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  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  Next

Comments 99401 to 99450:

  1. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #150: I don't see the good Dr. as the noblest mind; "That cursed man, low sitting on the ground, Musing full sadly in his sullein mind." But I was wondering who would be his Hawk.
  2. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "With that said Baird, and Drs. Cullen, Cicerone and Meehl all disagreed with Lindzen's hypothesis (and reasonable people reading that transcript will probably agree with Meehl et al). " The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. I doubt any of the others had even seriously considered the possibility until that moment. Are you surprised it played out like it did? I am not surprised that AGWers continue to rubbish the possibility even after its been pointed out to them. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things. Re: Deep Ocean warming. To keep it more on topic, thats an issue for further discussion for another day in another thread.
  3. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re:muoncounter (148) "Spencer also says ... " I'll play: "The noblest mind the best contentment has." Come on up. Superior'll be like bath water soon... Thee Yooper
  4. Not So Cool Predictions
    Actually, Dana, I have seen some scientists speculating that-were a sufficient quantity of fresh water (primarily from Glacier melting) to enter the Northern Atlantic, that this would be sufficient to cause the Gulf Stream to slow-or even stop. The resulting cooling would still be Anthropogenic in nature, & would still have to be preceded by a *very* significant amount of warming. Even then, other scientists are not sure if there is sufficient glacial mass-this time around-for such a thing to occur. Just thought you might be interested.
  5. It's the sun
    #768: "shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries ..." Figures 5 and 6 in the paper (pdf here) clearly show the solar UV max coincident with the late '50s 'grand maximum'. That suggests that in the 50 years since, the 4 subsequent solar maxima were flat to lower than this well-known peak. That's the key point in this post: between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. See the graph at the top of the page. On another note, when I was in the awl bidness, we referred to Mother Exxon as 'the double cross' - and that was before the Valdez.
  6. Eric (skeptic) at 12:24 PM on 4 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Florida had numerous record low average temperatures in December, but no extreme cold. For example, Tampa was about 10 degrees below average at 53.2 breaking the old record of 54.5 (Dec 1935). It was interesting that no daily records were broken during the month (in Tampa). It just reached 32 twice (the all time low for December is 18 in 1962).
  7. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #144: "Spencer also says ... " "the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. :) " That's his cute little smiley face. He'd do better with these faces to back up his anecdotes. Yooper, I'm heading north.
  8. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Daniel @146, Yes, 2012 is going to be an interesting year. The 2011 Arctic melt season could also be interesting given the current low ice volume and extent. Warning signs everywhere that the break pads are wearing out quickly ;) An yet here we are "debating" those in denial about AGW. Sadly, I suspect others will be doing so circa 2050 and beyond. Thanks for the like to David Benson's model-- so far it is working out pretty well, as are Arrhenius's estimates of global SAT.
  9. Not So Cool Predictions
    jorgepeine... AR4 does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that aerosol/cloud issues would "exactly counteract" the influence of CO2 and other GHG's. In fact, they say that the lower bounds for climate sensitivity is 2C with 3C-4.5C being more likely. The latest paper (Dessler 2010) on cloud effects suggest positive feedback and very unlikely that there is any negative feedback. See here for a recent SkS article related to this.
  10. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re: Albatross (144) Good thing Ma Nature's had Her foot on the brake, then (do you smell brake pads wearing out?). 2011 is the year the foot comes off da brake and onto the accelerator in 2012. A good run while we had it. On the plus side, instead of heading south for spring break I can save money & just stay at home... The Yooper
  11. Not So Cool Predictions
    wow this is a super paper ... and I think there is no doubt on the effect of CO2 causing AGW On the other hand IPCC 2007 (AR4) admits some big uncertainties in the aerosol/cloud issue (see the diagramm in chapter 2 of AR4 on radiativ forcing) which could exactly counteract the influence of CO2 and other GHG's ... There seems to be some further research activity underway at CERN with project CLOUD ... Anybody has heard of the outcome of this project??
  12. Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 10:13 AM on 4 January 2011
    It's the sun
    Well, the sun isn´t dead yet: A combination of the increased TSI and UV may explain up to 0.44 degrees of the 0.55 degree HADCRU warming - 80%. "A peer-reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries.....Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase.....A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum.....This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating." [N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010JA015431
  13. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    oops... first sentence was chopped: When proxy readings are validated by multiple, independent proxy methods, they can be viably compared.
  14. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    When proxy readings are validated by multiple, independent proxy methods. When a proxy record starts to conflict with the observational records, which should be considered valid - indirect proxy or direct observation? Should the whole proxy record be discarded when its validity starts to decline due to extraneous factors?
  15. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    "The “trick” was a way of presenting the data in this one particular graph, namely to truncate the tree ring data at the point when it diverged" A quite incredible comment. The infamous "hockey stick" graph grafted post 1978 instrumental data (the blade) onto proxy data (teh stick). It failed to display the post 1977 proxy data, which shows a blade pointing in teh opposite direction. Hence the song, "hide the decline".
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the thread Is the hockey stick broken? for a thorough discussion of these graphics.
  16. Not So Cool Predictions
    Whoops I meant to say cooling *winter* temps in Europe and North America, and only when Arctic air is pushed southwards, not during the entire winter. The overall temperatures in these regions will continue to rise, of course.
  17. Not So Cool Predictions
    GeoffThomas #19 - this post and rebuttal is about *global* cooling, as I specifically noted in the sections on Lockwood and Overland. However, either myself or another Skeptical Science author will likely have a post on weather vs. climate in the near future. It's next on my list of priorities unless somebody else gets to it first. Cooling temps in Europe and North America are more likely to come from changes in Arctic air circulation (due to the rapid warming there) than a slowdown of the thermohaline.
  18. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 09:20 AM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    Geoff, That is the theory, I've not seen any evidence to back it up though, can you point me in the direction of any articles relating to this? There is evidence to suggest a slowing of the meridional overturning circulation of about 30% but no change to the Gulf Stream, as far as I'm aware.
  19. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, It is good to see you finally produce some data that we can review. Can you provide links to the data, at least three appear to be newspaper reports (the last two especially), not actual data. (I live in Florida and while it has been below average in December, it has not been record cold). You have found a few sites where it has been cold this winter. I doubt that it will be "An all time record cold spell in Europe" as you claim. A few cold nights in Ireland and Sweden are not a record cold spell in Europe. Germany did not rate a mention in November in the NCDC report and on their dot map of world temperatures Germany is shown as warmer than usual. From the NCDC November report: "The most notable warm anomalies around the world during November 2010 occurred across the northern high latitudes, including Alaska and a large swath of Canada and encompassed most of Europe and Asia. The coolest anomalies were seen over Scandinavia, most of Australia, and the eastern and central Pacific Ocean." It was not "record cold" in most of Europe during November, it was unusually warm. Perhaps Europe will get a mention for its December temperatures. We should wait for the GISS and the NCDC yearly and December summaries to come out. GISS usually comes out around the 10th and NCDC around the 17th of the month. NCDC will mention cold spots around the globe and say how they compare to past records.
  20. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    FWIW, the RSS data for December 2010 have been released. Global anomaly for TLT (lower troposphere) was +0.251 C. The UAH lower-tropospheric global anomaly was +0.18 C. So much for BP's suggestion that global temperatures were below average in December 2010. Spencer also says that 2010 and 1998 are in a statistical tie for warmest year in the UAH record. For comparison, here are the RSS December anomalies going back to 1998. Note, the RSS product doe not extend north of 80N and south of 72.5 S. Annual values are in parentheses. 1998: +0.312 (+0.55) 1999: +0.116 (+0.09) 2000: +0.008 (+0.08) 2001: +0.292 (+0.24) 2002: +0.236 (+0.33) 2003: +0.487 (+0.36) 2004: +0.166 (+0.25) 2005: +0.219 (+0.37) 2006: +0.334 (+0.28) 2007: +0.096 (+0.31) 2008: +0.172 (+0.09) 2009: +0.243 (+0.26) 2010: +0.251 (+0.51) Remarkably, the global RSS anomaly for December 2010 was higher than that for December 2009 despite the moderate/strong La Nina event developing in the early summer of 2010 and despite the PDO being strongly negative since July 2010.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You may be interested in David B. Benson's decadal temperature prediction over at RC in October then.
  21. Not So Cool Predictions
    NickD... What's great about PopTech is that, when he gets a mention he usually lives up to his name and pops in to argue his points, thus driving more traffic to the site where he's posting. And he's a vociferous commenter.
  22. Not So Cool Predictions
    It might be worth your mentioning that there are predictions the gulf stream "the heat conveyor" will slow down and in fact has slowed down, which will mean that Europe and America will experience winter cooling, - most folk who know anything about climate change know of this so I guess you don't feel it necessary to mention it but the article is not only directed at the already informed. Regards, Geoff Thomas.
  23. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    “The effect of clouds in a warming world is a difficult one to predict. One challenge is that clouds have both warming and cooling effects. Low-level clouds in particular tend to cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight, while high-level clouds tend to cause a warming effect by trapping heat.” Nought out of ten – see me. Heat is not a substance, it is not caloric, it cannot be trapped or stored. Energy can be stored but it is not heat. Whether or not any part of stored energy can do anything – produce work or raise temperature – depends on its surroundings. Heat is the transfer of energy between a higher and a lower temperature. It is, by definition, uni-directional. The way you present thermodynamics in this thread simplifies the first law and ignores the second. It suggests to the non-scientist (journalist, politician or lay reader) that the more energy absorbent material we add to the atmosphere, the higher will be its temperature because the “heat” cannot escape to space. Angstrom demonstrated 100 years ago that this is not the case.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See Second Law of thermodynamics for a thorough discussion of this question. Hopefully, we don't have to reinvent this wheel.
  24. Not So Cool Predictions
    Wheels @17, The short story is that Easterbrook is bad news-- no doubt about it. Gareth Renowden has thoroughly debunked Easterbrook's latest nonsense in his latest post here. It seems that at least one "skeptic" did not resolve to absolve from distorting in 2011. In fact, they are starting right where they left off. Wheels, these antics are all a desperate attempt to keep people distracted from the reality that the the climate system is accumulating heat, and to trying and sow the seed that the planet is in fact not heading for 2-4.5 C warming, but instead "cooling". Easterbrook and the microWatts crowd are clearly in denial about AGW. The psychology of all this is fascinating, if not utterly depressing.
  25. Not So Cool Predictions
    What an inconsistency. If Oreskes is incorrect in describing how the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists is a consensus, how can Gosselin turn around a few months later and describe a list of ~30 individuals as any consensus, "growing" or otherwise? Also, Easterbrook! I hadn't paid him much attention before, but late last night somebody used his arguments about modern temps/the Holocene on me and I had reason to look into him. His claims of "cooling" periods over the 20th century remind me of this so much it's almost not funny. Turns out I'm not the only person who thinks his graphs smell funny: One Two Three He seems unusually weaselly. I hadn't really heard about him until last night, so maybe I'm just being unduly influenced by hasty Googling. Anybody have the story on Dr. Easterbrook?
  26. Not So Cool Predictions
    @6 - Tonydunc - although I wouldn't go so far as call Argo floats cherry-picking, some of these scientists that are still in denial (Roger Pielke Snr springs to mind) have to make the most of the Argo data before revisions are made to account for the pressure sensor faults which have induced a cooling bias. The process is still ongoing as far as I'm aware. Roy Spencer & John Christy did the same thing for about a decade with the MSU satellites when it was obvious there was a spurious cooling signal in their datasets. And of course we still have no way of measuring the deep ocean in it's entirety. With many politicians willing to bury their heads in the sand over global warming, funding for a deep ocean monitoring network may be a bit hard to come by.
  27. Eric (skeptic) at 07:24 AM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    caerbannog, I agree. The reason I posted the link was not to promote cranks, but to give a list of people, some subset of which may have cooling predictions and some subset of that may be backed up with journal papers.
  28. Not So Cool Predictions
    PeteM, Rob Honeycutt and others, some have looked rather extensively at PopTech's list. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
  29. Not So Cool Predictions
    A lot of the names above (and more) are in this table: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html Every "skeptic" list that I've ever seen has been padded with cranks and incompetent hacks. The above list is no exception. A couple of quick examples: John Coleman? He's with KUSI here in San Diego, and he's cartoonishly clueless. I've seen him in action on TV several times. His current knowledge of climate-science wouldn't get him a passing grade in a middle-school science class. Timothy Ball? A complete, over the top, tinfoil-hat crank. Strong words, admittedly, but fully supported by the evidence. See this link for some of that evidence: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31141 Excerpts
    Scientific Reaction To Velikovsky Symptomatic Of Climate Science Debacle By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, December 16, 2010 ..... Science Is The Ability To Predict In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect. Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
  30. Not So Cool Predictions
    I guess I have another footnote (hyperlink) for my "Global Cooling since..." post. :-)
  31. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus #142 So, do you think that many instances of record cold in 100 years or unprecedented cold are not evidence of global warming or compatible with global warming?
  32. Not So Cool Predictions
    Rob Honeycut (#4) - I saw the list of 800 scientists. When I checked what they were saying, they were proposing several contradictory ideas ( sun , no warming , thermodynamics). I'm surprised there isn't a simple analysis of this list showing that it represents (for example )20 inconsistent ideas.
  33. Eric (skeptic) at 06:37 AM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    A lot of the names above (and more) are in this table: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html Some of the Russians in particular (e.g. Oleg Sorokhtin) have been written up in press releases, etc as having made cooling predictions.
  34. Not So Cool Predictions
    Has anyone attempted to let these scientists know how they are being portrayed on P Gosselin's blog?
  35. Not So Cool Predictions
    Rob #4 - yes it seems pretty much every skeptic 'list of scientists' follows this same pattern. Pad the list with non-experts, and find a few experts whose quotes you can misconstrue to incorrectly add them to your list, to give it the perception of validity. Albatross #5 - personally I don't think you're left with any, but I took that statement out of the post, because it's rather subjective who you consider a real 'climate scientist'. Scafetta for example - personally I think he does rather shoddy work, and technically he's a solar physicist, but you could make an argument for calling him a climate scientist, because he has published in peer-reviewed journals on solar effects on the climate. tonydunc #6 - I think the abstract of the paper tells you all you need to know - "Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats..." So basically they're looking at only *upper* ocean heat content data, only over a 5 year period, and only from Argo floats. Cherrypicking at its finest.
  36. Not So Cool Predictions
    Tony @6, A big clue here is the author "Douglass". I would not place too much weight on the paper. IMHO, a far more objective and credible paper on the state of the OHC is a paper by Lyman et al. (2010), which is discussed here. There is also a good overview here, in the 2009 State of the Climate report. Here is a link to the relevant chapter.
  37. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    #53. The International Journal of Geosciences is perhaps not quite what it seems Mind you I'm looking forward to the first articles from this prestigious sounding tome
  38. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    michael sweet, #128: "The data at 51 show normal winter temperatures: it is December. " The graph at 51 shows anomalies. Blue means considerably lower than normal. What you asked for in #82 was "data on a location that is colder than average." michael sweet, #128: "You have not provided a single location where this winter has set any record at all" Here are a few assorted records for you: - Stockholm, Sweden, longest continuous cold spell since the winter of 1788-1789. Also coldest November temp. since 1884 (-18) - Åland (autonomous part of Finland): all-time low (set on Nov 29) -18,9. - Germany record cold in November: 3-5 degrees Celsius below the long-term averages. - "Both Wales and Northern Ireland recorded the coldest November night since records began. In Wales, temperatures fell to -18.0 °C at Llysdinam, near Llandrindod Wells, Powys. Northern Ireland recorded -9.5 °C at Loch Fea." - December 20, all-time low in Northern Ireland (-18°C). - "Christmas Day is the coldest ever with mercury plummeting to - 18 as UK heads towards the biggest December freeze since 1890." / "December is the coldest across the UK since the national series began in 1910." (Pick one!) - The coldest December on record for the main climate sites in South Florida. (According to 'The National Weather Service'). P.S. This is not cherry-picking - I was asked to provide data!
  39. Not So Cool Predictions
    I just got this paper off Steve Goddard's site. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf While many of his postings are totally meaningless or worse, this seems to clearly say that there is no heat buildup in the oceans, for the last 8-10 years of so. Of course that is not a very long time period, but it makes sense to me that there there would be amore consistent rise in temps in the oceans than on land. Maybe John someone here can comment of the accuracy/meaning of these results
  40. Not So Cool Predictions
    Many, many thanks for looking into this Dana. As I suspected the contrarians misrepresented the science of several climate scientists to fit their own ideology, and you have very nicely shown that they have. "Many of these and other names on the list are not climate scientists" Heck, several of them they are not even scientists, and others are emeritus (and those in the know are aware what often tends to happen when a prof. goes emeritus). Is D'Aleo a real, practicing scientist? Or Corbyn, or Bastardi for that matter? I would argue that the the aforementioned are not scientists. Have any of them published their claims in a in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? When one excludes the wanna be scientists, the non-climate scientists and the emeriti-- just who is one left with?
  41. Not So Cool Predictions
    Dana... This sounds like the same technique that that guy PopTech (Mr. 800-peer-reviewed-papers-against-AGW) uses to justify his position. It doesn't matter to them if the authors of the quoted material actually agree with their position, the only thing that matters is their own interpretation of those author's works.
  42. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT @78, I am not arguing with you on this anymore. Two reasons. First, it is OT. Second, you seem to be insisting on misunderstanding Martinson's research. But before I go, here is his abstract given at AGU: "Published literature is converging to a consensus that the accelerated glacial melt in western Antarctica is due in part to ocean heat. This talk will present the history of ocean heat on the western continental shelves of the western Antarctic, likely contributing to this accelerated melt. The record is from nearly 20 years of gridded ocean data from the Palmer Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project situated in the heart of this critical region. Two fundamental points are covered: (1) what is the mechanism by which the warm water makes its way onto the continental shelf, and (2) what is the history of the ocean heat content with an emphasis on possible mechanisms responsible for what will be shown to be a dramatically large increase in the heat content (historical data from the same location extends the history of the ocean heat content back through the 1960s, showing a startlingly large increase in ocean heat content). Possible reasons for the increase are: (1) increased westerlies driving a stronger Antarctic Circumpolar Current flow, raising the isopycnals of the warmest waters to the height of the continental shelf for easy access via shelf upwelling, or (2) global warming of the world oceans deep waters have encountered southern flowing currents, delivering the warmed water to the ACC, eventually reaching the western Antarctic". Anyhow, maybe you can find someone to argue with on the appropriate thread, if you can find one.
  43. Not So Cool Predictions
    Rob #1 - yes it's a consensus of a whopping 31 "scientists"...except that a lot of the scientists on the list don't belong there, and most of the rest don't know what they're talking about.
  44. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    #53: "natural cyclical processes show stronger correlation in the surface record." So you are claiming that correlation requires causality? Did you run that past the denial establishment to see if they reached a consensus on that? What causes the PDO/AMO?
  45. Not So Cool Predictions
    Poor Dr. Latif. They will never get enough of misrepresenting his speech. The good side of all this is that this time they're risking to predict something. At least this is falsifiable.
  46. Not So Cool Predictions
    Dang. I took a sip of coffee right before I read "so far as to call it a 'growing concensus.'" Mistake.
  47. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    I've just been looking at that graph again that shows ocean heat content increase. It came with today's blog-post. I see now that the data for ocean heat build-up come from Domingues et al(2008) - rather than Murphy et al(2009). So I guess that means a slight correction to the references section of the Guide is necessary. No big deal. It has just dawned on me now that I was interpreting this graph wrongly in my comments above. I see now that it's a graph of the heat anomaly, measured compared to 1950, not a graph of the absolute heat content of the ocean. Duh! My apologies for this error on my part and for taking up so much of your time. I'm now largely happy with the graph. I now think it is quite realistic. I don't think the bumps are so out of scale anymore. PS: I guess what threw me was the title: "Build-up in Earth's Total heat Content" . This made me think in terms of absolute accumulated heat (which I can see now it couldn't possibly be). Perhaps a little note to explain this distinction might help others to avoid the same confusion. In any case I take full responsibility for that misunderstanding! I hope I didn't lead too many people astray. Keep up the great work!
  48. thepoodlebites at 03:53 AM on 4 January 2011
    It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Recap: Warming trend: PDO+AMO shows stronger correlation than CO2, R^2 for CO2 = 0.44 R^2 for PDO+AMO = 0.85 where (R^2 is the coefficient of determination) A new article in the International Journal of Geosciences Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes, supports the idea of the weak correlation between CO2 and global warming, natural cyclical processes show stronger correlation in the surface record. Conclusions: "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed."
  49. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    They, and the multimillion dollar lobbyists feeding them, are going to attack climate science with new plateaus of ruthlessness and public relations campaigns! = = = = = = = = = = = = = = But you can only run a political campaign against science for so long. After a while it starts to really damage your credibility on other issues. The right wing will make some hay for a year or so yet, but one big arctic melt season or big el Nino and it will be egg on face time. IMHO the party managers are not stupid and will likely be seeking position that allows them to get some distance between the mainstream party and the louder, more strident 'its all a fraud' types. It they are not then their science (and some of their political) credibility is hostage to the next big global warming story.
  50. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT@77, "If you believe the reasoning is faulty then please discuss why." I have already done that. You just keep repeating the same wishful thinking. You also need to learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Additionally, suggesting that I'm not smart enough to understand you and Lindzen is not defense. With that said Baird, and Drs. Cullen, Cicerone and Meehl all disagreed with Lindzen's hypothesis (and reasonable people reading that transcript will probably agree with Meehl et al). Also, going by your logic, one can only conclude that you think they (Meehl et al.) are also not smart enough to grasp Lindzen's unsubstantiated musings. Poor misunderstood Lindzen. Lindzen is entitled to his opinions, but not to his own facts. In science, one is required to provide evidence/facts to support one's hypothesis-- Lindzen did not, and has not, and that is B.S. So please stop trying to spin and distort this. "I consider the science and look at each conclusion and make my own mind up." LOL TTT, you really missed your calling in life. You should have been a politician, maybe you are ;) OK, there are five award winners. Then please defend each one using science and explain to us why they are not guilty of B.S. Additionally, being a "true skeptic", I'm sure that you will be happy to add a few more examples of B.S. from the contrarians/"skeptics"/those in denial about AGW. Gleick et al. made their case, now you make yours. We are all ears.

Prev  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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