2011
    Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    OK, let's have a look at it. First of all Stefan–Boltzmann law is I = ε·σ·T04 (1) where I is power flux (W/m2), ε is emissivity (a number between 0 and 1), σ = 5.67×10-8 Wm-2K-4 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and T0 is surface temperature. Now, effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (-18°C) while its average surface temperature is 288 K (15°C). I = σ·Teff4 (2) From (1) and (2) for its equilibrium effective emissivity we get ε0 = (Teff/T0)4 ~ 0.61 (3) If some more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, effective emissivity is decreasing, so it should be compensated for increasing surface temperature to preserve radiative balance. I0 = ε0·σ·T04 = (ε0-Δε)·σ·(T0+ΔT)4 (4) From (4) we get Δε = 4·ε0/T0·ΔT (5) whenever ΔT is small compared to T0. On the other hand we have ΔT = λ·5.35·log(C/C0) (6) as above, where λ is the equilibrium climate sensitivity while C and C0 are the current and preindustrial CO2 concentrations (measured in ppmv) respectively. From (5) and (6) we have the effective emissivity anomaly as a function of climate sensitivity and CO2 concentration. Δε = λ·21.4·ε0/T0·log(C/C0) (7) Forcing (relative to preindustrial CO2 level) due to CO2 induced effective emissivity anomaly is ΔF = λ·21.4·ε0·σ·T03·log(C/C0) (8) As a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance implies a monthly heat accumulation of 0.134×1022 J in the climate system, monthly heat accumulation due to CO2 forcing is ΔQmonth = λ·2.87×1022·ε0·σ·T03·log(Cmonth/C0) (9) We have monthly data (some interpolated) for atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii since March, 1958. In (9) λ is unknown, but all the other terms are given. Therefore it makes sense to define Dmonth = 2.87×1022·ε0·σ·T03·log(Cmonth/C0) (10) ΔQmonth = λ·Dmonth (11) As vector D is given (λ is an unknown constant), we can write ΔQ = λ·D (12) Of course actual heat gain is less than that. The surface is also warming and radiative losses increase with the fourth power of temperature. It's easy to verify that heat flux anomaly due to a temperature anomaly ΔT is ΔI = 4·ε0·σ·T03·ΔT (13) Fortunately we also have average surface temperature anomalies at NASA GISS (from January, 1880). Using the same conversion as above, we can define R, monthly heat loss due to a temperature anomaly as ΔRmonth = 0.536×1022·ε0·σ·T03·ΔTmonth (14) Heat retained by the greenhouse effect either goes to space or is sequestered into the ocean. Fortunately we also have some data regarding OHC (Ocean Heat Content). It is only the heat content of the upper 700 m, but as it is reasonably sure change of heat content of the entire climate system is proportional to this quantity, let the coefficient be μ. Therefore we have vector S, although this one is only with a quarter year resolution. Of course we can resample D and R to match it. Due to unknown offsets the balance is still not perfect, there is also an unknown linear function of time, so we can write λ·D - R - μ·S = α·t + β (15) where t is time, α and β constants. It is only true as far as ASR (absorbed Shortwave Radiation) is constant. Of course it is not, but if it has no trend, it has no influence on climate sensitivity calculations. So the next task is to choose λ, μ, α and β that minimizes (λD-μS-αt-β-R)2. It is basically a system of linear equations with four unknowns and if solved, it comes out as λ = 0.64. This climate sensitivity corresponds to 2.37°C equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration. However, μ = 0.08 is deep below 1, which is impossible. It would mean all the heat stored in the climate system is only 8% of what is found in the upper 700 m of oceans. Not only there is no missing heat, but a lot of excess heat is measured. Therefore OHC before mid 2003 (large scale deployment of ARGO floats) is almost certainly mismeasured and the flat curve seen since is typical of the entire epoch. It means heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean is either very slow or the surface warming is actually much less than measured. λ is sensitive to surface temperatures (not so much to OHC), so if there is an UHI effect of about 0.25/doubling of local population density even in rural areas, equilibrium climate sensitivity is less than 0.5. It would mean the pipeline is practically empty, which is consistent with the low effective heat capacity or very long response time of oceans found above (I mean long, compared to the half century for which we have reliable CO2 data). If soot is also considered, it leaves even less room for a high value of λ, as it increases ASR and does have a trend.
  6. CO2 is not increasing
    Isn't the percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere increasing. I took the NOAA MLO CO2 annual increments from 1959 to 2010, calculated the percentage change for each year from 1960 to 2010, graphed that, and found that percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere (given here as 43%) is generally increasing during that period. Does this mean that the ocean and land CO2 sinks are becoming less effective?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Perhaps I've missed it, but I have not seen anything conclusive yet (there is some natural variability in the uptakes). It is indeed being studied closely, for that event is what some models have indicated in a Business-As-Usual situation.
  7. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Peter, It is not necessary for all the ice to melt (that would raise sea level about 75 meters) for it to be a disaster. If Greenland alone melted it would raise sea level 7 meters and put millions of people out of their homes. If half the ice in Greenland melted much of the sea level rise would occur since the bowl in the middle of the island would need to still be full of ice. That would require 0.1C of ocean heat, which has already occured. If you assume a 10 year doubling time for ice melt it is 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100. That would put Miami and 8 million other people out of their homes in Florida alone. For me that is a disaster. How much sea level rise do you need for it to count as a disaster? Of course the data indicates a doubling time of around 6 years at present. How do you feel about that for the next 50 years?
  8. Meet The Denominator
    497 Poptech: Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication. With that definition perhaps your tally of 850 should go to zero. How many of those papers are peer reviewed by actual publishing climate scientists? You know, actual experts in the field.
  9. Meet The Denominator
    Interesting to note that in Poptech's first post on this article he states... " Simply searching for phrases in Google Scholar will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 21,000 from the Guardian, 84,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times. " I tested this. Searching the phrase "climate change" turns up: NYT... Zero articles Newsweek... Seven articles Guardian.... Three articles The only way you get the numbers he states is to leave word or phrase field blank. What were his words? Oh yeah... "Epic fail."
  10. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Huh, not sure why I said 0.8W/m^2. Perhaps I was thinking of the temperature rise realized currently, or mixed up the forcing expected from modern CO2 levels which is 1.8W/m^2..... From the "CO2 Effect is Weak" argument the forcing from a doubling of CO2 (climate sensitivity) is 3.7 W/m^2. dF = 5.35ln(C/C_i); 5.35ln(2) = 3.7 The forcing during the MWP was, again, much lower. Sorry about the confusion, hope that clarified some.
  11. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Not to imply that the MWP was due to CO2 - just trying to provide something to compare the forcing of that time period to. If I'm not mistaken, the climate sensitivity would be about 0.8 W/m^2, and the forcing during the MWP was about 0.3 W/m^2. In other words, it does not measure up to the customary representation of climate sensitivity.
  12. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    pbjamm: mozart is referring to Figures 1 and 2, which are not labeled in-figure for the temperature scale (though it is stated below that the tick marks are separated by a degree Celsius, in the Figure 2 description - I think mozart was aware of this). There are no intermediate ticks, so it's hard to quantify very accurately just by looking at it. But to explain the point he brought up, sort of repeating Dana's response, the climate sensitivity is usually represented as a temperature response to a doubling of CO2. CO2 levels were most certainly not double 280ppmv for any extended period of time during the MWP, so the temperature rise would not have gone up because of them - also, now more along the lines of what Dana said, the overall forcing change during that time period was not particularly high, when compared with the amount expected from a doubling of CO2.
  13. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    Resources running out? Long before they 'run out' there would be clear signals of problems. All you need to do is look at birthrate changes during the great depression. The birthrate dropped below replacement rate in the USA and several other developed countries. I'm very much afraid that my preferred population strategy - education of girls and women - may well be overtaken by events. The nastier economic and social issues, the famines that Ann referred to combined with the dislocations from advancing high tides and salinity of groundwaters will severely impact family formation and birthrates. Education of women and girls is still a good strategy, but it may not be the peaceful, gradual effect that I'd prefer on population numbers.
  14. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment Ceteris paribus. ("All other things being equal or held constant.") Solar activity was not identical so such a direct comparison is not applicable. Solar activity was decreasing during the period 1975-2005 and increasing during the period 1910-1940, except 1920-1930 (roughly rounded). Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
  15. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    @dana1981: Okay, point 1 I think I did pick up on somewhat. Points 2 and 3 I should have picked up on as on rereading the article they were actually fairly explicit. That's what I get for trying to carefully read an article when I'm busy. :-) Thanks for clarifying. @NewYorkJ: I've actually read that article. I'll probably make a point or reading it again plus the links in Dana's article.
  16. Philippe Chantreau at 10:11 AM on 17 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Perhaps we should take a closer at that list after all, seems like there is a lot of stuff that does not even meet PT's declared criteria. This could be amusing.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 17 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Interesting. Poptech, how does the 1996 Mavromichalai et al. paper cited above support skepticism of AGW alarm?
  18. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    mozart - you can't determine sensitivity without knowing what the radiative forcing over the period in question was. If the forcing was small, a small temperature change doesn't tell you that sensitivity is small. I recommend you click the final link in the article and read the associated article.
  19. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    While Monckton's statement is not precise, is it worth noting that between the three warming rate periods described in the graph, the largest change is between the first two? The warming rate from 1975 to 2005 is 0.34°C higher than the period 1910 to 1940. Maybe we caused that, maybe we didn't. How can we explain the much higher rate increase of 0.55°C between the first and second periods, if not caused by us? I'd expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment, but the biggest change comes between the period we had no influence on...or am I wrong?
  20. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Mozart@13 I do not understand to what you are referring. The axes are clearly labeled with year and Temperature Anomaly (DegC wrt 1961-1990.
  21. Peter Offenhartz at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011
    A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    @michael sweet(34) Whoops! My error. You are right about the 2 degrees. 2.4, actually. Still a lot more than the current <0.1. But in any case look at the melt rate vs volume.
  22. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Hard to tell because of the non labelling of the axes, but it would appear from the current( black line) data....that we are looking at a 1000 year record with variability of less than one degree centigrade. Calling climate sensitivity low, hardly seems like a leap.
  23. Peter Offenhartz at 09:06 AM on 17 February 2011
    A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    @michael sweet (34) You did the math but you incorrectly assumed the Antarctic is ten times the size of Greenland. Nope. Total ice volume is about 3% of total water volume. Multiply 1.3 billion gigatonnes by .03. Now take the 334 kJ and the 4 kJ. See what I mean? Takes a lot more than 2C. But that wasn't my main point. Look at the annual melt rate. Look at the total volume. Ask how long the ice will last. Assume any melt acceleration you like. Yes,yes, the increasing melt rate is a symptom of global warming. No argument. But ask how long the ice will last. Please. @muoncounter(35) The trouble with the "house on fire" analogy is the rate of heat transfer. But I think you know that. Heat transfer along the earth's surface is relatively efficient.
  24. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    WSteven, this article is about the myth that the IPCC 'disappeared' the MWP, as the introduction states. I would summarize the article thusly: 1) The IPCC never said that the average global temperature was hotter during the MWP than today. 2) As more temperature reconstruction studies were done, the IPCC incorporated their results, which showed that today's global temperature is higher than the MWP peak. The IPCC has been very clear and explicit about this. 3) Arguing for a hotter MWP is also arguing for higher climate sensitivity. There are some other minor points I touched on, like the fact that the MWP was mostly hot at high latitudes, but to learn more about that you'll have to click the links (there's a reason I provide links!). MattJ - I suggest you work on making your criticisms more constructive.
  25. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Peter: "the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back." I can see that working for Antarctica, as perhaps a reason the southern hemisphere is not warming as fast as the northern. I liken it to a house with the attic on fire; it's still pretty cool in the basement. And I think we agree that once the Arctic goes to minimal ice, things will be much worse. But the increasing melt rate of Arctic ice is a symptom of global warming, so I don't think one can say the ice is 'holding things back'.
  26. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    WSteven, I'm not sure I'd describe it that way. There's some evidence for MWP in other regions, with most areas warmer than the LIA, but with varying degrees of magnitude. The north Atlantic and southern Greenland were particularly warm. There's also evidence of a la Nina-like pattern, with relatively cooler waters in the tropical Pacific. Was There a Medieval Warm Period
  27. Meet The Denominator
    Here are two papers from the list's 'cosmic rays' section that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change; the phrase does not even appear in the text. The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) Nir J. Shaviv Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy (The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005) D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel The ice age epochs in question in each paper are on the million year (Myr) time scale. That's why they're called 'epochs,' a word specifically used in geology to denote a longer period of time than what we normally refer to as an 'ice age'. Another: Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996) H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri This paper is about cosmic ray dynamics in the heliosphere; the abstract makes no mention of earth climate. None of these papers support any form of AGW skepticism, 'alarm' or phobia. It is not sufficient to simply gather papers with the words 'cosmic rays' in their titles and assume that they support the unsubstantiated Svensmark-style hypotheses. We now see concrete proof that '850 papers supporting skepticism' is another one of those malleable phrases that must have an alternate PopTechian definition.
  28. Meet The Denominator
    Another charming paper that gives the game away by its very title : The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming, (Journal of Forestry, Journal Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 35-39, 1989) by Patrick J. Michaels (again !) Again, no wonder he had to go to the Journal of Forestry... Now, how many of the many thousands of papers that agree with the consensus view, have the word 'alarm' in the title ? It's not even worth checking, is it ?
  29. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    fydijkstra: "My prediction for 2030: 1.5 degree below the 2010 level, and all years from 2030 to 2040 will be cooler than the past ten years." What was that saying about those who do not know that they do not know? Charitably we might say that they have an over confidence in their abilities. Less charitably, we might say that they exhibit an arrogance of ignorance.
  30. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    @WSteven- I couldn't figure out the answers to all those on a first read, either. The article is in serious need of a rewrite, as this lack of clarity illustrates. Remember people: our target audience does NOT have the patience to work hard to learn what they do not want to know in the first place. Monckton is very skillful at exploiting this factor, we are not being so skilled. That, BTW: is why Monckton doesn't have to care that he is contradicting another of his 'skeptic' arguments. He knows his target audience neither knows nor cares.
  31. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    I have to admit, it took me a couple of careful reads to absorb this article. So, just to make sure that I'm clear on this: 1. The MWP was an event localized to the more northerly latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. 2. The MWP was above average globally for that period, but not drastically. 3. Todays average global temperatures top those of the MWP. Correct me if I got any of that wrong, or missed anything.
  32. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Peter, According to Wikipedia, the ocean masses about 1.3 billion gigatons. Greenland masses about 3 million gigatons of ice. It takes about 334 kj to melt one kg of ice and about 4 kj to raise one kilogram of water one degree celcius. I calculate it would raise the ocean about 0.2 C to melt all the ice in Greenland. The Antarctic is about 10 times bigger than Greenland so about 2C to melt all the ice in both ice sheets. I think the ocean can absorb more heat than the ice.
  33. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    fydijkstra, Eye-balling it is a flawed methodology. Lets consider this though, I used 1981-2010 because it was the 30 year trend period. If I were trying to inflate the trend I would have used 1982 instead because 1981 had a really high anomaly. In fact if I use 1982 I get a trend of 7.2 per century and if I used 1986 to 2010 I get a trend of 8.0 per century... If I use your "cherry picked" 1920-1945 graph I get 3.5 per century. I assume you were trying to pick the coldest time to the warmest over that period so here it is, from 1917 to 1938 it warmed at 7.6 per century. Still less than the present warm period. But what is interesting about picking that time period is you are selecting from the trough associated with a major volcanic eruption and including the recovery in the trend. Regarding your other commentary, the NAO is not the key oscillation for determining the warmth of the Arctic, try the AMO which is well established to contribute to Arctic warmth (Chylek et al. 2009 and Chylek et al 2010). The early century warming had a much stronger positive AMO, extremely low volcanism, high solar irradience and a predominantly positive NAO. All the ingredients one would need for a warm period. Our current warm period in the Arctic is driven by GHG forcing with some contribution from the AMO and the remainder being likely due to ice albedo feedbacks which Flanner et al (2011) have found to be greater than previously understood.
  34. It's the sun
    Johngee, it seems to me that Mr Corbyn is always predicting freezing, Arctic-like conditions and so, like a broken clock telling the correct time twice a day by accident, so does Mr Corbyn. However, he hasn't been doing so good this year, as the following forecasts show : December 09: Wet and windy start giving way to severe Arctic blasts with heavy snow and blizzards in parts. Turning mild or very mild later – a ‘green’ Christmas before colder year end. I recall December being very cold, the coldest in a hundred years or something, but still he got it wrong. Ferocious and dangerous winter weather [for January 2011] Um, quite the opposite actually. [February] Overall much colder than normal with snowy Northerly / Easterly blasts at times Well, not so far, anyway but who is going to rely on that being correct...except by accident ! Jan AND Feb will be unusually cold in Britain, Ireland, & Europe Maybe I've been lucky not to have experienced any of that here in London ? Generally, the tone of his 'scientific predictions' and his website can be surmised from the following text, taken directly from the source : Constant references to 'ClimateGate News' ● ‘Global Warming’ forecasts will fail AGAIN. ● ‘ManMade Climate Change’ is failed science based on fraudulent data ● Gordon Brown & all politicians, please, PROVE IT or DROP IT ● 2010 is the year of the fight for evidencebased science & policy ● Carbon Trading & all CO2 reduction schemes must stop. ● ‘Warmers’ flee from challenge to present evidence for CO2 case. ● CO2 theory lies refuted by science fact ● ‘ManMade Climate Change’ scam now ignominiously doomed Hmmm...
  35. Peter Offenhartz at 07:07 AM on 17 February 2011
    A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    @muoncounter(32): I agree completely with your comment except to note that the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back. What I'd like is for you (and others) to do the math. Have a look at the annual ice melt vs the total ice volume. The result is something of a surprise, I think.
  36. Meet The Denominator
    An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers, (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008) by John Stubbles... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is an article printed in that journal. The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming, (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) by Patrick J. Michaels... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". And how about this for an unbiased view : Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (The Electricity Journal, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp. 38-46, August-September 2007) by Henry R. Linden Tells you right off how he's going to slant that paper, doesn't he. No wonder he had to go to 'The Electricity Journal' ! The more we can see of this little list, the more ridiculous and desperate it becomes. This thread has become a good source which can be used against anyone who dares to bring up this list again. Well done everyone.
  37. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech-"First you need to apply a direct comparison to my list and the common argument that is made. It is not whether smoking causes cancer but the exaggerated dangers from SHS. So if you can find 850 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism that SHS causes cancer or that the likely hood of it causing cancer has been exaggerated. I will immediately accept this as strong support." Why not firsthand smoke? Because you "believe in" firsthand smoke causing cancer, but don't "believe in" secondhand smoke? It's still 850 papers and, according to you, quality is subjective, but those high numbers are "strong evidence" against firsthand smoke alarm, right? I can come up with 850 papers that support skepticism of the "alarm" over firsthand smoke causing lung cancer. Why won't you join my crusade?
  38. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Just as an addendum, it always seemed to me that this guff about the Medieval Warm Period could be easily killed off by consideration of the archaeological and historical evidence of the period. Being form Ireland, I take an Ireland-centric view. For example, I can across the work of a Welsh clergyman Giraldus Cambrensis who visited Ireland about 1185, when Ireland (supposedly) had a climate something like Portugal has now. Geraldus gave a complete description of the country and climate, and what he described reads a lot more like 20th century Ireland than Portugal!! He describes the wet, temperate conditions fairly accurately. Because of the Gulf Stream, some microclimates on our west coast share plants with Portugal and even the Canary Island. So it is not as if exotic plants had no time to get here. Similarly, some deniers have described the fields of wheat, oats and barley the Vikings grew in Greenland. However, the Norse were pastoral farmers. They had small gardens but herds of cattle and sheep were their pride and joy, and hay as a winter feed their most important crop. So you do not need a temperature record to dispove their extravagant claims about the Medieval Warm Period.
  39. It's the sun
    Hi all, I have a friend who constantly bangs on about Piers Corbyn and his site ‘Climate Action’. Sadly I have very little time to research Corbyn’s claims. I was wondering if anyone has analysed Corbyn’s weather predictions comparing them to the main weather predictions of places like the met office and also his claims about making money by placing bets on future weather. I know this is about weather but Piers definitely believes AGW is a myth. Could someone look into his claims and perhaps do an article on him. There seems to be very little objective research done on his claims... that I can find anyway. We have Monckton Myths how about Corbyn’s Crocks? I posted here because I know Corbyn thinks its all about the sun.
  40. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Peter: "total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming" I don't understand why you are focused on this point. We have undeniable evidence that the Arctic ice melt seasons are growing more aggressive. The Arctic is the part of the globe with the most rapid temperature increase. Where and when is this 'slowing' of global warming going to kick in?
  41. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Woops ... for "graces" read "graves"
  42. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    I once came across a weird statement of Mockton that the Viking graces at Hvasley church in Greenland are now embedded in permafrost. That is totally untrue... Hvalsey is actually sinking into soft clay. Hvalsey Church
  43. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Thanks pbjamm!
  44. Peter Offenhartz at 06:11 AM on 17 February 2011
    A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Amplification/correction: When I said "the volume of ice is much more important than the extent" I was writing only about heat capacity/storage. Clearly "extent" is more important than "volume" when it comes to changing albedo. I regret any confusion. My point is solely that total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming; the total volume of ice is HUGE compared to the annual melt.
  45. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    fydijkstra, "because 1920-1945 had a faster warming (8 degrees per century, I guess)." You "guess". Does that mean you haven't actually calculated the warming trend over that time period? I think you're posting in the wrong forum if you want an audience that considers trend estimation by eyeball a credible analytic technique.
  46. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech - So, there is no objective truth? G&T's paper violates several basic thermodynamic principles, but if they continue to yammer about it after the blatant errors are repeatedly pointed out - that's OK with you? Science involves judgement - judging whether results are real, replicable, well established. Some work is good science by those criteria, some is bad. That particular paper is an epic fail. The only reason I can see for you to continue to include dreck papers such as that, is an ideological confirmation bias - accepting anything that even remotely supports your viewpoint, regardless of whether it's reasonable or even remotely plausible. Which is another reason to dismiss your list as simply not relevant to the science.
  47. Meet The Denominator
    478; "I have however had great success many places." Please, please, please no one ask him to justify that statement otherwise we'll be in fir another 500 posts discussing unsupirtable analysis!!!
  48. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech... Alarm has nothing to do with it. That's your absurd qualification to rationalize your confirmation bias.
  49. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech, As has been stated here many many many times in this seemingly endless thread, AGW Alarm is completely subjective and based entirely upon your opinion of what constitutes alarm.
  50. Meet The Denominator
    Again, why should anyone care about one person's definition of "AGW Alarm" when evaluating the whole of climate science? How about we stick to at least somewhat widely recognizable terms versus what passes for a definition in your little fiefdom?

Prev  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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