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  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  Next

Comments 100051 to 100100:

  1. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #46, #47, #48, Thanks for the links. I will check in there regularly. However, I don't know how your (=m. sweet #48) eyeballing works, but I definitely see more purple than red, and more blue than orange. (Especially in the polar view, where the cylindrical overrepresentation of the red spot in northernmost Canada/Greenland is reduced.)
  2. Berényi Péter at 20:33 PM on 30 December 2010
    Climate sensitivity is low
    #70 archiesteel at 14:03 PM on 30 December, 2010 That's nonsense: a delay will in effect raise the temperature of the system, as the sun continues to send energy. Listen, you either know how a linear time-invariant filter works or not. In the latter case you'd better have a look at convolution integrals. If g(t) = ft and h(t) = (β/τ)e-t/τ, then g*h(t) = βf(t-τ). It is a fact, no amount of babbling about the sun would change that. It is also equal to βft-βfτ. If climate sensitivity is positive (β > 0) and there is an increasing forcing (f > 0), the additive constant -βfτ is surely negative. Therefore the delay would not increase the temperature, but it would decrease it, while the trend itself (temporal derivative of temperature, βf) is clearly independent of said delay. So much about nonsense. (You could also work on your physics. There is a difference between temperature and heat.)
  3. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Quick note - I've added the 'Examples of Cloud Feedback' graphic to the list of high-rez climate graphics.
  4. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Nice graph, useful in presentations indeed. May be it should be 'mixed' with the fingerprint graph http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm in order to obtain a comprehensive overview of observations and fingerprints. One could tell the whole story on the basis of one graph only! Jan Paul van Soest
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Changed link to hyperlink.
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    #195 . WRONG !!! the satelites together with earth should form one system that it should be moved together in the apply of gravitational forces due to planetary realligment , yet the sun stays steady ....
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Again, please provide linked references for those claims (published, peer-reviewed sources have the most credibility). Extraordinary claims must of necessity be accompanied by an extraordinary evidenciary chain. Unsupported comments such as yours will be simply deleted in the future. Thanks!
  6. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Added Central England Temperature, April 28, 2008. Guess there's still more out there. The Yooper
  7. We're heading into an ice age
    Henry @198, I'm afraid you have been hoodwinked by some folks who, on the surface, seem to make a compelling case. Research has shown that even if we do enter another Maunder-like minimum, or even a grand minimum, the radiative forcing from elevated GHGs will easily overpower the reduced incoming solar radiation. See this thread for details.
  8. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    I’m not sure if the following reasoning holds for all periods due to other factors that influence climate at different times, but I thought it would be fun to try with our modern period of warming, 1975 to present, to see if climate sensitivity agrees with expectations. Average annual temperatures have increased 0.69ºC since 1975 per GISTemp (-0.04ºC then versus +0.65ºC now). CO2 was 330 ppm in 1975. It’s 390 ppm today. Plugging those two CO2 levels into the standard CO2 radiation forcing formula ΔRF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) gives a increased forcing of 0.894 W/m² since 1975. Applying a climate sensitivity of 3ºC per doubling of CO2 concentration (or 0.75ºC per W/m²) gives an expected temperature increase of 0.67ºC. That’s amazingly close, I’d say. Close enough that you can certainly be confident of the relationship between CO2 and temperature over the last 36 years given that the other positive and negative feedbacks more-or-less cancel each other out.
  9. How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
    Re: Gail Thanks for the video link (nice site, BTW; I've read your posts on the issues with the trees...I see much the same patterns here in the Midwest). Cox is spot-on in regards to the protective effects (thus far) of the global dimming the video documents. This post covers that fairly well. Thus, as we clean up our emissions and therefore the air, we restore more fully the true heating capability of the sun, masked to some degree for decades. Add in a wakening sun (coming out of its dormancy as it climbs to the next solar maximum... As to your last question, no. Arctic amplification of the high latitudes is the primary driver here. Romm over at Climate Progress touches on it in posts here, here and here as well (see also this related post). Basically, the warming of the Arctic, shifting of the polar jet and the expansion of the Hadley cells has reached the point where the entire circulation patterns of the northern hemisphere are being reorganized. The world we were born into will not resemble the world we will leave behind. But everything's hunky-dory as long as the Bills don't win the Super Bowl*... *OK, wasted a lot of time looking for a vid on that so hear's the quote:
    Smoking Man: "What I don't want to see is the Bills winning the Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen." Third Man In Black: "Could be tough, sir. Buffalo wants it bad." Smoking Man: "So did the Soviets in 80." Third Man In Black: "What? You saying you rigged the Olympic hockey game?" Smoking Man: "What's the matter? Don't you believe in miracles?" Fourth Man In Black: "The boss gave the Russian goal tender a little pre-game good luck pat on the back. Unseen novacaine needle on a bogus wedding ring. Goalie's a little slow on the stick side, 4-3 home team." Smoking Man: "Payback's a bitch, Ivan."
    Smoke 'em if ya gots 'em... The Yooper
  10. We're heading into an ice age
    Henry Justice - " In Greenland, eight WW2 bombers from the "lost squadron" were found in 1986 under 267 feet of ice. How's that for melting glaciers? I didn't take the rest of the article seriously." Yeah, heard that one before. And the one about the research station being buried under many feet of snow, and having to be dug out. Please note that the center of the Greenland Ice sheet is at high elevation, is very cold and is still accumulating ice. The coastal regions where the glaciers meet the sea, are not, and are rapidly melting. The loss of ice at the coast far exceeds the gain from snowfall at high elevation, this is why the Greenland ice sheet is losing many billion of tonnes of ice every year.
  11. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Thanks for doing this Daniel, very much appreciated.
  12. We're heading into an ice age
    Henry Justice @198 - "Also, I checked the worlds annual mean temperature charts. Not much of a visual upward slant in temperatures everywhere I looked world wide for the last 50 years. The urban site temps were not used as they are unreliable. So upward and downward wiggles appear all but natural variations. Look for yourself and you be the judge!" Okay. Comparing all the temperature records Henry, the three surface temperature records and both satellite records all show warming. Where have you been looking?.
  13. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Archiesteel: @ghornerhb: I counted at least twelve logical fallacies and outright fabrications in your post. Please stop posted well-debunked junk science and unfounded accusations, thanks! It'd be nice if one of our resident "skeptics" took the time to debunk the obvious falsehoods in comments like ghornerhb's, for a change. Y'know, just to demonstrate that they have a fundamental respect for science and rationality. I've never seen that happen, as far as I can recall.
  14. It's not bad
    #95: "it would be helpful if you understood my position ..." Considering that you started here with buzzwords like 'catastrophic' and 'hysteria', you haven't exactly made your position clear. Nor have you provided any evidence to support that position.
  15. Climate sensitivity is low
    #67: "Therefore my calculation is correct," Since no new information other than a transfer function was involved, what exactly did you calculate? And given that you started with "Well, let's suppose there is ... ", even that is cast in some doubt by your own presentation. A sensitivity calculation that does not match the observed changes in temperature isn't worth much. But you'll likely deny those observations as well. So the only logical result of this latest exposition is that there's some grand unknown force operating beyond our ability to influence or even measure. A fine science, that, as it is ultimately not falsifiable. But the truth is out there ... .
  16. It's not bad
    @Nederland: why bring hyperbole up, then? Again, the science is quite sound - climate sensitivity is very likely to be within the 2.5-4.5C range. If you don't believe this, then you have to provide concrete, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary.
  17. It's not bad
    #94: Considering that hyperbole is enough to convince you of the invalidity of a theory I never said that hyperbole was enough to convince me of the invalidity of a theory. In fact, I never said that I that AGW theory was invalid. I think it would be helpful if you understood my position before posting.
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    When the trend is more important than the value, precision is more important than accuracy. High accuracy with low precision can lose the trend in the measurement noise. The trend is more important than the absolute value when determining climate sensitivity. Academic inertia is countered with new, independently validated, empirical observations and/or new explanations that better describe the observations not conspiracy notions.
  19. We're heading into an ice age
    @Henry: too bad your theory isn's supported by observation, which means it's likely bunk. Oh, and you don't get to choose which temperature records you want to use, and which ones you don't. That's called cherry-picking, and though it might be the contrarian's favorite activity, it doesn't hold much weight in a scientific discussion. The "2012online" site is a joke, while your last link is to a gmail message. Fail. Simply put, there is no indication that a new ice age is emerging. You should spend less time on pseudoscience site and more time reading the articles here. You'll learn a lot.
  20. We're heading into an ice age
    Henry, Try reading the entry you are replying to, including the intermediate version. The increased heat retention from the enhanced greenhouse effect is an order of magnitude larger than the decreased heat from a return to Maunder minimum levels of solar activity. As for "urban records are unreliable", refer to argument #6 which is linked at the top of the left column.
  21. It's not bad
    @Nederland: there is plenty of hyperbole on the denier side, with accusations of planned genocide and conspiracy theories involving a secret cabal of scientists and world government, etc. Considering that hyperbole is enough to convince you of the invalidity of a theory, will the blatant and repeated examples on the denier side turn you off of their position as well? In any case, hyperbole in itself is not a logical fallacy, neither are ad hominem if you don't use them in order to attack someone's credibility. The sentence "2+2=4, you arse!" may be uncouth and rude, but it's mathematically correct...
  22. Climate sensitivity is low
    @BP: "That is, the time constant τ has no effect other than introducing a delay in this case - or an additive constant, if we look at it the other way around. It has no influence on the trend whatsoever." That's nonsense: a delay will in effect raise the temperature of the system, as the sun continues to send energy. Like RW1 and co2isnotevil in another thread, you seem to forget this is a dynamic system, and that power input is constant.
  23. We're heading into an ice age
    The historical record indicates that we are now in a repeat Dalton like minimum (called Landscheidt). This is expected to last through solar cycle 25. However, around 2015 or so, its expected that the solar gauss will fall below 1500. Then the sunspots may wink out completely. It is further predicted that a new Maunder like minimum will then begin. So, global cooling has, in fact,begun and will last most likely for the next 70 or 80 years. See this site: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/61 Also, I checked the worlds annual mean temperature charts. Not much of a visual upward slant in temperatures everywhere I looked world wide for the last 50 years. The urban site temps were not used as they are unreliable. So upward and downward wiggles appear all but natural variations. Look for yourself and you be the judge! See this site:http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.html In Greenland, eight WW2 bombers from the "lost squadron" were found in 1986 under 267 feet of ice. How's that for melting glaciers? I didn't take the rest of the article seriously. See this site: http://www.2012online.org/2012research/iceage/ For the new little ice age that's emerging now: see this site: mail.google.com/mail/hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d1de941be48ea3
  24. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @ghornerhb: I counted at least twelve logical fallacies and outright fabrications in your post. Please stop posted well-debunked junk science and unfounded accusations, thanks!
  25. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    @adrian smits: except the temperature has increased by more than 1/8th of a degree, and it has done so in mostly in the last 50 years (not 150). Right now, the increase (about 0.8C) falls right within the 2.5-4.5C climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, a fact no denier has been able to disprove (though many have tried).
  26. Climate sensitivity is low
    Berényi - "Provided of course τ is not larger than several decades" - many of them (the feedbacks) have time constants longer than this. I listed a few (certainly not an exhaustive list) in this post. I'm not a specialist in this field - I'm certain that other feedbacks with fairly long time constants could be added.
  27. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @co2isnotevil: discussing the reliability of measurements (never mind that different measurements provide pretty much the same picture) is off-topic, and belongs in another thread. Of course, when one makes his own climate simulation tool, one can get all kinds of results. Until your tool has been validated by others, we have now way of knowing how accurate it is. As for your conspiracy theories on publishing scientific papers, they are the hallmark of the pseudo-scientific quack. If your theory is good, it will stand up on its own. The fact that you have yet to publish it makes me think you are simply afraid it will get thoroughly rebutted, and you'd rather keep your very subjective view of the science intact. Sorry. It is up to you to prove what you claim. Right now, we are all a little skeptical about your claims, and with good reason.
  28. Climate sensitivity is low
    Berényi - "satellite lower troposphere temperature anomalies are not reliable either": Please keep in mind that this cuts both ways - if the records are not as reliable as we would like (which you have really not established, mind you), any errors could go in either direction, so claiming temperature measurements are bad (which should be discussed here, really) does not establish that warming isn't happening.
  29. Berényi Péter at 11:57 AM on 30 December 2010
    It's not us
    #13 muoncounter at 11:33 AM on 30 December, 2010 Not sure why you're mixing your aerosols with your CO2 sensitivity. If you gave a thought to it, you'd be absolutely sure. BTW, the other thread is continued here.
  30. Berényi Péter at 11:50 AM on 30 December 2010
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #57 Albatross at 08:23 AM on 30 December, 2010 There are other issues with your argument, but I have very little patience to deal with misinformers. Vague handwaving when confronted with facts & logic is exactly the kind of behavior characteristic of misinformers, isn't it? Regardless, this thread is not about climate sensitivity, so we should move that discussion to the appropriate thread. That's right. Cont'd here.
  31. Berényi Péter at 11:40 AM on 30 December 2010
    Climate sensitivity is low
    #57 Albatross at 08:23 AM on 30 December, 2010 under Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010? I see that you are failing to differentiate between Charney feedbacks (transient climate response, Gregory and Forster 2005) and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Annan and Hargreaves, and others, show the PDF for EQS dropping off sharply below about 2.5 C. (On moderator's advice discussion started there is continued here) Well, let's suppose there is a first order low pass filter between "forcing" and "climate response" (lower troposphere temperature anomaly). If we apply a small step-like forcing ΔF to a climate system in equilibrium and the long term temperature anomaly response is ΔT = βΔF, than β is said to be the equilibrium sensitivity, right? The impulse response function of the filter in this case is (β/τ)e-t/τ for t > 0, zero otherwise, where t is the time variable and τ is a time constant characteristic to the relaxation time of the system. The response to a step-function is of course β(1-e-t/τ). Now, let's suppose the forcing is increasing linearly with time (instead of kicking in in a step-like fashion). With CO2 more or less this is the case, that is, ΔF = ft, where f ~ 0.006 year-1, if unit of forcing is CO2 doubling. The relation seems to hold pretty well at least during the last 70 years. The response of the low pass filter above to such a forcing is βf(t-τ). That is, the time constant τ has no effect other than introducing a delay in this case - or an additive constant, if we look at it the other way around. It has no influence on the trend whatsoever. Provided of course τ is not larger than several decades, that is, the pre-industrial flat part of the CO2 forcing curve has negligible effect beyond the start of satellite era (late 1978). Therefore my calculation is correct, the climate sensitivity is considerably less than 2°C (per CO2 doubling), for the reasons I've stated in the other thread. BTW, I think it is even lower, because satellite lower troposphere temperature anomalies are not reliable either. Back-calculation of temperature from narrow band radiances depends heavily on the atmospheric model used, especially on fine details of water vapor distribution, which is neither measured nor modeled properly. On top of that all climate variables behave like pink noise even in the unforced case, that is, they have large spontaneous fluctuations on all scales (this is characteristic of systems in a state of self-organized criticality).
  32. It's not us
    From a comment here. "industrial aerosol emissions are mitigated somewhat during the last three decades. Therefore the actual climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide should be considerably less" Not sure why you're mixing your aerosols with your CO2 sensitivity. But if, by mitigated, do you mean that the ongoing increase in the magnitude of annual CO2 emissions of +0.67 Gtons/year worldwide somehow indicates a slowdown?
  33. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archdiesteel, The data comes from isccp.giss.nasa.gov and I plotted the graphs from my climate simulation tool, CSIM, which integrates hierarchically gridded modeling with verification from satellite data, paleo data and a whole lot more, including replicating much of the ISCCP tool chain for processing weather satellite images where I use HITRAN 2008 driven 3-d atmospheric modeling, rather than the simple heuristics used by ISCCP, for extracting equivalent temperatures from IR brightnesses. The data in these plots is directly from the ISCCP processed, D2 data set and not from my processed DX data. I only subtracted out the bias in the first plot, although my analysis of the DX data (after recalibration) for months around where NOAA-14 transitions to NOAA-16 validated the profile of the bias. As I said in a deleted post, Rossow privately acknowledged this error and said it would eventually be fixed. For some reason, this rather large error has never been fixed or put in the errata, even though later reported errors have. I first brought this to his attention over 3 years ago. At the time, I even complained that I had seen some people using his data misinterpret the data anomaly as an anomalous warming trend. It's my understanding that many more are using this data now. New data based on 10 km sampling is supposed to be forthcoming, and I have been told that the error should be fixed, but the new data seems to be delayed. Regarding Biblio's comment. Anomaly analysis increases precision at the expense of accuracy, which is not the right direction to go. The even bigger problem is that you can't discriminate between anomalous data (meaning bad data) and an anomalous trend. The problem here is that the one month big anomaly that arose because of a baseline shift manifests itself as anomalous warming trend. Regarding publishing. Publishing in a 'legitimate' climate related publication is horribly stacked against anyone going counter to the consensus, that's not to say that I don't have a plan ...
  34. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Why don't we just look at the record for signs of forcing? Since the end of the last mini ice age we have warmed about 8ths of a degree.Our carbon dioxide has gone up about 50% the last 150 years so we should be seeing half the warming we would get with a doubling of c02.So I am assuming about an additional 8ths of a degree of warming with a full doubling of our c02.This theory assumes no natural variation in our climate and no tipping points either.Lets just pretend they cancel each other out for the sake of this discussion.Some how 8ths of a degree isn't that scary.
  35. We're heading into an ice age
    Hey, those crystals might just align one day. Since you're the one 'in pharmaceuticals', party on, dude!
  36. We're heading into an ice age
    Re: muoncounter (195) Sounds like another variant of Hapgood's crustal displacement mythos.
  37. How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
    I watched this movie: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/12/insidious-soup.html about global dimming. Peter Cox of the UK MET office seems to thing it is (still) playing a significant role in suppressing rises in temperature that would otherwise be much higher. My question is: Could it be that (part of) the disparity in warming between the arctic temps and the lower latitudes is due to more global dimming clustered around the equator as opposed to cleaner air around the poles??? I would appreciate any thoughts! thanks, Gail
  38. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Your post is full of many wholly wrong, trite misunderstandings and baseless accusations. If you are interested in improving your knowledge on this general topic, please read through this site and study the primary sources available elsewhere. Please post your questions in their relevant areas and curtail the conspiracy notions. Otherwise, don't bother complaining when the moderator deletes your comments.
  39. Temp record is unreliable
    Re: Rovinpiper (137) Sorry, I no longer work in the Earth Sciences fields. In pharmaceuticals now, living where I want to live instead of doing the work I wanted to do & hating where I was living (Washington, DC). If you want to chat via email, send it to John Cook here at Skeptical Science & he'll forward it to me. The Yooper
  40. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Re: Greg While I wasn't there to hear it directly and indeed have only heard about it anecdotally, I applaud you for the courage of your convictions. That is a rare thing in this world we live in. If only more had the stones to do so... I'm minded of the words of Martin Niemöller:
    "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
    Let us go and do likewise. Else the end result be the same. The Yooper
  41. CO2 lags temperature
    Unfortunately, this article is in need of some serious revision -Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles -CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone <---weak reasoning! -CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet These points are about as logical as "collect underpants > ? > profit!", where the '?' here is analogous to the middle point above. Obviously change in orbital cycles alone does not account for all temperature fluctuation, and neither does orbital fluctuations + CO2. There are many feedbacks. As horrible as it may sound, you can't win them all. CO2 may or may not be causing modern day warming, but if you think you can spin the fact that causation is reversed historically into proof that CO2 is causing warming you're delusional. At the least you should provide some further links to back up the middle point, but really what needs to be done is to change the article to concede that yes, historical causation does support the skeptical side, but may or may not be relevant now that CO2 concentration is being altered by humans as well as the carbon cycle. To claim anything more is extremely disingenuous.
  42. Temp record is unreliable
    Thanks Yooper, Hey I was at the University of Michigan Biological Station this June and July, and I toured the Upper Peninsula a bit. Do you do research in Michigan?
  43. We're heading into an ice age
    #192: Perhaps this is a reference to the Chile earthquake? If so, the numbers are way out of any realm of possibility. Of course, there have been lots of large earthquakes in recent history; no ice age yet. Here's one that explains why such an axis shift did not, nay, cannot happen.
  44. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Ok folks, you do realize all this hyperbole is over less than one degree C of possible temperature variation don't you? Wouldn't that small a rise fall into the "plus or minus" catagory? Records have only been kept for 114 years, so "warmest in recorded history" is rather meaningless! All this is based on one sentence added to the initial IPCC report by UN policymakers (not by the scientists). Even the UN admits the reports are in response to computer simulations, not real world data. Weather satellites and weather balloon data never supported those simulations, yet we now have cottage industries popping up because of all this unsubstantiated "what if" blathering! Al Gore's film was shot down by his main piece of evidence (Vostock ice core samples show 800 year lag from temp rise to CO2 level rise) and by the British courts who ruled there were 9 major flaws in the film (not to mention the large number of prominent scientists counted among the skeptics). As a lay-person, I've been looking at everything presented by both side of the argument. The evidence is supportive of natural climate change (and now would seem to support the possibility of global cooling again). Have none of you AGW proponents been the least suspicious as to why governments are pushing for rules that require massive new taxes so they can "deal" with the so-called "problem?" Do any of you remember the global cooling scare of the 1970's? Many of the same scientists are involved in the current warming debate... Ah well, keep those government grants comming. They would dry up without some life threatening problem that needs decades of research!
    Moderator Response: Your claims have already been addressed elsewhere on this site. Please review this site's list of skeptic arguments or use the search function and place your individual comments in the appropriate thread. Future off-topic posts will be deleted per the comment policy.
  45. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Thanks to all for the kind words. This index is for all of you. If there are any favorites, please save them for off-line perusal, as relying upon the Archives to always find them is a bit like storing your computer files in the "to be deleted" bin. As to the actual reasons for the limbo status of the posts, others have commented already. Not my place to offer up further on that. If anyone finds any of the posts between August 2008 and March 2010 let me know so I can append them to this index. I delved as deeply into the Archives as is possible, I believe (I found about a dozen more posts than the Archive search function did).
  46. We're heading into an ice age
    There are lots of scientists who study and monitor the shape of the earth. Here is an example: http://geodesy.unr.edu/ There is no mention by them of any sudden changes in 2010.
  47. It's cooling
    BP @93, "about 25% of its supposed increase in 55 years (since 1955)" And the 0-2000 m OHC decreased by that about amount in two months in early 2006. Yet, the long-term trend is up my friend. Funny how you ignore that fact. And worse still, I know that you know better BP. Also, please make up your mind. Earlier on this thread you correctly stated that the planet is warming and that TCR is about 2 C, now you seem to be trying to suggest that the warming is an artifact of an alleged faulty data record.
  48. We're heading into an ice age
    Don't worry. You are one hundred percent wrong. Please read up on Milankovitch cycles and solar variability, and how the increased heat retention from enhancing the greenhouse effect overwhelms it. Do you have a reference for the orbital tilt claim?
  49. wonderingmind42 at 10:36 AM on 30 December 2010
    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Andy, Volume too loud--agreed wholeheartedly. Attacks on AGU: That's what prompted me to post a hasty and again-too-high-volume "open letter" the Friday night after, trying to get in front of the story trying to prevent the echo chamber (seeded by Steven Mosher, reposted several other blogs) from painting the AGU as activist, using the brush of my personal actions. Having listened to my speech again since then (don't know if you heard, but I had exactly 11 hours to prepare it due to a HD crash at 1 am), I think it doesn't justify the mega-ness of my mia culpa. I was desperate to avoid being used against AGU, hadn't listened to the speech since I gave it, and couldn't remember the text beyond the first wild-eyed paragraph. Having since transcribed it (available at www.gregcraven.org), I stand by the message. My only regret is that it was so strongly given that I'm sure it turned off many of the people who most needed to hear the message. I was indeed intending to shock--and even risk pissing off--but ended up pretty much slapping people in the face. Like a face slap to a roomful of absorbed, focused people in a burning building, it pisses off most of them, but a few of them say "thank you for waking me up to the larger threat" and get moving. That's my hope, anyway. Staring at the text finished just minutes before I went on stage, I was faced with the choice of giving it, or just winging it, which I could have ably done (I do it regularly when my lessons plans are rendered moot by some occurrence at the tardy bell). I made a conscious decision about which regret I'd rather risk: regretting that I'd gone too far, or regretting that I had my one chance to speak to the people that are our last realistic hope, wishing I had said more. I chose the former, and don't regret it. Especially since it seems the contrarian attempt to damage the AGU using me seems to have not gotten any traction. Hope this helps. And I'd humbly suggest that before making such a strong yet simplified assessment--especially when agreeing with an attack article that deliberately distorts and manipulates ("the face of the new AGU," "the first step to violent action," leaving his own misstatements about what I said--even when notified--rather than actually quoting the speaker)--that you closely read the posting you are agreeing with. If you've already done that and still think that telling your readers you agree with Steven Mosher (comprising 30% of your assessment of the session) is what you really intend to convey, then perhaps you might want to consider whether skepticalscience.com is the place that is the best match for your opinions. It's one thing to say I was a shameful spectacle, and quite another to agree with the contents and tone of Mosher's article, which you link to. I'd suggest that your readers perhaps deserve better. Respectfully, Greg Craven
  50. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Dana1981 #2 Ahh. Most popular descriptions of the greenhouse effect give the strong impression that the H20 molecule has a stronger greenhouse effect than the CO2 molecule - like CH4 (methane). I don't remember seeing it clarified elsewhere that H20 has, although a weaker greenhouse gas, a bigger effect due to its much greater abundance. The various Wiki articles make this less than clear too.

Prev  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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