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  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  Next

Comments 98651 to 98700:

  1. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    @13MPG: Why do you focus on the US and Europe? We are talking about *global* warming. Here in Montreal it's the second very mild winter in a row. If you look at global numbers, 2010 is among the hottest years on record. Stop cherry-picking, please. As for CO2 "sinking", that shows a profound misunderstanding of atmospheric dynamics. Even for an "amateur climatologist," that is pretty misinformed.
  2. It's cooling
    This just in: 2010 ties 2005 for coldest year on record! Brrr! Time to buy some coal for the furnace...preferably anthracite... ( -edit: NASA agrees end edit- ) The Poe-Yooper
  3. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Response to #49. With regard to the water vapor absorption, I am not trying to calculate the total effect - just that of the CO2. Therefore the only circumstance in which the result would be in error is when many water vapor absorption lines and CO2 absorption lines overlap. The slide in GWPPT6 that shows a detailed spectrum from Ohio State University with numerous single lines that do not overlap. The detailed calculations take account of any overlaps. So you might well ask, "why bother with GWPPT6?". First of all because the results of GWPPT6 agree with observation (see #25 above). Second of all because they also agree with the detailed calculations, and finally because the GWPPT6 calculation is readily accessible to anyone with a background in P. Chem and it shows the essence of what is occurring. In particular the often cited idea that comes from applying the linear Beer's Law for intensity, namely that more CO2 will not result in more GHG effect, is demolished. I have presented the details of a simple calculation that takes account of the absorption of radiation by CO2 and the geometry of the effect. The result agrees with observation and detaled calculation. You say, "you can't make these assumptions". You don't say to what assumtions you refer. I would say my only assumption is the the overlap of water vapor and CO2 lines is not sufficient to throw the calculation off. My basis for this assumption starts with the basic quantum mechanical result that the spectra are line spectra. If they had zero width overlap would be essentially impossible. If they have width it arises from life-time and/or pressure broadening effects. What about the assuption that you are making that these broadening effects are sufficient to cast doubt on the result of GWPPT6 (or I should say, "to cast doubt on the appilicability of the result to a system containg water vapor")? If you think the assumption that the result has applicability to the earth system is wrong show your reasoning quantitively, i.e. show some data or calculated effects that demonstrate that water vapor absorption interferes with that of CO2 substantially. That would be a great contribution! Because the calculation of GWPPT6 is for an earth-year average the issue of clouds is irrelevant to the calculation. I.e. a known average flux of energy is entering the aarth's surface. The earth's average surface temperature increases until the average flux radiated at the top of the atmosphere equals the average flux entering On the way out the flux has to interact with the CO2 in the atmosphere because the wave lengths are at the excitation for the rotational-vibrational transitions of CO2. This is all necessary and occurs whether there are clouds or no clouds.
  4. The Queensland floods
    Does this mean that global warming makes both El Nino and La Nina events more likely and stronger? Why? I would have thought that anything that makes El Nino more likely, makes La Nina less likely? There has already been quite a bit in the comments section stating why extreme events. i.e. both drought and flooding are more likely. Is this statement as robust as say global warming? I would have thought not, particularly as the predictions are regional and regional predictions have larger error margins. Is it possible to quantify how reliable these predictions are? Should Australia start building even bigger dams? Perhaps John or another expert could create a more comprehensive post regarding global warming and precipitation?
  5. It's the sun
    Nobody is arguing that variations in solar irradiance have no effect on the global temperature, rather that the effect from the enhanced greenhouse effect is larger.
  6. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    DSL: This is the first time I've heard the argument that CO2 is too heavy to make it to the upper troposphere and stratosphere. Perhaps some of the more vocal "skeptics" could weigh in on this? GC, perhaps? Cruzn? KL? It's actually a pretty common argument in forums, newspaper comments etc. Apparently someone immediately noticed that CO2 is heavier than oxygen, and drew the commonsense conclusion. We've all blown up balloons and watched them fall to the floor. QED! This theory also helps to explain why smoke runs down chimneys like lava, and why we install furnaces in attics to ensure that they get an adequate supply of oxygen.
  7. It's the sun
    thepoodlebites - Certainly, if the sun goes into a less active phase there will be an influence on climate. However, given the low amount of such solar variation, the effects of such variation are going to be tiny compared to CO2. See What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels, and also the comparative values of forcings here - I find Figure 2a very clear. I believe you've been pointed to these items previously. Global cooling? No. Warming perhaps a little slower if solar variation reaches a low? Yes.
  8. thepoodlebites at 04:51 AM on 13 January 2011
    It's the sun
    #779: Please see Historical Total Solar Irradiance and type in 1900.5 to 2009.5. The historical TSI reconstruction shows five 11-year solar cycles between 1900-1950 and five between 1955-2005. Clearly, the five cycles after 1950 were more active than the five pre-1950 cycles. I agree that cycle 24 is unusually quiet and supports my thesis that the Sun does influence global surface temperatures. In this case, if cycle 24 is longer and weaker than previous (21-23), then we may see subsequent global cooling in response. It's interesting to note that the solar max in 1970 (cycle 20) was relatively weak. I remember the "Big Freeze" in 1977 when the Chesapeake Bay froze over.
  9. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    BKSea, from a little while ago. Let me restate what I wrote earlier. I don't know that anyone is staking a claim that anthropogenic CO2 will cause an abrupt change at a certain level or point in time. However, there have been abrupt changes in the past, Dansgaard-Oeschger events and others, which should imply that there is good potential for them to happen this time around. Here are a couple of links: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/legrande_01/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html There are different signatures for climate forcings, but for gross effects, there probably isn't much difference between forcings of similar magnitudes, even if of different causes.
  10. The Queensland floods
    Regarding ocean temperatures around Australia (from this Australian Bureau of Meteorology report): "Based on preliminary data (to November 30), sea surface temperatures in the Australian region during 2010 were +0.54 °C above the 1961 to 1990 average. This is the warmest value on record for the Australian region. Individual high monthly sea surface temperature records were also set during 2010 in March, April, June, September, October and November. Along with favourable hemispheric circulation associated with the 2010 La Niña, very warm sea surface temperatures contributed to the record rainfall and very high humidity across eastern Australia during winter and spring"
  11. The Queensland floods
    MarR@13 and Mila @25, Thanks for linking those IPCC graphs. Fig. 11.17 summarizes things nicely.People are way too quick to make sweeping generalizations "I thought they said AGW was going to cause drought!"? Where, when....? The multi-model simulations show the eastern third of Australia typically receiving more rain circa 2100 in DJF, with drying over western third of Australia. If this forecast pans out Perth could be in real trouble. Also not that over the interior the models are showing marked warming but a mixed signal for precipitation-- this suggests an increase in ET and lower soil moisture. Perhaps it is best to show the Figure. Figure 11.17. Temperature and precipitation changes over Australia and New Zealand from the MMD-A1B simulations. Top row: Annual mean, DJF and JJA temperature change between 1980 to 1999 and 2080 to 2099, averaged over 21 models. Middle row: same as top, but for fractional change in precipitation. Bottom row: number of models out of 21 that project increases in precipitation. Source here.
  12. The Queensland floods
    #21: Regional precipitation projections are very hard, and papers studying them make this clear. The uncertainties are so large that it would be difficult to rule out AGW based on regional precipitation observations. However, net increase in atmospheric water vapour is a pretty solid prediction. If you could demonstrate this wasn't happening over a sufficiently long timescale then AGW theory would be in trouble.
  13. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    RW1 - Looking through Myhre, I see that the total radiative change is really both the effects I mentioned here; band widening and the rise in effective emission of IR to higher (colder) altitudes. So some additional absorption, some less effective emission. The simplified formula Myhre comes up with for CO2 is: ΔF (W/m^2) = α * ln( C/C[initial] ); α = 5.35 For a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial 280 to 560, α * ln(2) = 3.708 W/m^2. Again, coming up with this equation is not a back-of-the-envelope calculation; I can't give you that, because it wouldn't be accurate.
  14. The Queensland floods
    #24 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-7-3-2.html
  15. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    KR, There is nothing in any of the sources you cite that answers the question.
  16. The Queensland floods
    Albatross Even before the present disasters much of this year has been wet in Eastern Australia. It had me looking at the BOM precipitation data a few weeks ago. You can have a look or download the full precipitation data for Eastern Australia here This years rainfall has managed to turn the trend for the full record around to a positive trend. I was looking at this because it struck me that even when somebody isn't cherrypicking and even when somebody is using long records it struck me that trend lines had the possibility of being very fickle things. Even playing with Hansen's time period if you start it in 1950 the trends negative, start it in 1951 then the trend is positive now that we have data running through to 2010. If you keep Hansen's end date the trend is negative if you start in 1950and it's flat if you start in 1951. I'm not favouring one start/end point or another I'm just trying to highlight the fickleness of some interpretations even when they're based on longish data set trends. From memory the IPPC estimate for change in precipitation for East Australia into later this century is between +50% and -50% (which obviously also allows the possibility of 0% change).
  17. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    DSL take a look over at Deltoid and the post about Ken Ring (the magician and palmist). SUV/13MPG isn't the first.
  18. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #29: "Fine black dust from rubber and asphalt." Something as ubiquitous as this should have a well-established fingerprint of its own. We've discussed black carbon in the Arctic on prior threads; that particular soot serves as a marker for Asian-sourced CO2. If rubber and asphalt are to be taken seriously, they are not a natural cycle -- and hence are a component of AGW. Any data to substantiate this claim should go to the appropriate thread, which is probably one of the humans are too insignificant discussions.
  19. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    I've added Myhre et al 1998 to the Links section under "CO2 is weak", "CO2 is saturated", and "CO2 is just a trace gas". That's a very important paper for baseline CO2 forcing calculations, and includes simplified formulas for CH4, H2O, and other greenhouse gases.
  20. The Queensland floods
    John, Good to hear you are managing, but my heart goes out to those stricken by this calamity. Here in Mid-Wales we have our first sou-westerly Warm Conveyor of 2011, with orographic enhancement leading to maybe 100mm of rain - but it's steady moderate stuff, not the convective deluges you guys have had. With regard to the AGW element of this, one way to look at it is to imagine the weather being the lump sum of money and AGW being the interest - as Kevin Trenberth noted, 4% per extra degree Fahrenheit (or ~6% per degree C if you like). Cheers - John
  21. The Queensland floods
    John, As one who lives in a hurricane-prone area, I feel your pain. Keeping up the good work in spite of natural disaster is the mark of a real trooper. I heard this morning that Australia's coking coal industry will suffer because of this flooding and that may increase the world steel price. No one can say that the increased risk of disasters of this magnitude won't affect the world's economy. Best of luck to you and yours!
  22. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    RW1 - The link I gave you was behind a paywall; here's an accessible link to Myhre et al 1998. Long live Google Scholar!
  23. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    RW1 - The most up to date calculations appear to be from Myhre et al (1998); these results are discussed a bit over at Real Climate - The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps. RC has some excellent references and links in that article. The total radiative forcing, the difference in energy leaving the atmosphere, per doubling of CO2 is about 3.7 W/m^2. Note that this is based on piece-by-piece integrations of atmospheric effects (it's more than a bit too complex to calculate by hand), and includes both CO2 absorption widening as well as the increasing altitude of final CO2 emission (where the atmosphere thins enough that the CO2/volume allows radiation to space); given the lapse rate, a rise in CO2 emission altitude means that the emitting CO2 will be colder, and hence emit less energy. If you disagree with these numbers, then do the work, and submit your results to Geophysical Research Letters as a reply to Myhre.
  24. The Queensland floods
    Good to here you're well John. No doubt within the AGW scenario harder punches are expected the question really is whether AGW theory is an accurate description of what's going on here. It's also worth considering that nature alone can pack a pretty hard punch. Even in the relatively short history of white settlement in the Brisbane area it's possible that the 1893 was harder although it probably didn't cause so much misery to so many souls. garythompson as the response suggests AGW allows for both drought and flood. The problem is that normal precipitation is also not inconsistent with AGW. Once you have all the bases covered it makes me wonder just what is the power of these sorts of statements. But this is a terrible tragedy, best of luck to all Queenslanders.
  25. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Or, Ville, we simply wouldn't be. I must congratulate SUV . . . errr 13MPG, though. This is the first time I've heard the argument that CO2 is too heavy to make it to the upper troposphere and stratosphere. Perhaps some of the more vocal "skeptics" could weigh in on this? GC, perhaps? Cruzn? KL?
  26. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    222, archisteel, I'm pretty sure a LIB is a Little Ice Blanket, a technique used by scientists to combat global cooling during the LIA. I read that on some really, really trustworthy and informative site, like WUWT, so it must be true. Don't ask what a LICk is, though... you don't want to know.
  27. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #50 - h Pierce You posted the same question on what looks like a denialist site and R. de Hann gave a reasoned response. There is so much dust in the atmosphere by natural causes that even the tons of rubber caused by tire wear simply disappear in the real big numbers. The hundreds of millions of tons of dust stirred up by the wind moving over the Gobi, Sahara and other deserts, the hundreds of millions of tons of dust and particles set free during natural forrest fires all over the world and hundreds of millions of tons of emissions from our volcano’s. You won’t see the effects from tire wear from space but you can certainly see the forrest fires, the volcanic eruptions and the dust storms. Yet again, it’s all a matter of common sense. The rubber dust, most of it sticks to the road and is washed into the sewer where it is mixed with dirt and sewage. Modern sewage plants contain trillions of bacteria that clean up the sewage and one of the products that comes is fresh earth for your garden or your balcony flowers. I noticed you did not respond.
  28. The Queensland floods
    adelady, the throw away comment you read may have been the one @5 above.
  29. gallopingcamel at 00:19 AM on 13 January 2011
    Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Keith Pickering, Even Lubos Motl likes your post even though he has a quibble with the arithmetic. http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/climate-sensitivity-from-linear-fit.html Any comment?
  30. The Queensland floods
    I would echo the sentiments that others have so ably expressed about the safety and well-being of not only you and your family, John, but of that of all afflicted by the Queensland floods. May you continue to stay safe and dry! The Yooper
  31. The Queensland floods
    Thanks for mentioning cyclones Eric. I saw a throwaway comment somewhere that the previous best-known major SE Queensland floods were caused by rain events at the tail end /edge of cyclones. I've not checked it but it did ring a bell. Somebody's sure to put those stats together in the next few days.
  32. Eric (skeptic) at 22:46 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    Historic Australian floods: http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/flood/flood-basics/historic.html are correlated with La Nina http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/climaterisks/years.risk.html plus cyclones.
  33. The Queensland floods
    James Hansen wrote earlier this summer concerning the heat in Moscow and floods in Pakistan: "Finally, a comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is "you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming." That answer, to the public, translates as "no". However, if the question were posed as "would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?", an appropriate answer in that case is "almost certainly not." That answer, to the public, translates as "yes", i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event." I am sure the same answer would fit the Queensland flood. It would not have happened without AGW. I lived in Acacia Ridge in western Bisbane for three years. I think of my Aussie friends all the time.
  34. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #40 Chemware Modern synthetic rubber contains anti-oxidants and UV protectants, and it does not degraded to any appreciable extent when exposed to air, sunlight, and microbes. I have used tires that are over 20 years old and they haven't changed much at all in physical appearance. And there is no mold or moss growing on them.
  35. The Queensland floods
    Current status of La Nina: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf BTW: I was just searching the web for the place where John lives when the new article appeared - all Australians I ever knew came from Sydney so I sort of assumed that he must be from Sydney as well and so was not worried about him - a classical example of wrong generalization
  36. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:01 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    Glad things are not too bad for you, John - here's hoping it stays this way. The scale of this disaster is unimaginable.
  37. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG Read this document (The Absence of Stratification and Rapidity of Mixing of Carbon Dioxide in Air Samples) from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (1927), about the diffusion of CO2 in air, in particular the summary: http://www.jbc.org/content/73/2/379.full.pdf The point is that if you were correct about CO2, then we would be detecting stratification of gases in the atmosphere and we would all be CO2 breathing creatures, not air/oxygen breathing creatures.
  38. Eric (skeptic) at 21:53 PM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG, I second the start here recommendation. The only argument of yours that I haven't previously read here was the atmospheric pressure increase. This paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.017 says that "a crepuscular atmosphere having a carbon dioxide content of 683 ppm, ... a pressure of 1.021 bar,..." so that argument is wrong too.
  39. The Queensland floods
    Best of luck to you and your family John! RE: #2 - the extreme events case has already been pretty well explained. As well as extreme events, there are expected to be regional changes in precipitation. Total global precipitation is expected to go up because of more water vapour in the atmosphere, but some regions will see less & others more. Summary of IPCC graphs here!
  40. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG, before your first post, you should have read Beginners Start Here, The Big Picture, and Most Used Skeptic Arguments. If you had read all that first, your post would have had very little left that hadn't been already looked at, discussed and countered.
  41. The Queensland floods
    Glad you are ok John. Keep smiling.
  42. The Queensland floods
    Looking out the window I'm seeing the highest piles of snow in S Finland for my lifetime (under 40 of them) and more coming from the sky. Glad of not to have to go to the store today. Inquiring how are your food supplies? You hang in there.
  43. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG building new theories from a measured event is a nice intellectual exercize. But before claiming its validity you need to confront it with reality. There are several troubling claims in your comment, starting from the sinking of CO2, the flooding (sic) of the Atlantic Ocean, the cooling from 1998 and the halving of the european population in the 17th-18th century during the so-called little ice age. Your theory does not stand even the most trivial sanity check.
  44. Philippe Chantreau at 19:07 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    Glad to know you're safe and sound John.
  45. Philippe Chantreau at 19:06 PM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG, this has to be the most grotesque conflation of nonsense and misinformation I have ever seen. Thanks for the laugh.
  46. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 18:33 PM on 12 January 2011
    The science isn't settled
    @aspiratelooksat50 - 'pro' means 'for', 'anti' means 'against'. I don't know of anyone who is 'pro-AGW', although I have read facetious comments, mostly on denier sites, saying 'warming will be good'. I don't imagine any thinking person wants earth to be hotter than it's ever been since humans evolved.
  47. The Queensland floods
    Hi John, Fingers crossed-- glad to hear that you are coping. Just to add to your comments above. From Dai, Trenberth and Qian (2004) concluded that: "From 1950 to 2002, precipitation increases over Argentina, the southern United States, and most of western Australia resulted in wetter conditions (i.e., higher PDSI) in these regions. However, most of Eurasia, Africa, Canada, Alaska, and eastern Australia became drier from 1950 to 2002, partly because of large surface warming since 1950 over these regions". And "During the last two–three decades, there was a tendency of more extreme (either very dry or very wet) conditions over many regions, including the United States, Europe, east Asia, southern Africa, and the Sahel." The recent deluges of rain over Queensland are, in part, related to the current La Nina, with the heavy rains likely being exacerbated by the record high SSTs surrounding Australia and attendant increase in water vapour content in the atmosphere. The increase in precipitation and weather extremes is consistent with a warming planet and accelerating hydrological cycle. To quote Trenberth: "Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future."
  48. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    I am a climatologist by hobby mainly because I study and occasionally chase hurricanes. I can use the most basic aspect of science and demonstrate why earth won't become venus. Look at the periodic table. Air is a solution (meaning no molecular bonds) of roughly 3/4 nitrogen and 1/4 oxygen and trace gasses (21%?). When an atom bonds to others to become molecules, the atomic weight combines. When air becomes saturated...when the total atomic weight of water in a given point of the atmosphere grows higher than the total atomic weight of the air that is holding it up, it falls down as rain, snow, dew, etc. Now, Carbon Dioxide has a much heavier atomic weight than air or water vapor. Thus when CO2 gets ejected into the atmosphere, it falls harmlessly to earth where the trees use it for food. To this day, the military uses CO2 as fire suppression on the lower levels of ships (engineering areas) because it naturally sinks in air. Because of CO2's heavier atomic weight, barometric pressure (the weight of the atmosphere on the earth) has not increased at all in the last 150 years. If CO2 were building as they say, the barometric pressure would have increased .5mb at sea level in the last century. That has not happened. The cyclical shift In ocean currents and temperatures gradually went from cool to warm in the '30s and again in the early '80's. this cycle starts in Pacific lags a decade or so in the Atlantic (PDO and AMO respectively). When the Pacific warmed, so did the land next to it then the Atlantic followed. The result was honest scientists seeing actual global warming. Now the pacific ocean is back in it's cold phase and scientists are trying to hide the resulting temperature drop. In the next 5 years the Atlantic will go cold too. The pacific went cold extremely early this time. The only time this can be archaeologically proven to have happened before was in the 13th century when archaeological evidence shows a likelihood of the Northwest Passage being open briefly at the very end Medieval Warm period which peaked drastically then ended suddenly at the end of the 13th and 1st half of the 14th century. To see what followed, google "little ice age". It seems plausible that the opening of the "Northwest Passage" flooded the Atlantic Ocean with cold dense fresh water blocking the Gulf Stream which moderates temperatures along the Americas, West Indies, Europe and even it even impacts Africa as the cold "Canary Current". The sudden drop in temps along the eastern US and Eur-Asia was preceded by a decade or so of slow global cooling and extreme weather in Europe resulting in crop failures, just like the cooling that has been happening since 1998. The last "little ice age" killed half the population of Europe due to starvation and plague. Is it possible that all the crop failures in the news lately are simply history repeating itself? No, and neither are the plunging temperatures, record snows in areas that haven't seen such things since the 1700's which was the peak of the last "little ice age". I have already heard some folks in the weather watching community comparing this winter to the winter Washington and the American Revolutionary Army spent at Valley Forge.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science. First rule to observe here is to abide by the Comments Policy. That means NO accusations of fraud or dishonesty, among other things. Even by intimation. Your comment hangs precariously across that line. Future comments of this nature will be summarily deleted. As to the scientific content of your comment, for someone studying climate science there is so much in error. Please follow the advice and direction JMurphy expressed so well in comment number 47 below. Your compliance is appreciated, as is substantive dialogue. Thanks!
  49. The science isn't settled
    @apiratelooksat50: "Just being curious and not accusatory, do you and/or the other posters here look at other sites that are not pro-AGW? " You seem to be under the impression that this site is "pro-AGW". It isn't. It is pro-science. This isn't an debate of ideas, or of opinion. It is a scientific debate. Sites that have an obvious political agenda (such as WUWT) are not science sites. Your comment about "libs" in a different thread belies your political views. You should really stop looking at the science through a partisan lens.
  50. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    @apiratelooksat50: "Do libs not listen to Buffett?" What's a "lib," and what does it have to do with climate science?

Prev  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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