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  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  2136  2137  2138  2139  2140  2141  2142  Next

Comments 106701 to 106750:

  1. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Joe Blog, Ah ok, sorry I didn't see the earlier post. I don't think RSVP gets this concept though: "This air has no GHG, so it cannot radiate heat." "And afterwards, without any "green house gas", it would be interesting to know how exactly it should emit heat???"
  2. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Something I've noted in these discussions, where the Earth is noted to be 30+ degrees C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases, is that there is an implied "...all other things unchanged" in the thought experiment. Yes, without greenhouse gases, the oceans would freeze, increasing the planetary albedo, making the surface considerably colder. Yes, the lapse rate would be purely convective/conductive, rather than largely driven by IR and latent heat. So the 30+ degrees is likely a considerable underestimate. But the take-home point of this thought experiment is simply that: It would be a lot colder without greenhouse gases. The radiative greenhouse effect is real, observed, and part of the current climate.
  3. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    e at 08:21 It is totally hypothetical, o course all gases/matter emit and absorb LW, some a lot better than others. Nothing wrong with pondering. I do take issue with unphysical descriptions when they arnt stipulated as such myself, as i have further up the thread.
  4. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    David, Jennifer Marohasy - In Summary
    Jennifer has a Bachelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland, worked for twelve years as a research scientist for the Queensland government based in Kenya and Madagascar
    Pardon any confusion from me not clarifying that her scientific expertise and the breadth of her experience do not validate her claims. The purpose of presenting it was to show that she isn't just some random incompetent tapping out blog entries. HR, Arguing semantics does not further a discussion. I am also curious to see any empirical evidence for using the more precise terminology. TOP, Yes, Dr. Marohasy was explicitly denying the existence of any greenhouse effect that keeps the planet's surface ~30°C warmer, not just "so called AGW". The topic of this page was responding to that specific claim. What relevance does
    I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
    have to global warming, much less to a discussion about the greenhouse effect? Did you just type "clouds" into a bible search engine & post the first entry it returned? RSVP, "The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." - Philipus Aureolus Paracelsus This concept has been repeatedly hashed out in every relevant page on this site, such as Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant. Please respect the moderation of this site and discuss this over there. Solar energy does not enter the atmosphere through convection. Convection is the movement of molecules within fluids. In the realm of thermodynamics, it is heat transfer through the movement of molecules within fluids. Solar energy enters the atmosphere through radiation, is absorbed by the planet and radiated in a different wavelength band that is more readily moved in the atmosphere through convection. Heat leaves the atmosphere in the exact same method, with or without greenhouse gases, through radiation. The fact that water is wet is also rarely mentioned.
  5. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    The DMI temperature graph shows pronounced summertime cooling in what should the time of year when c02 should have its greatest impact. All other things being equal. This last summer was one of the coolest since 1958. These guys in Denmark actually measure temperature all over the region up there as opposed to GISS who who extrapolate from 1200 miles away!You can find the graphs at WUWT.
  6. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Joe Blog and RSVP, All matter above 0 degrees K emits thermal radiation. The atmosphere will continue emitting radiation into space whether GHG's are there or not. You are tying yourself in knots imagining unphysical scenarios, please stop.
  7. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    RSVP at 06:58 AM This is something ive also pondered... but its one o those things that is dependent on the exact makeup of the hypothetical atmosphere... If we just strip out the persistent ghg and assume all others stop absorbing and emitting(so no O3 creation through UV and water vapor no longer interacts with long wave) The amount of energy reaching the surface would increase substantially, due to the UV and NO CLOUDS... Now, the Q is, as the surface interacts with SW, water vapor will still convect, and there will be convection through conduction with the surface, there will be no way for the energy to escape, and over time i would imagine it would lead to a relatively homogeneous atmosphere.(im not even going to try and think about adiabatic compression possibilities, driven by latitudinal T differentials etc) The energy transfer being through conduction would mean it couldnt get above the maximum surface T... but thats the max, not the average, it would conduct back down to the surface when it was colder than the atmosphere, so it would probably end up with a stratified profile at night, but moderate energy loss, although no where near like radiation does, with convection working against conduction back down to the surface.... This is headache material... i dont know...
  8. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    The fact that CO2 and water vapor emit energy as easily as they absorb energy is rarely mentioned. What a surprising remark, really quite remarkable, even stunning. Somehow RSVP has failed to note that this entire site, hundreds of others like it regardless of stance, the IPCC and indeed vast amounts of research conducted by a large army of scientists all hinge precisely on the notion that CO2 and water vapor absorb and emit energy. Here we have the notable phenomenon of a person who visits this site nearly daily, is not the slightest bit shy about making assertions, but now says this matter of absorption and emission of energy by CO2 and water vapor is "rarely mentioned." Apparently, during all this time and through endless comments RSVP has not even understood what the fundamental discussion is about, as is I suppose hinted at by his remark above.
  9. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Adrian smits: This post provides data that shows the Arctic is getting warmer as expected. You suggest that the Arctic is getting cooler. Can you provide a link to data or are you just trolling?
  10. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Please excuse me for sounding stupid but isn't the sun the supplier of heat and co2 the catalyst or blanket that intensifies the suns rays? In the arctic winter there is no sun at all for six months.Is there a contradiction here? 6 months 0f 24 hr sunshine and its getting cooler year after year just when c02 should be having its biggest impact........ anyone.
  11. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    @Moderator: Sorry for jumping the gun, I should have waited for your moderation first.
  12. Despite uncertainty, CO2 drives the climate
    Ramanathan's done some work on aerosols, including black carbon. See figure 2. His work indicates black carbon forcing (warming effect) has been underestimated by the IPCC somewhat and aerosols (cooling effect) have also been underestimated. No effect on CO2 or other greenhouse gas forcing estimates. Black Carbon and Global Warming
  13. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Chris G #31 ""...you were part of the debate." Someone has to hold the line.
  14. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Moderator #42 "This line of reasoning would be more appropriately discussed on the waste heat thread." This is not about waste heat. I am talking about solar energy heating the Earth, and that portion of heat entering the atmosphere via convection. This mechanism has been around since creation, and if there were no GHGs, it is hard to see exactly how this heat would be released by the atmosphere as hot air rises. The fact that CO2 and water vapor emit energy as easily as they absorb energy is rarely mentioned.
  15. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    @RSVP: the more you act in such a childish manner, the more you admit you don't actually have an argument.
    Moderator Response: Let's try and take the high road here. We value your contributions here too much to lose some to the deletion bin.
  16. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    RSVP @ #40 Now you're playing games. You know very well that Michael is entirely consistent. YOU are the one who keeps changing his argument in an attempt to score points. Some CO2 is helpful, too much CO2 is detrimental. Comments like your last do not contribute to the conversation and appear intended to annoy.
  17. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    michael_sweet "Most of the surface heat would be radiated into space without warming the atmosphere." What about convection? Can the atmosphere not pick up a little heat this way. And afterwards, without any "green house gas", it would be interesting to know how exactly it should emit heat???
    Moderator Response: This line of reasoning would be more appropriately discussed on the waste heat thread. Please take further comments on this subject there.
  18. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    @RSVP at 40: if that's not flamebait, I don't know what is. All kinds of things are necessary for life, but become pollution if there's too much of it, or in the wrong place. Ozone comes to mind.
  19. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    michael_sweet "In the absence of CO2 the ocean would freeze." Now you are saying CO2 is necessary for life. Can you make up you mind? Not to long ago you were telling me it was pollution.
    Moderator Response: Please refrain from being purely argumentative. Feel free to disagree, but do so in a positive, non-baiting fashion.

    If you want to discuss the matter of CO2 as a pollutant, try "Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant"
  20. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Re: TOP (36)
    "Interesting you bring up Creationists. They also believe in global warming. Read Genesis 9:13."
     Try Revelation 8:8 and translate the mountain as a phrase describing the amount of fossil-fuel-derived CO2 absorbed as bolus by the oceans. The effects on the sea that follow are directly related. Too bad we don't have a dedicated post on this topic to properly discuss it. The Yooper
  21. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    TOP, leaving aside meta-denial, you're speaking of saturation, presumably. Unfortunately that's insufficient to qualify as the miracle we need.
  22. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    TOP @Phila Interesting you bring up Creationists. They also believe in global warming. Read Genesis 9:13. You've managed to cram a surprising number of logical errors into a very brief comment. First, the Bible is not a reliable guide to what "creationists" believe, since different creationists interpret it in very different ways. Second, Genesis 9:13 has nothing to do with climate science, obviously. Third, modern creationists -- of the activist type, especially -- have had a pretty strong tendency to deny AGW. Perhaps you're taking a stab at the tired old "AGW is a religion" pseudo-argument. If so, this is an exceptionally incoherent version of it. If not, it's hard to see what your point is, or how it's relevant.
  23. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    JMurphy... re: TIS re: Moberg's hockey stick... We might say that Moberg is playing field hockey. Mann was definitely a straight ice player in 1998, but had clearly broadened his venue by 2003. People get WAY too caught up on Mann 1998. That was 12 years ago. Science has moved on. But, as John has pointed out here, we should all hope that Mann 1998 is more accurate and that there is less sensitivity to CO2.
  24. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    chriscanaris: I think we can be too quick to dismiss the role of clouds. This sounds reasonable, until one starts wondering who "we" are, and what "dismiss" and "too quick" actually mean (especially in the context of this post). Are you claiming that climate scientists have dismissed the role of clouds? Prematurely, no less? If so, I'd love to see the evidence that informs this opinion. An explanation of how this accusation relates to preindustrial warming would also be helpful. As for "uncertainty," the point that it doesn't inherently support a "skeptical" or inactivist stance apparently can't be made often enough. Frankly, comments like this one strike me as similar to what Elizabeth Kubler-Ross called "bargaining."
  25. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    @Bibliovermis Thanks for the link. I think this response is talking past what was meant in the links you gave. In the links you gave the writer is incorrectly assigning the term greenhouse effect to the so called AGW and not to the total effect of the atmosphere on regulating the temperature on the surface where people live. The OP on this discussion is then taking that incorrect use of the term greenhouse effect very broadly to mean the effect of the entire atmosphere on maintaining surface temperature. @doug_bostrom Glad you posted that graph again. It's the global thermostat. The hotter it gets, the less the effect of CO2. The colder it gets, the stronger the greenhouse effect. @Phila Interesting you bring up Creationists. They also believe in global warming. Read Genesis 9:13.
  26. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    The Inconvenient Skeptic wrote : "Calling a Moberg chart the Hockey Stick is very imprecise." Not really, especially if you look at the original for the complete 2000 year period. I look at it this way : the original Mann 98/99 hockey-stick was brand new and had a pretty straight handle. Since then, it has appeared from just about every consequent study using all sorts of proxies and so is a little bit older, over-used, over-familiar and (in every respect) a bit battered - so that its handle is now less straight and even. It's still going strong, though, and still recognisably a hockey-stick, especially with that steep upward blade at the end.
  27. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    RSVP, Maybe this will help you with the time scale question. Oh, look, there is a link to this site near the bottom of the first page where this topic has been covered before, and you were part of the debate.
  28. Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
    Garethman, The problem with AGW is that it is a very, very slow train wreck. The changes from one year to the next are not noticable. Even most of the changes from one decade to the next are difficult to observe: sea ice is an exception. It takes careful observations over 20 or more years to see most of the effects of AGW. People like you who expect sea levels one meter higher tomorrow will always be able to say there is no change. You do not pay attention to the record heat in Russia or the record floods in Pakistan. They are not in your backyard. That does not mean that the changes will not be substantial, expensive and difficult to adapt to. As time goes on the changes are accelerating. Only 20 years ago Lindzen testified in the US Congress that the climate was not changing. Now it is common on this web site for deniers to say everyone knows it is getting warmer, they dispute the cause. If you care about what the world will be like in 30 to 50 years then you need to pay careful attention now. Starting in 30 years to mitigate will be much more expensive than starting now.
  29. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    This post sums up perhaps one of the worst skeptic contradictions. They love to say the MWP was hot, and they love to say the climate isn't sensitive. You can't have it both ways. Humanity Rules raised a valid point in #11 that climate sensitivity isn't identical for different forcings. There's a factor called "efficacy" and in fact it's likely that the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar irradiance than changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases. I discussed this in the Advanced 'climate sensitivity is low' rebuttal. But the bottom line is that the efficacies of different forcings aren't wildly different, so if you're arguing for a hot MWP, you are arguing for a high climate sensitivity, including to CO2.
  30. It's the sun
    @KR: "You've repeated the same arguments over and over despite multiple corrections. At this point I'm out of this discussion." I think this is Ken's strategy: obfuscate, reiterate and ignore other arguments until people are fed up with him and leave, at which point he claims victory. Better to ignore him. It's not as if his arguments will be reused by other "skeptics" anyway...
  31. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Not a complaint, but whenever I here someone say, "the hockey stick", I have to wonder 'Which hockey stick?' Most often, they mean the one from Mann, et al, 1998, and they complain about using tree rings as though the researchers had no idea that there are other things beside temperature which affect tree growth. (Rest assured that they are well aware of the nature of the proxy that they chose.) But that is one study of many, and whether you use tree rings, pollen counts, isotope levels in corals, or other proxies alone or in combination, you still get a hockey stick. Here as a small sample of hockey sticks from other studies. HR, Regarding, "Why would clouds respond the same to CO2 variation in the industrial period as they might have to solar variation in the pre-industrial period?" There will be differences in the pattern of heating, or cooling, depending on the mechanism of the forcing, see the topics on human signature on this site, but, for instance, a collection of water molecules with an opportunity to evaporate does not care whether its energy came in the form of shortwave solar radiation, or longwave emissions from the atmosphere. In the aggregate, you have not presented any reason for things like, in what latitudes the rain bands are, and how much water is locked up in ice sheets, to be determined by things like whether nighttime temperatures are rising more than daytime temperatures. Also, the actual calculations performed, and factors considered, by researchers are exceedingly more complicated than anything presented here; saying that what is here is simplified is telling us what we already know, and doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's like you are trying to obscure the forest with trees.
  32. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    @TIS: "To be specific. The chart shown is Moberg 2005. The hockey stick that is the central point of controversy is the one by Mann in 1998 that was part of the IPCC report." Mann revised his original hockey stick in 2008. Why don't "skeptics" ever talk about that one?
  33. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - Your hypothesis appears to be that an unmeasured amount of TSI, one mis-calculated since the beginning of TSI measurements, is providing a dominant effect on global temperatures rather than CO2 and greenhouse gas accumulation. In other words, that it's the sun, not CO2. The satellite TSI readings appear to have cross-platform calibration issues, as each is self-calibrated to internal standards. This has improved over the years, not to say that it's not a work in progress, but it's improving. Note that the precision, the repeatability of these measures, is extremely good - the accuracy may be off a bit. But high precision means excellent tracking of changes, of deltas in TSI forcing. Now, if there's a linear offset in TSI measures (direct or using sunspots as proxies), as you have argued, there would be a difference in slope between measured TSI responses and temperature over the entire temperature/TSI record, not just the last 60 years. One look at the Temperature vs. Solar Activity chart on the Basic version of this thread will disprove that. I certainly know that all forcings are part of the picture; I'm not certain from your statements that you do. The two lines have separated. The temperature changes correspond to changes in GHG forcings, they do not correspond to changes in TSI. That is entirely supported by the numbers you presented here, as kdkd pointed out statistically - you've just disproven your hypothesis again. You are incorrect on the basis of correlation of ΔT versus ΔForcings, on the magnitude of the TSI changes, and on somehow not crediting the forcings of GHG's. You've repeated the same arguments over and over despite multiple corrections. At this point I'm out of this discussion.
  34. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    chriscanaris, with all due respect, you're missing the point. It's not that there aren't uncertainties about, e.g., cloud albedo feedbacks or whatever. The statement "The MWP was very warm" implies a certain assumption about those feedbacks. Specifically, it implies that positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks by more than we currently expect ... in which case climate sensitivity will be on the higher side of what we expect. You have to be consistent in your argument here. It's not reasonable to assume a high value for climate sensitivity in order to get a large MWP, while also assuming a low value for climate sensitivity in order to minimize the effect of AGW. HumanityRules, the default assumption should be that cloud feedbacks would respond the same way to a warming atmosphere. If you think that differences in how you warm the atmosphere would be large enough to make significant differences in cloud feedbacks, it's up to you to provide evidence for that.
  35. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 02:38 AM on 20 October 2010
    Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    To be specific. The chart shown is Moberg 2005. The hockey stick that is the central point of controversy is the one by Mann in 1998 that was part of the IPCC report. Moberg shows more temperature variation than Mann does on a consistent basis. Many skeptics consider Moberg to be reliable. Mann is the one that irks them. I personally think Moberg does good work. I have reviewed many of his proxy reconstructions and see no problem with them. Calling a Moberg chart the Hockey Stick is very imprecise.
  36. It's the sun
    Two things: first, blatant denier spam such as Howard at 697 should be deleted. Second: KL, I get what you're saying, I guess I just don't see the point you are trying to make. It seems you've lost yourself in your own arguments.
  37. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Just wondering, on your first graph, is CRUTemp NH, but what is exactly this serie? a 12 month mean of CRUTempNH does not rise more than 0.657, according to this: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:12/from:2000 Even that would be too noisy, but on your figure,it's a noiseless signal, and it goes up to about 0.87-0.88 more or less... Anyway, looking again to the first figure, the recent temperature anom. would be about the same as the drop estimated from around 1480-1550 (eyeballing) without a net forcing and in time period somewhat similar to recent anom, a bit higher. What is the reason for this drop?
  38. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Sorry, forgot to credit that transmission image. It's from Global Warming Art.
  39. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    doug_bostrom There is a big difference between exposing chicken on a spinning skewer to a flame for 1 minute and 1 hour.
  40. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Ned #9 Thanks for the explanation. If I understand correctly, sensitivity has to do with the steady state average global temperature as affected by incremental forcing. Using "sensitivity" in this context is odd when what matters is getting the system under control in time.
  41. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    RSVP, Your picture sounds like nonsense because you do not understand the basic science of heat transfer in the atmosphere. Re-read the 200+ posts in the waste heat thread again and see if you can begin to understand it. In the absence of CO2 the ocean would freeze. Most of the surface heat would be radiated into space without warming the atmosphere. The remainder of the atmosphere is capable of radiating heat, just not as efficiently as CO2. The temperature of the atmosphere would be much lower than it is now. Just because your picture is nonsense does not mean that gpwaynes picture is also nonsense.
  42. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Also, I'm really tired of "skeptics" patting themselves on the back for accepting the reality of the greenhouse effect while denying its logical consequences. The basic argument seems to be "When climate scientists say A, B, C, D and E about the greenhouse effect, of course I believe them. It's only when they claim that F follows logically from A through E that I see them as fanatics, liars or dupes." It's a bit like the creationists' equally tenuous distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," where the latter is supposedly some ludicrous extrapolation beyond the evidence, rather than the logical consequence of facts that the creationist claims to understand and accept.
  43. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    RSVP, your question was: "Should'nt sensitivity be related in some way to units of time?" The "Watt" is a measure of power, of energy expressed as a rate, an amount of energy divided by an amount of time, one Joule per second, meaning that sensitivity expressed in Watts is automatically related to units of time.
  44. It's the sun
    KL #700: "KR seems to still not get the fact that a forcing component does not have to be rising to be adding energy to the system." The Sun is constantly 'adding energy to the system'. However, if solar activity remained constant then it would obviously not cause any change to the climate. It is only when there is a change in solar activity (that is, a "forcing") that there is a corresponding change in climate... and then only until a new equilibrium is reached. The same is true of all climate forcings. So no, KR probably 'does not get' that flat forcing factors do not change the climate. Because they don't.
  45. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    doug_bostrom #12 "RSVP, just as an exercise..." My question was directed to understanding the sensitivity of climate, not climate scientists.
  46. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    18.skywatcher Why would clouds respond the same to CO2 variation in the industrial period as they might have to solar variation in the pre-industrial period? While you can measure the direct affect from increasing levels of CO2 or changes in solar irradiance (assuming accurate measurements) you can't really calculate what the feedback responses are. Maybe I'm wrong but these sorts of calculations that John are describing seem to assume simple fedback mechanisms shared by all forcings.
  47. It's the sun
    KR #692 and kdkd #696 Two points: Firstly - KR seems to still not get the fact that a forcing component does not have to be rising to be adding energy to the system. A steady or roughly constant forcing such as F.Solar (say S) will add energy over time as St - a linear increase. Lets say that F.CO2 is linearly rising wrt time (over a short period of say 25 years). Therefore F.CO2 = Kt where K is a constant. F.CO2 will add energy over time as Kt^2/2 - a squared function increase. Both are adding energy. Secondly, the F.CO2 and other component forcings are theoretical and not directly measured - only the combined imbalance is directly measured at TOA. This is supposed to be +0.9W/sq.m. In fact the CERES satellites are measuring +6.4W/sq.m. So this is 'corrected' down by -5.5W/sq.m to the theoretical imbalance. The problem is that not even the 0.9 is being observed in OHC. The wide error bars on aerosol cooling, and other forcing components mean that the mix of components is not really known accurately. I would like to see a combined forcing chart including S-B cooling over time to see what the energy balance is as well. Anyway - I think my point is made - the Solar forcing component 1950 - now is about 0.4W/sq.m - not 0.12W/sq.m as the IPCC chart implies.
  48. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    You appear to be missing some key concepts, RSVP. Baffling, considering how much time you spend arguing here.
  49. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    skywatcher #16 I thought I had said that too on my third paragraph... anyway, if I did not make it clear, I'll rectify it by endorsing what you said now.
  50. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    chriscanaris - why would clouds operate differently in the present day compared to the past? If clouds are a strong negative feedback, we would see far less natural variation than we do in the palaeoclimatic record, be it last 1000 years, or ice ages. There simply haven't been large enough positive natural forcings to allow clouds to operate as a big negative feedback. You'd end up with a palaeoclimate flatter than a Mann et al (1999 vintage) hockey stick shaft...

Prev  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  2136  2137  2138  2139  2140  2141  2142  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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