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  2136  2137  2138  2139  2140  2141  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  Next

Comments 107151 to 107200:

  1. The first global warming skeptic
    chriscanaris @15. You have the jist, but as The Ville suggests, some of the detail is a little awry. Firstly the Sun emits little or no IR radiation; photosynthesis absorbs a lot of visible light (not green, obviously!). Subsequent processes such as respiration convert that energy to vibrational (IR) radiation which the atmosphere can absorb. It is this asymmetry between incoming (visible) and outgoing(IR) radiation that allows the greenhouse effect to function. Burning fuel does not, of course, result exclusively in IR radiation; you may have noticed that gas burners produce blue visible light, log fires yellow and embers red as well as heat.
  2. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    The article "Does Back Radiation Heat the Ocean" referenced by Tom Dayton at 09:18 AM provides a couple of interesting charts. The first one shows the rate at which solar radiation is absorbed as it penetrates below the surface. About 13% of the total energy has been absorbed in the top 1mm, or nearly 25% by the 5cm depth at which the bulk temperature was measured in the experiment under discussion. The second one shows the absorption of the DLR which is totally absorbed in the first 10μm in the skin layer. The skin layer is also where the evaporation process takes place extracting heat in the process. One wonders whilst all theses measurements seem able to be clearly defined on paper just how well it works out in practice with a surface that is generally anything but a millpond. ....
  3. The first global warming skeptic
    chriscanaris, thank you for noticing the age of the paper quoted in my post. I could have found more recent and accurate papers, but I wanted to show that the basic physics is quite old and solid. In the seventies the post WWII huge increase in CO2 emissions had just started and the understanding of the impacts on climate was in its infancy. Honestly, it was too early to call for a radical change in the way we use energy and resources in general. Now we have no excuses. RSVP thank you. As for your question, had you read the paper you would have found the answer (pag. 239): "But such experiment have not been made as yet, and, as they would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal, I have not been in a position to execute them". Never think that scientists are not aware of the problems and limitations of their work.
  4. The first global warming skeptic
    Thanks Phil, that clarifies that issue for me.
  5. jonsblogger1980 at 21:56 PM on 10 October 2010
    Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Perseus asked: "Could this same 40 year lag in increased tempeatures be used as an 'explanation' by a sceptic for the Solar influence which peaked way back in the last century?" Response: "No, the way climate time lag works is when the planet is in energy imbalance (eg - more energy coming in than going out), the planet steadily accumulates heat and warms. As it warms, it radiates more heat out to space until eventually, the energy out equals the energy in and the planet is back in equilibrium. So the way climate time lag works is the planet gradually warms over decades and the energy imbalance gradually shrinks. That's not what we've seen over the last half century. After solar activity peaked in the mid-20th century, the planet's energy imbalance - rather than shrink - has actually increased as CO2 levels have increased." If you look at solar activity, to say it peaked in the mid-20th century you must be referring to sunspot activity. Whilst this is true in absolute terms, the average has continued to rise over the past 50 years, and would suggest the energy imbalance continues, as you have found. Average monthly sunspot activity from 2000-2010 is the highest seen since records began in the 1700s, and there was a rising trend since 1950, only starting to level off in the last few years since the Sun's activity has started to stall. So we could see another 40 years of warming due to the Sun.
  6. The first global warming skeptic
    The Ville @14 asks about emission. A CO2 molecule could "relax" from its excited state emitting a photon of IR, which would obviously be the correct frequency to be absorbed by another molecule: In more technical language: The rules that allow transitions between states in the molecule (known as "selection rules") apply to both absorption and emission. The molecule can also loose energy by collision with other molecules loosing its vibrational(IR) energy by dissipating it into smaller rotational and translational energy. As Riccardo states above, upward conversion of photons is unusual, so this pathway will not lead to photons that can be reabsorbed by CO2 vibrations.
  7. The first global warming skeptic
    I'm not sure you would call it IR energy chris. The plant would retain some of the energy from a visible light photon and re-emit at a less energetic frequency, retaining some of the energy for the processes that it requires to produce glucose etc.
  8. The first global warming skeptic
    Riccardo, Interesting article. Although it's hard to understand why Arrhenius himself did not take charge of experimentation and run these tests for himself.
  9. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, while you're eating, try not to worry about any fillings you might have that are 'polluted' with mercury, or that any fish you might be eating might be 'polluted' by lead from fishing-tackle.
  10. The first global warming skeptic
    Thanks Riccardo - so absorption is the key variable. Clearly then, in burning fossil fuel or biomass, we release IR energy which has been 'absorbed' via photosynthesis (some also sequestered via conversion to fossil fuel) but much more importantly release CO2 which increases absorption of further incoming IR which in remaining IR will cause increased temperature. Interesting looking at Hulbert to see how 'old' the science is. I guess for many folk it's all Climate 101 but it's helpful to get one's mind around the concepts. What's even more interesting is how little of this was in public consciousness back in the seventies (which was when I had my last formal exposure to physics).
  11. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @adelady, Actually your analogy is off. A soup on the stove heats by conduction and then convection whereas the ocean specifically doesn't heat by conduction/convection from the downward LW radiation. Thats why they did the experiment at all. There may be some amount of mixing down of the slightly warmer (but still colder than the bulk) skin due to the LW but according to the RC article, essentially the "warming effect" is one of reduced cooling rather than actual "warming".
  12. The first global warming skeptic
    I like Kooiti Masudas description but have some questions: If you had pure CO2, would photons be emitted and absorbed between the CO2 molecules until a path out of the gas was found? Or is the photon frequency degraded when emitted, to a point where it is no longer the correct frequency to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?
  13. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Glenn #29 Yeah, I'd love to see a public sin-bin, but I suspect that would have counterproductive consequences.
  14. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    #136, #137 Words influence perception, and this ultimately affects social action. For this reason, terminology can make a difference. As I dine, I will henceforth muse how my soft drink is "polluted" with CO2.
  15. The first global warming skeptic
    chriscanaris, the conversion of UV or visible photons to IR is mediated by absorption and heating of something, earth surface or molecules in the atmosphere. You cannot have (to first order) the "upward" conversion, like from visible to UV or IR to visible. The light from the sun contains UV and visible frequencies; the former is absorbed in the stratosphere by ozone, the latter reaches the ground. Both results in warming where they're absorbed. (On passing, Hulburt 1931 pointed out the essential role of ozone in determining the structure of our atmosphere). In a few words, frequencies that are not absorbed retain their characteristics; if they are absorbed, they produce warming and then increase the IR emission.
  16. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    Probably safe to say Chris' immediately local population statistics were not influenced by global warming, more a case of natural variability. :-)
  17. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    I'm surprised he used 12 data points when 2 would have been just as authoritative. Steve Goddard obviously has no pride; this is by no means his first foray into obviously bogus pseudo science.
  18. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    kdkd @22 Perhaps, in an ideal blogosphere world, a deletions policy would show an 'audit trail' of what was deleted and why. However, see my comments to John about Functionality Creep.
  19. The first global warming skeptic
    I'm curious about one thing (evidence of my ignorance, no doubt). While energy is transmitted to the earth in a range of wavelengths, are we right to assume that the same energy retains the same wavelengths once in the troposphere? Presumably some UV energy may convert to IR energy and some visible light to UV. Does anyone have any idea of the extent radiation retains its wavelengths and how much if any impact this has on radiative transfer? For example, visible light becomes co-opted by photosynthesis into glucose which in turn powers the creation of complex carbohydrates, formation of proteins, etc, becoming dissipated through the biosphere. However, much of this would be potential energy which is presumably now in forms which would not affect our radiative budget greatly (or does it?). So what happens with visible light, UV light and other wavelengths?
  20. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    A possibility to improve our ability to follow-up on posts we have made and on-going dicscussions would be to tie reporting of comments to out past activity. Once I am logged in, new comments to threads that I have commented on would be useful. Also, possibly a reply option would be interesting. We can reply to comments rather that simply add more comments at the end. And I can then see all replies to my comments, even for quite old posts. This is important. Some serious comment trails can die just because the participants are only able to blog sporadicaly - my life being a case in point. To have the tools to carry on a slow motion conversation would be great, not just respond to the latest and greatest post. As an old IT guy, let me qualify these suggestions with the caveat. Welcome to the wonderful world of Functionality Creep! Keep up the good work man!
  21. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    chris, all :-) :-)
  22. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Huba Huba John A Really Nice Trend I Like at SS is the diversification of the sources of articles, not just the rebuttals of sceptic arguments. Compare that with the limited range of Authors at WUWT or JoNova for example. Dialog, rather than preachers at the pulpit. An interesting direction might be to invite 'civilised' sceptics to make posts.
    Response: After some email correspondance, I had invited one of our 'regular skeptics' to write a guest post but he baulked at the idea. In his defence, a number of people who've emailed me thoughts about climate have run from the room screaming when I suggested they write a guest blog post.
  23. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    johnd, I wouldn't have a clue if it was an El Nino or La Nina - I was so climate illiterate then! Possibly the fact that my son was born means it must have been an El Nino while my next child was a daughter so you might just be right about the transition from an EL Nino to an El Nina. However, the hotel I'd checked into was called the Gateway which I thought was deeply symbolic - I passed :-) while my colleague who checked into a hotel called The Terminus failed :-(. All very pregnant with meaning :-)
  24. It's aerosols
    This paper probably goes more to the heart of your ponderings, Karamanski: Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives As well, see: Uncertainties in climate stabilization
  25. It's freaking cold!
    Ah, I still can't post in that other thread. I wonder what is wrong with the data on this site that suggests all time record cold was recorded in the following countries during 2010: Cuba, Philippines, Russia, Namibia, Antarctica, Australia, Bolivia from http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm Maybe I am just interpreting that wrong? I mean, at first, I was thinking I was responding to the claim that record lows didn't happen in countries and then I see the claim appears to have shifted to record lows for within an entire country and not just locations. I just got to leave this alone. I find forums and message boards are not functional in general.
    Moderator Response: You are not banned from posting in any threads. You, and everyone else, have your comments deleted when they are off the topic of that particular thread. Most of the threads on this Skeptical Science site are narrowly focused on particular topics. You need to pay attention.
  26. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Something has gone wrong with the comments here... My comment #91 referrs to a different comment #90 from Albatross. I guess when albatross gets back we can salvage some sense with the help of moderators and reconstruct something that makes sense. In the mean time, from memory it seems that Albatross' regression model shows that there's no reasonable justification to perform a quadriatic fit, and that a linear fit is better suited to the data set.
  27. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    chriscanaris at 15:35 PM, taking you mean 1988, of all the memorable events of that October, which would you attribute to the declining El-Nino and which to the emerging La-Nina. ;-)
  28. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    Echoing Sphaerica, I've been carefully watching Sydney's deciduous plants - specifically frangipani and jacarandas. It may be just a subjective impression but they seemed to retain their leaves longer and while the frangipani lost all their leaves, many jacarandas seemed to retain leaf cover through winter. I know the jacarandas bloom earlier further north - I remember distinctly from an early October visit to Brisbane just twenty two years ago to be surprised to see the whole city in bloom. The visit and its timing were memorable for the fact that I passed my psychiatry exams in Brisbane and my son was born a few days earlier :-). Admittedly, I haven't made a conscious effort to watch the timing of the shedding and flowering before this year (but I've been inspired to do so by some of the posts on this blog). The difficulty of course lies in the fact that we tend to look out for anomalies when we worry that something may be going amiss. At any rate, I found evidence of earlier seasonal flowering in some settings here and delayed flowering in other settings here both attributed to warmer springtime conditions. Interesting times indeed.
  29. It's freaking cold!
    I am not denying global warming. I know there are record extreme heat events. That recent spell in Russia was horrible, tens of thousands died. I don't know what is going to happen. Is the tipping point going to be run away global warming? Some 90% of the time for the last million years the earth has been colder than now. The interglacials have been the exception, like minor perturbations. The most stable state appears to be colder than now. I think that finding that melting of the caps immediately preceded glaciation for the last two major swings is interesting. I think I posted it elsewhere, the thread where I think I am still disallowed to post. What is wrong with the Hamaker hypothesis? The noctilucents seem to be a strong indicator that it has merit. Hamaker was apparently unaware of them and yet, their growing in frequency and duration is alarming and greatly supporting John Hamaker's thesis. I think it was Doug who posted a link to a paper purporting to explain how they don't signify any concern of climate change, the one that only used 45 years of their record out of 125 to predict they are basically of no concern. In that paper it also said they have never reached as much extent as when they first appeared. That is totally false. What leads people to give false data, to support the climate change deniers? My understanding is that fossil fuel companies pay millions each year to promote propaganda to keep us from seeking a carbon neutral future. Seen the satellite pictures of the carbon dioxide release we are doing? Who would deny that is not changing the weather, the climate? All in all, I don't know what is going to happen. I do think there is a real possibility that without much warning or set trend, the climate could tip, tip drastically and very possibly to more cold. It appears to be like a higher energy phase state of the planet, triggered by global warming that does not correct itself for perhaps 100,000 years. I don't know. I think any one who says they know what the future holds is not adhering to science. Short term trends do not show tipping, do not show any proclivity for sudden change and yet, such has happened for the planet and they are liable to happen again. I, for one, am concerned enough to have two carbon neutral vehicles, to seek wind and photovoltaics for my electricity production, to farm my own food and live in a place that is recorded as having relatively stable weather right through ice ages. I will leave you to do what you want. I think it borders on being criminal to state you know what is going to happen rather than try to weigh evidence in an attempt to find most likely theories. I wish I were strong enough to get folks off the fossil fuel habit and start respecting this biosphere as our heritage and responsibility but I think we are oh so distracted by the need for money, by the need to make wars to secure the oil and the opium poppies to get more money. We lead a token existence.
    Moderator Response: Don't stuff a single comment with multiple topics, when some of those topics are off topic for the particular post at the top of that particular page. We will simply delete the entire comment--even the part that is on topic. You need to pay attention.
  30. It's aerosols
    While it's not an answer to your questions, there's more useful background information on aerosols at How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling? See also treatments at RealClimate: An Aerosol Tour de Forcing Aerosol formation and climate, Part I Aerosol effects and climate, Part II: the role of nucleation and cosmic rays
  31. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    One thought I'll offer is that you might want to consider moving the recent comments list to somewhere on the home page. Perhaps cut down the recent posts a little bit and then have a recent comments section right after it. The recent comments could just have the commenter name, the name of the post on which they are commenting and then the first sentence of their comment. This would mean that when readers first land here they would see both recent posts and recent comments simultaneously. This will keep threads not on the recent posts list alive by showing if people are still commenting on them. It seems to me that the number of comments submitted that the moderator notes would be more appropriate under a pre-existing post/thread has also increased of late. I believe this is because commenters feel that their comments only have currency if they are submitted under the most recent post. I understand that you have recent comments listed only one click removed from the home page, but each click is the equivalent of another ten mile drive down the information highway. Listing both recent posts and recent comments on the home page is a technique I have seen used in sites ranging from telemark skiing tips to other climate change discussions. It seems to work well for keeping old posts alive and for keeping comments under the appropriate thread. Just a thought. What you have created is outstanding, so this suggestion might be near or in the "Don't mess with success" category. But if you feel that you are telling people more and more often which threads would be more appropriate for their comments, you might give it a try.... Thanks for your superb work here and keep up the high standards.
  32. The first global warming skeptic
    (Excuse me for re-using something I have written elsewhere recently.) Even if absorption is saturated, it does not mean that the greenhouse effect is saturated. It is because molecules absorbing radiation are also molecules emitting radiation. As the concentration of absorber molecules increases, shorter geometrical depth of air becomes enough to attain "effectively full" absorption. Then, if we envisage the atmosphere consisting of "fully absorptive layers", the number of such layers increases. So the number of occurrence of absorption and re-emission increases in the pathway from the ground to the top of the atmosphere. The process results in larger difference of temperature between the surface and the height from where the upward emission escapes to outer space, i.e. greater greenhouse effect. Note that "re-emission" here does not mean that excited absorber molecules simply de-excite. Instead, the energy of absorbed radiation is transferred from absorber molecules to surrounding molecules (not usually absorbers), in other words, increases internal energy of air, or raising air temperature there. Then, part of internal energy is transferred to absorber molecules again, and then these molecules emit radiation according to the local temperature and emissivity of air (which is dependent on concentration of absorber molecules etc.). Thus, air cools by emission of radiation. Because internal energy is involved, greenhouse effect cannot be closed within a limited wavelength range. Radiative processes of all wavelength range (and also convective processes when relevant) must be taken into account together. (Therefore, the "fully absorptive layers" approximation is not useful for quantitative evaluation, regrettably.)
  33. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TTTM, this comment on the RealClimate thread (#28, from J.A. Smith) might help you understand this a little better: "As an oceanographer working on air/sea interaction and mixed layer dynamics, I hope I can clarify this issue somewhat (in fact, I’m at sea right now on the R/P FLIP, gathering data to study wave and mixed layer dynamics, but this is off the point). I think a major aspect of the balance has been glossed over: the ocean is heated mainly by the visible part of the spectrum, the energetic part of the sun’s glare. This penetrates several meters (blue-green can penetrate several 10’s of meters, particularly in the clear water found away from coasts). In contrast, the only paths for heat LOSS from the ocean are infrared (blackbody) radiation and latent heat (evaporation). The sun heats the uppermost few meters; this has to find its way to the actual very thin surface layer to be lost. In equilibrium, then, there is a significan flux toward the surface a few cm under, and the sense of flux from infrared alone has to be significantly upward. Given this, it is quite clear that any reduction in the efficiency of upward radiation (by, say, reflecting it right back down again), will have to be compensated for by increasing the air/sea (skin) temperature difference, hence having a warmer subsurface temperature. This still leaves aside the latent heat flux, which in general accounts for something like half the upward heat flux. The balance is NOT, as portrayed here, between up and down infrared; rather it is downward “visible” (including ultraviolet, even), versus upward NET infrared and latent heat fluxes. Once trapped in the mixed layer, any excess heat makes its way down into the interior via much larger scale processes, including lateral advection and mixed-layer deepening due to wind and wave induced motions. This large-scale vertical redistribution takes a while- decades to hundreds of years- before equilibrium is re-established. The fact that we can already see this is quite remarkable."
  34. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @TTTM, the point is that an increase in the temperature of the top of the skin layer will decrease the difference between it and the bottom of the skin layer, which reduces the heat flow from the ocean to the air above. In other words, the oceans will retains more The fact that the impact of CO2 seems small is deceptive, as the forcing is *added* to that of clouds. The small imbalance means that, on average, the oceans are retaining slightly more heat.
  35. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TimTheToolMan at 13:43 PM, try running an anti-virus scan and see if it finds any unwanted cookies.
  36. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    @johnd Yes, the experiment has some value to demonstrate the effect but you're right in that its not a definitive answer without understanding all the energies at the surface at the time of increased vs decreased LW radiation. Evaporation has the possibility to actually turn the result on its head and its simply not being measured in that experiment.
  37. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Thanks for the reference Tom. Perhaps you're right about "part two". In part one, however, He doesn't get around to addressing the question until the very last section where he briefly starts on conduction as a mechanism of heat transfer and at that point has totally ignored the fact the ocean has a cold skin so his conduction theory is trying to move energy from a colder place to a warmer one.
  38. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    TimTheToolMan at 13:37 PM, I understand what you are seeking in wanting the effect quantified. However I also see the relevance of the clouds being used in this particular experiment to simulate the effects of CO2 is that the clouds could alter the evaporation rate in that the lower loss of heat due to less evaporation could manifest itself as warming of the skin layer.
  39. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Sorry about the wierd posting. For some reason my broweser has refused to refresh until now and suddenly I've got all manner of reples not seen today. I'll go through each as I can.
  40. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    The effect is that of changed skin temperature which they have shown. The theory then goes... the result of that change is decreased heat loss from the ocean. It a two step thing. Simplistically, the skin warms and then the ocean heat cant "cross it" as effectively. What is now missing is the magnitude of the reduction of heat loss as a result of that skin heating. I only bring up the comparison between the LW radiation from the clouds vs LW radiation from CO2 to demonstrate that the effect they measured is very much larger than the effect of CO2. In practice this means that LW radiation from clouds changed the skin temperature by 0.2C whereas the effect of CO2 will be very much smaller than that, perhaps around 0.2/33 = 0.01C. Is that enough of a flux change to account for the ocean heating. Why does everyone think I'm trying to differentiate between different heating mechanisms of CO2 and clouds? Its only relevent to the magnitude of the effect.
  41. It's freaking cold!
    14: "6 reports all within the last 5 months " Look here, where all entries are accompanied by references. Of the 60 entries for all time high temperatures, there were 27 records set within this decade. Of the 60 entries for all time lows, only 2 record lows were set within the decade. Score: 27-2. How's your open-mindedness doing these days?
  42. It's freaking cold!
    Re: Tom Loeber (12, 13) By keeping in mind the Comments Policy when posting (especially the part about posting on the appropriate thread), the vast majority of commenters avoid the Deleted Comments bin. The Yooper
  43. It's aerosols
    Is it possible that the IPCC underestimates the growth of aerosol concentrations from developing countries for the coming century? If aerosol growth is underestimated, then their temperature projections might be too high. And could the cooling effect of aerosols be stronger than climate models suggest?
  44. It's freaking cold!
    Oops. Here is that site I mentioned "Impacts & Causes of the Unusual Cold, Snowy & Stormy 2009~2010 Winter" http://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/ Well, look at that I am not banned but ask me, if I am not allowed to correct my mistakes and point out data that question assumptions here, does that demonstrate tolerance or open mindedness on the part of this web sites managers?
    Moderator Response: You tread dangerous ground here. From the Comments Policy:
    No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticize a person's methods but not their motives."
    I judge this comment in violation of this, but to allow for you to see this and then have a chance to adjust future comments, will allow it to remain for a while.
  45. It's El Niño
    Isn't the El Nino Southern Oscillation showing a long term trend towards stronger and more frequent El Ninos because of global warming? Because I read a myriad of studies suggesting this. But in recent years that trend seems to be dissipating or is too short of a time period to make any meaningful judgements? Is this trend towards stronger and more frequent El Ninos truly manifesting itself or is it just a fluke of nature?
  46. It's freaking cold!
    I notice that LA international airport reported a record cold temperature recently, so did a number of place in San Diego county. Brazil also recorded an historical record cold. I came across 6 reports all within the last 5 months of record cold in a few countries and that does not go into the first half of this year. I don't readily see that mention of 140 year record cold in England. My mention of it is not that it happened but that I had seen it reported. I think this web site is interesting. Seems the data there is well corroborated. Yes, I was banned. Now, lets see if I still am as I hit the Submit button.
  47. It's methane
    Karmanski @6, That graph needs to be updated: [source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/]
  48. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    John/moderator, please delete my posts 90 and 93 as they contain faulty information. Thanks. Sorry for the hassle.
  49. It's methane
    Methane concetrations have stalled int the atmosphere since approximately 1998. Have scientists figured out why? And is melting permafrost contributing enough methane to significantly raise its concentration in the atmosphere yet?
  50. CO2 is not a pollutant
    Another reason CO2 can be considered a pollutant is that it cools the stratosphere(cool stratospheric conditions promote ozone destruction), and delays the recovery of the ozone hole. Is it possible that CO2 could actually worsen the ozone hole?

Prev  2136  2137  2138  2139  2140  2141  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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