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  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  Next

Comments 107651 to 107700:

  1. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    So if the energy required (pick a number) can accumulate in a matter of days, how can an el Nino last for months and months? It doesn't generate its own energy. So where is it coming from, how is it sustained for such a long period, why is it sustained for so long?
  2. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP wrote : "It doesnt take facts; just common sense. Labelling CO2 as a pollutant is absurd. Maybe you can explain why refined petrolium products or coal havent received this qualification right from the get go." So, you're saying that because coal wasn't labelled as a pollutant hundreds of years ago (before the US Supreme Court existed), and because refined petroleum products weren't labelled as pollutants at least a hundred years ago, therefore we can't label anything connected with it as a pollutant now ? Surely not. Perhaps we should still be allowed to disperse raw sewage into rivers, because it wasn't labelled as a pollutant hundreds of years ago ?
  3. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, don't you consider the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill pollution? And what about oil-derived fertilizers flowing in the oceans? Oil, fertilizers, CO2 and whatever, are pollutants if they're in the "wrong" place in sufficient quantities.
  4. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    michael sweet #114 It doesnt take facts; just common sense. Labelling CO2 as a pollutant is absurd. Maybe you can explain why refined petrolium products or coal havent received this qualification right from the get go. This would leave all kind of legal space for the combustion of renewable carbon sources, not to mention the peace of mind to breath with a clear conscience.
  5. The value of coherence in science
    Interestingly, I find myself drawn to Judith Curry precisely because she is very mainstream in relation to climate science but deals with those who aren't quite on side with courtesy and respect. I think the sceptic community value this far more than any musings on 'post-normal' science. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on her take on McIntyre - I lack the requisite background in statistics. However, no blogger proposing serious engagement with climate science can afford to leave McIntyre to out of the debate. I'm struck by the relative absence of argument as to his statistical methodology (or more accurately by my failure to notice arguments addressing the issue). Perhaps in the interests of coherence, some folk better equipped than I might care to post some comments. As far as tribalism is concerned, I have observed that those most firmly immersed in tribes/subcultures be they political parties, religious minority groups, recent immigrants to a new land, special interest groups, and the like all too often cannot see the mob mentality permeating their behaviour. Membership of a 'tribe' discourages the requisite self-reflection. As a so-called rootless cosmopolitan who has close ties with three continents and would be best described as 'non-clubbable,' I have seen tribalism operating in a wide array of contexts. Many of my patients moreover (whistle-blowers for example) suffer the consequences of expulsion from the 'tribe.' I would prefer to see myself as a member of one tribe only - the human race. For a lighter take on tribalism, see here.
  6. The value of coherence in science
    I love this podcast! The examples of non-existent apples and cheap sheep at unknown price are great!
  7. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    What has Planck's Law got to do with the amount of energy input into the ocean from the sun? On the same day the same energy is radiated out to space minus that tiny portion that accumulates. But the point is that you wondered where the energy comes from ands the answer is that its well and truely there.
  8. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    I'm not a fan of number of hits or number of comments races. Rather it's important that an increase in the number of comments (which is good) does not deteriorate quality. I don't know how to measure it, if even possible. With some inevitable ups and downs, it looks in pretty good shape.
  9. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Nope - because you cant cheat Planck's Law. Try again.
  10. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    In fact I'd overestimated the amount accumulated each year. Its actually less than 1 x 10^22 Joules. So to answer scaddenp, the "mechanism" is a single sunny day puts more energy into the upper ocean than is "accumulated" all year.
  11. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Thanks John. Yet another thing I've been meaning to mention to you but haven't due to not wanting to overwhelm :)
  12. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TTTM - and by what mechanism "could" you accumulate that heat in days? Can we stick plausible physics?
  13. The value of coherence in science
    To boil it down, Judith Curry is an expert in atmospheric studies, and gives mainstream views on this topic. She knows nothing special about palaeoclimate studies, and chose to accept McIntyre's version of the debate, hook, line & sinker, rather than to consult people she knows who actually work in the field. Her wallowing in the ClimateAudit mania was disappointing and embarrassing. Her postings I have seen on her new blog tend to be open-ended bringing up of issues, which she then turns over to essentially unguided commenting. It's all very polite, but I haven't so far seen anything that would lead to clarification or resolution of anything.
  14. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    "My guess is this is due to our strict Comments Policy and the fact that registration is compulsory before you can submit a comment" There's a test for this effect. Old AccuWeather page with no registration required: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/ New AccuWeather page with registration required: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science I would estimate there are 10X as many comments on the average post in their old format. Registration probably eliminates some of the obvious trolls and noise, so I think that's a good thing.
    Response: 10 times as many? Yikes!
  15. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    @adelady I am continually astonished by people's misunderstanding of the energy flow associated with the earth. The earth receives about 385 x 10^22 Joules of energy every year. We had been accumulating somewhere between 5 and 10 x 10^22 Joules every year in our oceans. Not recently though. You can easily see that the earth receives from the sun and radiates away to space many, many times that which it accumulates even at the best of times. In answer to your question or rather to put it into perspective, the heat you speak of could accumulate in a matter of days if not hours.
  16. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    TTTM, look at this graph. Notice, sea level sort of bounces along, upward:
  17. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    @TTTM: "So sea levels are dropping which is further confirmation that the ocean heat content isn't increasing." Yeah, except Sea Levels aren't dropping. That itsy bisty fact kinda demolishes your whole argument, doesn't it?
  18. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Surely there must be some reasonably technology-neutral site for discussing energy liberation, capture, transmission, storage, general manipulation? I can't think of one but perhaps somebody else can make a suggestion. Maybe a case of "be careful what we wish for"-- too many obsessions, not enough time...
  19. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    Tim TTM - just how sure are you that nothing at all is happening in the deep ocean? Unless you're involved in some measurement project that we've not heard about, I'd be a bit more cautious. Where exactly will the heat to drive the next el Nino come from? El Ninos don't create heat, they only redistribute it. Whatever process has a La Nina like the current one showing lower temperatures is the other side of the el Nino coin. After this La Nina there **will** be an el Nino. Maybe straight away, maybe 3 years. Either way, the heat released will not come from nowhere. Just because we can't identify it now doesn't mean we won't see it then.
  20. gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 7 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    scaddenp, Thanks for that Grootes & Stuiver paper. I hope to have something to report in about a month. Before my trip to Asheville I will be visiting a 75 MW photo-voltaic power plant and a solar generator located on an 18,000 acre site. I wonder whether these technologies come within the scope of this blog?
  21. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Completely OT except it is housekeeping. The IPCC Reports Science or Spin thread is a bit mucked up, with comments and moderator's remarks blanking each other out. On Topic. Keep the moderation as it is. And if things get a bit difficult - shift (or delete) comments belonging to other threads sooner than you sometimes do. Not always necessary, but a good move from time to time.
  22. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    So sea levels are dropping which is further confirmation that the ocean heat content isn't increasing. What does this say about the radiative imbalance recently? It can only say one thing...the earth is as warm as it should be. Maybe even warmer than it should be. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't heating it right now. Its ironic that the author should be criticising cherry picking so agressively and yet in the very same breath mention record hot temperatures.
  23. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    I'm with scaddenp: keep the moderation. Other sites can promote controversy to run up their hit counts, but you're doing a lot of work to make this site mature and intelligent. Keep it up! I'm making a donation. I suggest others who appreciate the site do the same.
  24. The value of coherence in science
    Getting somewhat back on topic and speaking of coherence, although contrarians find themselves bemused when Dr. Curry does not monotonically disavow mainstream science, they eagerly accept her musings on what can only be termed social science topics, again "tribalism" and "post-normal science." The coherence problem becomes visible when we compare contrarian acceptance of Curry's extracurricular communications with other examples, such as Steven Schneider's exploration of scientific consensus. On the one hand, endorsement and accolades, on the other bitter condemnation. So we have a conspicuously disjointed feature in that contrarians find their least comfort when Dr. Curry is speaking on what she's most qualified to talk about, more happiness when she's delving into matters outside of her expertise, with this odd standard of appraisal selectively reversed in other cases. Perhaps this behavior is better classified as inconsistency as opposed to incoherence.
  25. The value of coherence in science
    #45 chriscanaris Similarly, when I've spoke favourably of Judith Curry's or Mike Hulmes' efforts to engage the blogosphere in constructive debate, folks have responded negatively somewhat to my disappointment. Judy Curry, however, has been producing some very sophisticated discussions. Somehow, their efforts seem to be perceived as a betrayal of the cause. It depends which cause you're talking about. The reason "warmists" tend to perceive Dr. Curry negatively, in my view, is that she has tended to make rather grandiose pronouncements about the "problems" with climate science, and then retreat when asked to elaborate on them. Most of us don't see this behavior as "constructive" or "sophisticated," for better or worse. I don't pretend to know anything about her motivations or her sincerity, nor do I really care. But I do think that her recent activities haven't been very helpful. A number of people -- Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt, for starters -- have engaged with her at length; watching from the sidelines, I've seen that she tends to respond to their very detailed criticisms with vague, gnomic remarks about "tribalism." The more substantive issues often wind up on the back burner, to be discussed at a later date that never seems to arrive. Tribalism is a legitimate concern -- and plenty of sociologists and philosophers of science have discussed it with far more rigor than Dr. Curry -- but it's not a legitimate response to pointed, specific, science-based criticism of Dr. Curry's interpretation of climate research and data. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think you have to be a "warmist" to understand why some people would perceive her behavior to be frustrating, counterproductive and -- far too often -- evasive.
  26. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    John, just curious, how many hits do you get a day ?? I don't post often here but do follow along and learn LOTS. The moderation is spot on and it's a relief not to have to wade through the multiple posts of nonsense at far too many sites. Keep up the good work ..... ;-)
  27. The value of coherence in science
    Chris, a lot of folks find Judith Curry a puzzle. As a publishing scientist and thus a professional communicator well-versed in expository writing crafted so as not to leave distracting ambiguity hanging in the air, nonetheless her less formal writings on the topic of climate science are riddled with strangely unintelligible remarks, innocent I think but which some take as equivocation. The other matter I find dismaying about Dr. Curry is her encouragement and stoking of sectarianism, of totemic encampments by her use of terms such as "tribalism" and "post-normal science." Her communications are often 180 degrees at variance with her quite reasonable stated objectives.
  28. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Karamanski, answers about where the climate is headed and how it'll get there mostly hinge on sensitivity. For the nitty-gritty on sensitivity, see "A detailed look at climate sensitivity." For some simple comparisons between expectations and observations, see "Comparing IPCC projections to observations." If you've got questions pertaining to what's covered in those links, best to submit them there as that makes the whole process of discussion more valuable.
    Moderator Response: For newly arrived readers, the "Search..." tool at upper left is very handy for zeroing in when seeking answers.
  29. The value of coherence in science
    Ned @ 22: I was impressed by your very thoughtful post. I particularly noted your comment: 'This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens.' Actually, with respect, I think there is far too much labelling of positions taken by various players. I have sometimes posted comments broadly supportive of AGW perspectives only to find others taking issue with them because I am viewed as a 'sceptic.' I've often spoken of my extreme discomfort with the Monckton/ Plimer/ WUWT commentariat modus operandi. However, I often feel I have to couch what I say with great care to maintain credibility as a poster - far more care than if I was perceived as a card carrying warmist. I had a very grumpy moment the other day provoking a strong response - well, we won't go over that territory again. Overall, this site is far more tolerant of sceptics than the other players in the AGW team. Still, the feeling of differing standards and expectations doesn't go away. Nevertheless, I'm old enough not to go take my toys home or sulk in a corner - I appreciate this sort of thing is near inevitable on any site where people feel passionately about a topic. I would add that on the very rare occasions I've posted on WUWT, I have usually been in polite disagreement with the presentation (maybe 75% of the time but I'm only guessing - I post so rarely there because I often feel it's not worth the trouble). However, I haven't felt as if treading on eggshells when posting even when in disagreement. By way of further illustration, I'm currently reading Pielke's 'Climate Fix.' He is clearly not a sceptic but is often perceived that way because he does not accept so-called 'catastrophic' scenarios unquestioningly. He also highlights the logistical difficulties in decarbonising economies. He does support decarbonisation as best as I can tell - I haven't got that far in the book. Whether Pielke is right or not is a separate issue. Similarly, when I've spoke favourably of Judith Curry's or Mike Hulmes' efforts to engage the blogosphere in constructive debate, folks have responded negatively somewhat to my disappointment. Judy Curry, however, has been producing some very sophisticated discussions. Somehow, their efforts seem to be perceived as a betrayal of the cause. However, there really is only one cause - our welfare as people and our good custody of the planet. At the same time, your acknowledgment that the AGW side has its own issues with lack of coherence bespeaks considerable intellectual honesty. The empirical data and the hypotheses they lead to do not mesh into a neat package - one could hardly expect perfect coherence in any attempt to evaluate a system as large and as complex. Herein lies a further problem: those who note lack of coherence in some aspects of the big picture are often decried as 'sceptics.'
  30. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    I strongly accept that humans are causing global warming and that solving this problem should be our highest priority. However, I am skeptical of the accuracy of climate models. I think a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius by 2100 is a bit wide of the mark, even in a busisness as usual scenario . Since 1880, global temperatures have only increased by about .8 degrees celsius. In order to reach 3 degrees celsius by 2100 global warming would have to undergo a very steep acceleration. Apparently this isn't showing any signs of happening. Global Temperature increases over the past decade were at the low end of climate model projections. I find it very hard to believe that we will reach 3 degrees celsius by the end of the century. Could you please explain this to me?
  31. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    This graph is proof positive of AGW. The amount of hot air has risen in direct proportion to the number of comments. Or is that just correlation???? And note that the comment curve has flattened. So we can all go back to sleep.
  32. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Any thoughts to a similar post on deleteds? Betcha the App triggered a spike in comments meriting deletion as well. re: Doug (3) It's still the sun. :) The Yooper
    Response: You had to ask, didn't you? I have a lot more important things I have to do with my limited time but the urge to plot another graph is irresistable:



    Please, no more requests. I'm not plotting the ratio of deleted skeptic comments to proAGW comments (hmm, although that would be quite interesting...)
  33. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    You've obviously tried to "adjust" your "data" so as to hide both the MWP and LIA. Also the recent rise in comments is obviously due to bit-flipping because of increased cosmic ray flux; we know this because so many comments are random gibberish.
  34. bgood2creation at 12:48 PM on 7 October 2010
    Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    "But I would argue the level of discussion here at SkS is also of a higher quality than at many other blogs..." I agree. I spent a few days at WUWT, and I would say the conversation here is generally at a higher level. (You can decide for yourself if that is an understatement.)
  35. Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
    Keep it draconian - even more so. I dont mind being pinged for inappropriate comment. And thanks very much for that expansion of RSS.
  36. Berényi Péter at 11:54 AM on 7 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    #119 scaddenp at 15:03 PM on 6 October, 2010 Lindzen got a Nobel? News to me though he most certainly has produced outstanding work. Lindzen and Choi not being one them however. It has been specifically rebutted in the published literature and so far as I am aware, Lindzen has not responded. Well, he is a Nobel laureate, sort of. The 2007 Nobel Pace Prize went to IPCC and Al Gore, while Lindzen was a (reluctant) lead author of IPCC TAR WG1 Chapter 7 - Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks. At least Mike Williams must have referred to this connection on BBC. I myself think this Peace Prize thing is pure shame. BTW, Lindzen has responded to critics. It was submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research on February 12, 2010.
    BBC One Planet - Climate change, pot plants and small frogs Nobel winner Richard Lindzen on being a climate change denier, and why office plants rock
    "American atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen was one of the lead authors for the IPCC's third report on climate change. But he's not on this week's One Planet show to talk about the need for action on carbon emissions - quite the opposite in fact. Professor Lindzen believes the impact of human induced climate change has been exaggerated, and is urging political leaders to abandon their pursuit of costly carbon markets. His views may not be shared by the majority of the world's climate scientists, but Professor Lindzen is undoubtedly a formidable scientist - he's written (or co-authored) well over 200 scientific papers, and has been the recipient of numerous awards for his work on atmospheric physics. Debate is the foundation of science, so this week Mike questions the professor about why he feels the IPCC has become biased in favour of climate change, and hears his views on how humans have had a marginal impact on global warming. Also in the show, reporter Richard Hollingham looks to overcome his disdain for office pot plants - and in the process the One Planet plant gets a health check. Plus we hear about the world's smallest frog found in Malaysia."
  37. An underwater hockey stick
    Thanks Doug, missed that. Reading the paper, I would hesitate to draw wider conclusions than the authors do themselves. The authors argue that the waters are result of mixing two very sources so that a change in proportion of mixing could dramatically affect temperature. Interesting but more work needed.
  38. An underwater hockey stick
    True enough, ScaddenP. There's a link to an open access copy of the full text back on the past page of comments, btw.
  39. An underwater hockey stick
    To me the interest of this paper is what it suggests regarding the utility of sediment cores in relatively closed waters as useful records of broader changes, possibly more sensitive and thus better for recording early onset of changes. Take a look at the graphs in this paper: Rapid 20th century environmental change on northeastern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada inferred from a multi-proxy lacustrine record (pdf, full text) and notice the coincident bump in numerous geochemical and biological markers during the course of the 20th century. Details show up that we'd not necessarily expect to see so clearly in bulkier, more highly damped bodies of water.
  40. An underwater hockey stick
    Having trouble with our library connection to AGU so only seeing the abstract. However, the authors believe that what they are measuring is the temperature INCOMING intermediate North Atlantic waters, presumably inferred from local oceanography. To say where the warming is coming from would require data on intermediate water formation in NA - couldnt find anything useful in a quick look.
  41. An underwater hockey stick
    doug_bostrom at 10:37 So true, i did make that my point myself at the begging o the thread, the correlation between this reconstruction, and hemispherical is convincing, and the authors also state they believe its because of the sources of the currents feeding it. There isnt enough info to draw anything definite about it... but i think it would be very safe to assume the anomaly has nothing to do with back radiation at the location in question, considering the depth.
  42. An underwater hockey stick
    Point is, let's not wander off into the weeds by talking about warming of the ocean on a global scale when the author is making no such claim.
  43. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, The US Supreme court, with a strong majority of conservative justices, ruled that the science is overwhelming and CO2 is a pollutant. If you want to be taken seriously you need to document your objections to the supreme court ruling. Your argument of "I don't think so" is a waste of space. If you cannot document your objections with facts you need to take your anger over to WUWT where they will agree with you. You have spent too much time on this web site to blithely deny the hazards of uncontrolled temperature increase.
  44. An underwater hockey stick
    Not to butt in, but the article above is talking about a comparatively tiny area of water in a restricted basin, not hemispheric-scale warming. Just so everybody's on the same page, figure 1 from the article, showing the area of interest:
  45. The value of coherence in science
    John... Ah. I missed your post at the very top regarding Taylor Dome. But again, here, I would suggest that you're not exploring the situation any further than where it confirms your expected result (confirmation bias). If you add current CO2 rise and Greenland temperature records since 1970 I think you're going to see a very very different picture. CO2 level, obviously have gone from 285 to 390. That's going to put a sharp dogleg in that line. Then the temperature since 1970 (according to the data I've seen) has risen maybe another 1.5C. The chart you've created on your Taylor dome page relies heavy on the scaling of each X axis to get the effect you want. Once you add the current CO2 levels and temps into that chart you're going to have to rework the axes. I think that will give a more rational perspective between the two lines.
    Moderator Response: This discussion is getting specific enough that I think it belongs in another thread. How about There's No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature?
  46. An underwater hockey stick
    CBDunkerson at 04:39 AM No, i was talking about hemispherical records, and in light of the amount o energy it would take to raise water at 400m 1.7K from radiative heating at the surface above its location, is utterly ridiculous.(thus the reason i assumed you were mixing up temperature with energy) And i was kinda hoping you would follow the link backs, to realize that the ocean temp profiles are logarithmic... There is nothing ive seen on SoD i disagree with, its an excellent site. I have no problem with back radiation, with decreasing entropy however... As to the paper, read it.
  47. The value of coherence in science
    John... When I look at your header graphic "isn't perfect" is not the description that comes to my mind. You've drawn a pointer to the start of the 20th century and labeled it as if it were NOW. "Highly misleading" would be a much more apt phrase. I would suggest that if you actually did add the instrumental data (not global averages because that's not what GISP-2 is measuring) for Greenland you'd see something on the line of 2C warming since the end of that chart. Is that confusing, as you say, or is it inconvenient to the message you're trying to deliver? It would also be decidedly UNscientific to dump that data because it doesn't fit your selected conclusion and try to find other data that does. I'm looking at the Taylor Dome data right now and I'm not finding temperature data. I'd be interested where the conclusion comes from that Taylor dome shows comparable results. None of this is personal. I'm very confident that you are an intelligent person and a very good chemical engineer. In your photo you look like a someone with whom I'd enjoy downing a few pints at the local pub. But I find this to be a case where you are crossing into a field of expertise outside of your own.
  48. The value of coherence in science
    TIS, What is so confusing about this graphic? It can and has been done. In contrast, the inset in the linked graphic is misleading because it does not tell the whole picture. Neither does the header on your page. In fact, when complete the data tell a very different story. As far as I can determine, the header for this site is not intended to be taken seriously. Either way, it is not presenting data as yours is. Altogether a different story.
  49. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 08:22 AM on 7 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    @Rob, Good eye on the header. The GISP-2 ends about 100 years ago. The person who did the website put it all together after sorting through bunches of graphs and pictures. I like the look, but I agree it isn't... precise. To be fair, this site shows a plant growing through an ice sheet. I did make sure to post the link to the data. I did consider adding instrument data in a different color, but it was confusing.. The Taylor Dome data is more recent and basically shows comparable results, even with my smoothing it gets into the 70's. Any heavily smoothed data loses recency. The GISP-2 is heavily smoothed. I accept that it isn't perfect.
  50. It's the sun
    Well my model was derived empirically from IPCC data. It was pretty naïve statistically speaking, and the model wasn't without its violations of assumptions. On the other hand as the magnitude of CO2 versus solar forcing was roughly consistent with my regression model, I don't see how Ken reaches his conclusion that "is no way that the above chart could allow Solar forcing to be dominant in the first half of the 20th century" (it would be nice if Ken referred to which chart). I think he's got to get over the confirmation bias.

Prev  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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