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  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  Next

Comments 99951 to 100000:

  1. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Sorry, John, I should also have mentioned that it is a very compelling graph, and I like it a lot!
  2. It's the sun
    Continuing from a comment here. Lockwood 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum is an interesting summary paper for the Royal Society. By way of introduction, The Internet has played a useful role in conveying some of the understanding, images and data that lead climate scientists to their conclusions. However, it has also become a haven for un-refereed pseudo-science with dangerously incorrect inference. It has served to give the false impression that there is a serious, widespread academic debate on the basic nature of climate change. The most popular argument runs like this: ‘The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system’. The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study. --emphasis added The remainder of the paper is a thorough treatment of solar variation, concluding with ... the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists. Sounds like he's got his head on straight.
  3. It's freaking cold!
    You may want to change the Snow cover to an up/down arrow as based on the linked interview with Professor Mike Lockwood, winter extremes can go either way. Here is the link to the news org. The interview video is the last one on the page. http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-snow-strands-air-travellers Comment originally posted here http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-many-lines-of-evidence-for-global-warming-in-a-single-graphic.html
  4. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Found an interesting paper by Lockwood, moving to Solar activity thread.
  5. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    co2isnotevil, Re: the ISCCP data. Problems with this dataset have been noted in the peer-reviewed literature since at least 2000, and the specific problem you cite was even mentioned in the Trenberth paper that was discussed earlier in this thread. So please, drop the "crusader for truth" act. You haven't uncovered some secret flaw in the mainstream science. As you can see - and contrary to your insinuations - the mainstream science is perfectly capable of applying critical thought to its own claims. You also neglected to mention (or didn't realize) that the ISCCP data isn't used to construct any of the standard global temperature reconstructions. These come from entirely different microwave sensors and are produced by the RSS and UAH, one of which is led by your fellow skeptic Roy Spencer. The ISCCP data is primarily used to evaluate cloud data, which is evident from their own project overview. >Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus Applying greater scrutiny to those who oppose the consensus is precisely how it's supposed to work. It follows from the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and prevents solid science from becoming obscured by a constant influx of fringe theories. Every great revision of scientific consensus in the modern era has had to overcome the same difficulties, why should your ideas receive any less scrutiny? Really, your entire criticism of the peer review process is nothing more than a subtle Galileo fallacy. Honestly, it is very admirable that you are seeking to produce your own analysis, but if you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously you are going to have to subject them to a bit of rigor. That you would expect otherwise suggests a very inflated sense of self-importance.
  6. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    I'm disappointed Lindzen did not make the list for claiming, in his recent testimony to Congress, that thermometers are now sensitive only to high temperatures and not cold ones, thereby partly explaining the increase in global temperatures. Ooh, another one was the claims that the Arctic sea ice was going to make a recovery this year.... I realise though that the line had to be drawn somewhere, there are just too many examples of B.S. from the "skeptics". Seriously though, a great job and very well written. Hopefully this becomes an annual event to remind everyone of the inane claims made by 'skeptics' and contrarians. Come to think of it, this would make for a great editorial/opinion piece in some major news outlets.....the public really do need to know how blatantly and frequently "skeptics" mislead and misinform. Any takers?
  7. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @PaulPS: "If you shelter yourself to just blogs that agree with your present view, how will you ever know if you have the whole picture, or challenge thought with opposing views?" Who said I sheltered myself? I know exactly where to go if I want to hear different opinions. The problem is that science isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Powerful economic interests may have turned it into a political issue, but in the end the question remains a scientific one, and the amount of evidence supporting AGW leaves little room for doubt. Contrarians and deniers already get much more exposure than their relatively small numbers (and dubious logic) would normally get them. They have transformed an old journalistic concept - there's two sides to every story - into a way to manipulate the scientific discourse to their advantage. The reality is that, in science, there is only one side to every story. Sure, sometimes it's inaccurate, or false, but science has a way of correcting itself (publication in peer-reviewed journals, for example). The romantic idea that deniers are underdogs are rightly fighting for what they believe is a mirage. Deniers oppose AGW theory on principle, because it disagrees with their political position. Now, I want to apologize if I came down a bit hard...this site is attracting an ever greater number of anti-science trolls, and it can sometimes cause some of us to jump the gun a bit. I encourage you to continue reading the articles on this site, and to make your own judgement. Just remember this isn't a debate between two equally valid ideas, but of current science vs. theories that aren't supported by evidence or observations.
  8. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    No worries Paul, Lockwood's research is off-topic on tis thread. So avoid the wrath of the moderators it should probably be discussed here or perhaps here or maybe even this one. Just re-post it there (with a hyperlink here) and I'm sure people will hop over to the relevant thread to discuss it.
  9. citizenschallenge at 10:38 AM on 31 December 2010
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Three cheers! And well phrased Peter G. Tough choices, at first I wasn't sure about your placement... but the more I thought about my doubts the more they faded away. Another great post. John Cook, Peter G, and all the other contributors thank you for being one of the highlights of 2010. Happy New Years to you all. peter m
  10. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Albatross I appreciate your comments and advice. This site, RealClimate, and others are extremely valuable to me as I gain greater understanding of Climate Science. Visiting denier sites is also important to me so I can collect the pros and cons, and as a lay person, make the most informed decision. Skepticalscience has provided a wealth of knowledge for which I am truly grateful. I have not commented much as facing the rath of the regulars here is not very wise unless you have all of your facts straight. The interview with Dr. Lockwood ignited some questions that I thought you guys might be able to shed some light on. I am not trying to provoke or take a stand either way, just wanted your thoughts.
  11. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, A quick perusal of any thread on this science blog will show that dissenting and controversial views are openly accepted and entertained. The house rules are strict, but it is because of that that SS is perhaps the most pleasant place to discuss the science on AGW on the web, and has been for some time. I have learnt much on this site, ironically much of it by chasing down red herrings from contrarians and 'skeptics'. Now we have drifted off-topic any thoughts/comments on the post and or featured figure?
  12. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, "There is no alterior motive, but to learn and understand with inputs from both sides of the climate debate" The scientific debate/questioning surrounding anthropogenic climate change/disruption happens daily at conferences, in a myriad of journals, and amongst academics, and has been happening for many, many decades. Framing this issue as a "debate" between two equally valid/qualified/credible "sides" is highly misleading and just plain wrong. The situation with anthropogenic global warming is in many ways similar to that endured in the faux "debates" fabricated surrounding issues such as evolution and tobacco. The 'skeptics' camp is a mire of misinformation, distortion and politics, with little or no interest in the science or advancing of science per se, if anything they seem to be largely preoccupied with being obstructionist and attacking the science and scientists. There are plenty of examples to support that statement. Paul, there is really three 'holy grails' left in the science of anthropogenic warming and they are (1) equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubling (or more of CO2), and even the current best estimate of +3C was derived over the course of many decades using multiple, independent lines of evidence. It is not a question of when or if it will warm, but rather of how much and in what time frame, and what the impacts will be; (2) Sea level rise; and (3) Improving regional impacts. That is where the biggest advances still need to be made, at least IMHO. Science will continue to advance though (without the help of Montford et al.), regional impacts will be improved, decadal predictions will improve etc. Like others here, I urge you to avoid some of the more notorious politically-motivated climate science misinformation (and conspiracy) sites. The one being discussed here is one of those. If you would like a list of other "offenders", then I or someone else can post one for you. The best course of action is always to go to the original source, such as a journal paper (even reading the abstract can often tell you whether or not what you have been told is wrong, distorted or being spun), or a vetted site/source (such as NASA, NOAA, BOM, Met Office or NIWA).
  13. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Bibliovermis Here is the link to the news org. The interview video is the last one on the page. http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-snow-strands-air-travellers
  14. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Yes, you can get more primary by linking to the publisher of the interview, rather than an opinion blog hosting a clip. Contrarian sources are notorious for slicing and dicing.
  15. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    bibliovermis I received this information from an actual interview with Dr. Lockwood. You cannot get any more primary than that.
  16. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    muoncounter Cultural lesson learned. Would it now be possible to get some critical thoughts on Dr Lockwood's statement in the referenced interview? There is no alterior motive, but to learn and understand with inputs from both sides of the climate debate. If the blog is not accepting visitors that is fine too.
  17. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Rutgers University's Snow Cover Lab provides graphs of snow cover anomalies since 1966 http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
  18. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, It is better to get scientific knowledge from primary sources, or sources which directly link to such, than from a "balanced spread" of opinion blogs. "Not getting the whole picture" is perilously close to conspiracy notions of vast malicious deceit and incompetent groupthink. It is best to trace new publishings back to the primary source so that the full context can be understood.
  19. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #23: "If you shelter yourself... " In case you hadn't noticed, the 'opposing views' often drop in for a visit; some try to apply for permanent resident status. And even the people who agree don't hesitate to correct a faux pas.
  20. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    archiesteel I knew this was a denier blog, but not aware of veiled threats, thanks for the insight. The link takes you to the video that was on channel 4 news. If you Google "Lockwood a-hundred-years-of-freezing" you can see it on a different website. If you shelter yourself to just blogs that agree with your present view, how will you ever know if you have the whole picture, or challenge thought with opposing views?
  21. It's freaking cold!
    @kdfv #66 Maybe you didn't read or understand the "explanation of legend terminology" that is linked to the map, and also forgot to figure out a way to compare local departure from normal to state averages. You have to do that to say "I don't see how the two maps relate" being that they so clearly relate. You may decide to polish your abilities to simply observe a map as your assertion "it shows the temperatures generally around 4 to 6 degrees above normal" is obviously false and your assertion "it just shows the majority of states at or below normal" is permanently true no matter what you compare (but good dialectic design in your phrases, as that "or" easily makes people forget it is indeed an "and")
  22. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    http://replay.waybackmachine.org can take you back less. There you can find many more missing links from Aug 2008 to May 2009.
  23. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @PaulPS: please don't link to denier blogs, especially not those that allow veiled threats of violence in their comments.
  24. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @co2isnotevil: "I've seen good papers get completely gutted because the 'peers' who reviewed it didn't like the conclusions." Hogwash. More likely, the paper was poor but you felt it was unjustly treated because you agreed with its conclusions. In any case, that's hardly an excuse not to have your theories published and reviewed. "Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus, but it's OK for more accepted mainstream science." Again, conspiracy theories. "Oh, but if only those meanies stopped me from propagating the truth..." Seriously, that's not a defense, that's simply an acknowledgement that your theories aren't sound enough to gain approval. "BTW, I never called it a conspiracy, you did." You clearly implied it. "If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate." Ah, so scientists aren't part of a large conspiracy, they're just idiots who are swayed by groupthink instead of logic - except for you, of course! Give us a break... "I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'." Incorrect. There is ample evidence that AGW is real, and happening. Satellite measurements of OLR is just one of them. As I said before the burden of proof is on you, and you have failed. Discrediting honest, hard-working scientists to paint yourself as the only voice of truth isn't helping. In fact, it's showing your true colors, and they're quite ugly. "The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years." Again, that seems very unlikely since *every* other record shows a warming trend. What's more likely, that everyone else is wrong and that this single instance really means the opposite of what it's supposed to mean, or that everyone is right, notwithstanding a single point of measurement was inaccurate? I'm sorry, but at this point there is no reason to believe your unreviewed theories over the accepted science - and it is, in fact, accepted. The only reason it is "controversial" is that Energy companies such as Koch Industries have funnelled millions into contrarian groups (and that's no conspiracy, we have a clear money trail).
  25. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Your example concerns an absolute value. I was explicitly discussing a trend. If you are going to contribute, please read what you are replying to. Focusing on absolute values when discussing climate sensitivity is less than helpful.
  26. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Biblio, Precision does no good when the trend you are looking for is smaller than the data uncertainty. Consider a model that says 2+2 = 5 +/- 1. This is technically correct since 2+2=4 and that's within the uncertainty. Can you see what happens when you increase precision without increasing accuracy? You end up with a result like 2+2 = 5 +/- 0.25, which while more precise, is no more accurate than the first result and in fact the real answer is outside the uncertainty of the result.
  27. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel, I've seen good papers get completely gutted because the 'peers' who reviewed it didn't like the conclusions. I prefer interactive review with known individuals, rather than the anonymous review often utilized for climate papers. Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus, but it's OK for more accepted mainstream science. You can bark all you want about the science being settled, but the truth is climate science is the most controversial branch of science around. BTW, I never called it a conspiracy, you did. If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate. I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'. Science isn't about gut feelings, but about logic, data and first principles and all of this is turning decidedly against the gut feelings driving climate alarmists. Relative to what my climate tool does with the ISCCP satellite data. all I'm doing is plotting the NASA data. And as I told you, the errors I pointed out have been acknowledged by Rossow, who is one of the principles of the ISCCP project and wrote much of their SW. BTW, I had to do a lot of reverse engineering of the error before Rossow would even acknowledge the problem, but he finally did admit to the programming error that led to this problem. He response was, 'Well, you can't use ISCCP data for identifying trends'. The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years.
  28. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    You may want to change the Snow cover to an up/down arrow as based on the linked interview with Professor Mike Lockwood, winter extremes can go either way. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/12/30/a-hundred-years-of-freezing.html
  29. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Hmm. The svg opened in Inkscape correctly, but text problems in chrome and firefox
  30. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    The svg is missing a namespace definition - adding xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" to the svg element solved it for me.
  31. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    The graph shows an excellent portrayal of effects of warming. History reveals migrations of plants and animals over the ages to result from warming (and cooling) cycles of the planet. In the context of the AGW "debate", it seems that the graph is neutral, that it provides no attribution to causes of the warming... just to the effects of the warming. Even so, the scientific research depicted in the graph has added considerable knowledge of how all living things adapt to changing climates. The graph provides as succinct a summary as one could ever find.
  32. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    " it looks to me when I apply the equations that 0.75ºC per W/m² actually equates to a climate sensitivity of 2.78ºC per doubling of CO2" 2.78C comes from GISS Model E, I'm sure (i.e. the model that Gavin works on). I know it's < 3C (but well within the error bars that the 3C best estimate from IPCC comes with).
  33. It's cooling
    Thanks Archiesteel @97, I'm busy today, so I can't argue with BP. Some points. The planet is warming (accumulating heat) the trend in global SATs and tropospheric temperatures is positive and statistically significant, and the rate of warming is noteworthy. Sad that BP cannot even conceded that simple point without prefacing the statement with a caveat. BP, despite his claims is not calculating EQS, he is calculating TCR, and his estimate of TCR is within the range of TCR calculated by Gregory and Forster. If BP thinks he is onto something regarding EQS being so low (he does not say exactly how low, lots of arm waving), I am sure Journal of Climate would be happy to ship his manuscript off to the reviewers if they think his proposed method has merit. Yes, the OHC data are problematic. My point though was that despite the spikes and troughs, the trend in those 0-2000 m OHC data between 2003 and 2008 is up. I do not see a systematic positive bias in the measurements. Finally, let us for now forget the SAT data and the OHC data. There are still multiple, independent lines of evidence which point to a warming planet (oddly enough a planet which BP claims is 'cooling itself').
  34. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Archie and Michael, I'm saddened to have to agree with your assessments--detraction, obfuscation, fabricating faux debate. I'll add another, it is sad when the "skeptics" are is such a weak position that they have to argue semantics. For example, claiming that a "warming trend" is different from "the planet is warming" (see BP's posts on CS thread). Also BP opines: "It means the extra heat from there can not go anywhere but to an even colder heat reservoir, which is outer space." Well, the GHGs are proving to be an impediment to the loss LWR from the surface. But in BPs' world it seems that LWR from the surface is simply lost to space, unimpeded. Maybe he did not mean that, but then he should have very carefully stated otherwise.
  35. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Excellent graphic. Thank you, guys. Just curious: where does the SVG work? I tried Fx4, Chrome11 and Opera11 - none display correctly. P.S. You can trim down the size of PNGs with http://www.pngoptimizer.com/ or http://optipng.sourceforge.net/
  36. It's freaking cold!
    kdfv, can you post the link to the second map you are referring to ?
  37. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP: The discussion is about the temperature anamoly data. Your graph of surface temperatures is a pitiful attempt to distract people from the discussion. Everyone knows that it is cold in the arctic in the winter. You should stay on topic. For your information, until this week it was above 0C in southern Greenland. It is too bad that you have given up on trying to produce analysis of data tht support your position and now just disrupt discussions that others have.
  38. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #4 TOP I understood the article to be about effect (what is happening) rather than cause (what made it happen). Nevertheless, I'll go back and re-read it to be absolutely sure. ......Yup! Second reading gives me the same impression. Perhaps you can point out what I'm missing. Cheers!
  39. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #14 muoncounter I'm talking about the graphic, not "It's not us". For instance, do you see any mention of those green house gases in the graphic. I only see one.
  40. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #10: "this graphic could be construed as non-AGW." Also construed as AGW in many places on SkS. Use Search to find 'It's not us', 'The human fingerprint', etc. If you do not believe there is human influence on climate, please explain what causes and then mitigated acid rain and ozone depletion. Then explain why there are urban CO2 domes, a close seasonal correlation between CO2/CO/CH4, soot in the Arctic, etc -- all on a thread like 'It's not us'.
  41. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Sorry, didn't spend enough time on this before posting 1st comment. Agree with psweet - species are "shifting ranges", or "moving" or "being dislocated". Agree with m. sweet - Ocean pH is a pretty serious problem, an aspect of the CO2 problem, and one to which we need to draw more attention. Which makes me wonder about the title: I really don't like the term "global warming". It is too comfy and cuddly feeling. John Holdren has tried to promote "climate disruption", which is a bit better. If you do include ocean pH and other factors, then we are really looking at symptoms of Biosphere Disruption - but maybe that is tending towards OT for the main SS theme...
  42. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    I didn't say non-warming, just non-AGW.
  43. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Regarding TOP@4.: Isn't the graphic just what the title implies:Indicators of a Warmng World". It doesn't any show evidence specifically related to either AGW or Non-AGW. It seems a good basic graphic summary for the sub-catogory of "skeptic" that agrues against GW. michael sweet suggests adding ocean pH increase to the graphic, but if I understand the climate experts, pH increase is more of an indicator of increased CO2 than of GW in general, which is what the graphic shows... Maybe a companion graphic (yeah,I know, it's much easier to just suggest stuff for someone else to produce)for negative impacts from GW and another for evidence of human causes for GW. Great site - thanks, Roger
  44. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @4 Dan Bailey I've posted in other places why this graphic could be construed as non-AGW.
    Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Thanks, then it should be a simple matter for you to provide a link to support your position on the graphic.
  45. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    #50: "I'll keep referring to the UAH plot... " Perhaps you should also refer to Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions, which demonstrates that all temperature measures are very similar. Figure 8 in that post renders PDO and even Nino/Nina influences on the long term trends a moot point. "I hope we agree that the plot presented in post #39 is misleading." No, we don't agree.
  46. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @6 michael sweet Maybe then an arrow should be added next to each arrow with Hansen's prediction to scale with what has happened.
  47. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Nice graphic, John. I want to say thanks for all the work you are doing for our children - the children of the world!! Like Tenney Naumer, however, I do have a bit of a problem with the white vs black arrows. Perhaps all the arrows should be red or orange or amber - some kind of "warning" colour.
  48. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    @thepoodlebites: "Based on the evidence, I don't think that we know for sure either way but pre-cursor indicators suggest that we may be headed into another period of cooling similar to the 60's and 70's." Actually, there is no evidence showing we are about to enter a period of cooling (nor was the 70s a period of cooling either "When I took advanced meteorology classes in 1981 the consensus was that we may be entering into another ice-age." Please provide evidence that global cooling was the scientific consensus in 1981, because AFAIK that's not true. "I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. To label a skeptical scientist a denier is insulting." "Denier" is not attached to the Holocaust, "Holocaust denier" is. Someone who deniers the theory of evolution is an "evolution denier," and someone who denies AGW theory is a "climate change denier." Don't wrap yourself in the mantle of indignant victimhood over this, it's kinda disrespectful for the actual Holocaust victims. "Stick to the scientific method, stay objective, don't give in to personal bias, that leads to the dark side." Sticking to the scientific method will lead you to acceptance of AGW theory. It's not a question of bias, but of evidence - believe me, I'd much rather AGW be false! As far as UAH vs. GISS goes, why not use both? In fact, why not use all the data: Hadcrut, GISS, UAH and RSS? They may not all show the same temperature exactly, but they all show the same trend, and that's what counts.
  49. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Moderator #45 and #46 explains my position, comparing the GISS plot in #39 to the UAH plot on Roy Spencer's website, the GISS plot shows an annual mean value for 2005 (0.61 C) that's higher than the 1998 El Nino year. The UAH plot shows an annual anomaly of 0.3 C for 2005, 0.54 C for 1998. The descrepancy may be in the addition of the surface record to the GISS data, which I can not comment about in this thread. I'll keep referring to the UAH plot if that's OK? If there's any significant warming in the future, it will show up in the satellite data, correct? As far as peer-review in climate science, that's probably off-topic too and best left unsaid here.
  50. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    PaulPS, I am in the process of doing a critique on my new blog: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 is still to come.

Prev  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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