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  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  Next

Comments 108851 to 108900:

  1. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    GC - my apologies. I had misunderstood your reference (read everything but the article title) and was too quick on the trigger. I will try to take your advice :-) and lighten up.
  2. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    archiesteel (#21), Tamino is to CAGW folks as McIntyre is to skeptics. No doubt they are good at what they do but one needs to recognize that they both operate with blinkers on. My doubts about Tamino are based on his support for papers that deny the historical record. If "Climate Science" chooses to ignore history you can't expect anyone to take it seriously no matter how clever your statisticians may be. John Cook has already noted that these arguments belong on another thread so I will leave it at that.
  3. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    It's good to see that you're willing to call voluntary-head-in-the-sand for what it is. You cannot have a rational debate with those who use irrational logic. By taking them seriously, we inadvertently reinforce their validity (just as how Monckton's "expertise" is based on climate scientists willingness to hold public debates with him and as Jo Nova demonstrated in a post on the 23rd of Aug, “they have finally acknowledged that… they need to call us skeptics. (They can hardly pit expertise against “deniers” eh?)”) Scepticism is based on a compelling argument - to which some conclusion can eventually be reached. Denial merely rants the same nonsense regardless of how many times it is addressed.
  4. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    During the melt season, Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog is unsurpassed. And no deniers, um, skeptics, er, irrational posters ..., OK, "non-positive" contributors in the bunch. The Yooper
  5. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    Re: gallopingcamel (20) Just because people have differing opinions doesn't mean that they cannot be civil while discussing those differences. My experience, on this blog and on the two you cite, is that discourse is pretty well-behaved until someone barges-in in full drive-by fashion, comments something to the effect of "You're all wrong and are idiots for even thinking you're right" and then the brouhaha begins. The mistake most run afoul of, that I see happen most often, is those commenters that mistake a science-based forum for a debate forum (minus the science to back it up). They typically don't have a good fundamental understanding of critical thinking and the scientific method, let alone are up to speed on the core studies in the field/thread in question. As archiesteel (21) points out well, my main objection to your post at (5) is your linkage of the quote directly to a specific person. The title of this post uses the quote you reference, yes, but doesn't name anyone in specific; that's the difference. Making it personal. We can have a science-based discourse, disagree in toto, and still keep it civil and not make it personal. But we have to choose to do it that way. The Yooper
  6. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Chris #21. The non carbon neutral effects of burning wood, dung, charcoal and other biomass are secondary. Mainly in deforestation. Using carbon cycle fuels rather than carbon sink fuels could have been managed, or managed better. If carbon cycle fuels had been treated as a crop - with replanting or coppicing or similar processes - we could have maintained some balance. Especially if we'd started out that way and developed and extended those practices with population increase. The underlying problem is that we've been wasteful, profligate even, with every kind of substance we could use as fuel. Even coppicing was used principally as a way of getting desired form for building materials rather than as a way of maintaining fuel stocks.
  7. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    Grammar nazi alert! It's rational the adjective, not rationale the noun.
  8. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Re: chriscanaris (21) Actually, I did notice. :) A worthy, thought-provoking read is Ruddiman's Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate. Ruddiman contends that human induced climate change began as a result of the advent of agriculture thousands of years ago and resulted in warmer temperatures that could have possibly averted another ice age. A nice graphic for visualization of the ensuing "Golden Age" is: We'll have to update this graphic around 2030 or 2040, when we hit that IPCC 2-3 degrees C with the legend "Agriculture ends" and an arrow pointing to the date. :( The Yooper
  9. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Roger A. Wehage @ 13 Actually, we've been burning biomass for tens of thousands of years and fossil fuel for about 200. My point was that we've been a non carbon neutral species almost since our arrival on the planet. Indeed, as best as I can tell, we are the only non carbon neutral species. More to the point, much of what we build and consume (aside from food) is not carbon neutral and, failing a major technological revolution, never will be. Even producing the technology required for renewable energy is not a carbon neutral exercise. I was merely pointing out that it makes little difference whether cattle bred for meat and dairy or free ranging ruminants that do not form part of our food chain roam the world. I feel a certain wry amusement having been labelled a 'sceptic' that folk don't notice when I'm agreeing with an AGW proposition :-)
  10. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    10, nealjking In the introductory paragraph (Advanced version) you say "Climatologists must also take into account "second-order" effects which amplify the initial estimate of the warming. It is not easy to calculate these effects, but the general consensus is that, overall, they magnify the temperature increase by about a factor of 3." This seems to be a reference to fast feedbacks, the ones that increase the warming due to an increase in radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 from about 0.3 C to about 0.8-1.0 C. The remainder of the article appears to describe a carbon-cycle feedback: CO2 affects temperature; temperature affects CO2. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but if I haven't, don't you think it is a little confusing to conflate the two?
  11. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Re: Camburn (36) You do realize that the Nature article is from 2008, right? In any case, the study cited as the focus of this post is from 2010, so it seems likely to have more current information. Which shows the deep waters (referenced in the Nature piece) to be statistically significantly warming, not cooling. The Yooper
  12. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    The point is this though-the Oceans are extremely CO2 absorbent (at normal temperatures at any rate)-not only are they able to soak up most of the *normal* CO2 in the Carbon Cycle, they are also able to soak up about 40% of the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels (which, by its very nature, is no longer part of the natural carbon cycle). So not only is breathing *not* ever going to be a contributor to global warming, but even having an above average CO2 footprint for our digestive activities is not going to be a problem either. Our problems stem *entirely* from the ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels we burn over the whole of our lives. That'll cause us major problems, quite soon, even if there was no such thing as Global Warming!
  13. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    Dana says "In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory, the galactic cosmic ray theory cannot easily explain a number of observed fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect, such as the cooling of the upper atmosphere" Unrelated to the whole cosmic ray hypothesis, the types of radiation are more variable through the solar cycle than TSI, most notably UV. This in itself could most certainly cause upper atmosphere cooling. Through its effect on ozone production and obviously heating o the stratosphere, is primarily through uv absorption by O3. This in itself could most certainly have an effect on the jet stream, and the pressure systems in the troposphere.... there is a lot to be learnt as far as solar effects on climate go. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/
  14. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    And the waters are cooling as well it seems? http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453015c.html
  15. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    #6: "Quite obviously we're not currently experiencing cooling" Yes, all the GCR cooling thus far has definitely been underwhelming.
  16. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    A USEIA report I noted in the Basic version, showing an increase in US population with a concurrent drop in CO2 emissions during 2009, would tend to stick a fork in the notion that breathing contributes to CO2 buildup.
  17. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    muoncounter - note that increased GCR flux would mean increased cloudcover, increased albedo, and global cooling, if the GCR theory were correct. Quite obviously we're not currently experiencing cooling, as 2010 has been a very hot year. I may update the article to include some of that information though. I recalled reading the NASA reports but couldn't remember where to find them. Thanks for that.
  18. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    The GCR-cloud seeding link isn't so obvious: A few comments on the CERN CLOUD experiment here and here. Note two key NASA reports during the last solar minimum: Cosmic rays hit space age high Solar wind loses power The Pierre Auger GCR observatory has as yet unpublished indications of increased frequency of GCR events as the solar magnetic field wound down. All point towards ideal conditions for GCR-induced cloud formation and the cooling that is supposed to accompany it. Annual reports from the US of that so-called cooling: Based on data from January through December [2009], the average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 53.1 degrees F (11.7 degrees C), which is 0.3 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) above the 20th Century average Based on data through the end of 2008, the contiguous U.S. experienced a nationally averaged temperature that was the coolest in more than ten years. The average temperature of 53.0°F (11.7°C) was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century (1901-2000) mean. Conclusion? A definite maybe. This particular piece of science isn't settled.
  19. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    For once I have to agree with your conclusions. Galactic Cosmic Rays do appear to have an effect on cloud formation but it is not the dominant effect that Svensmark, Friis-Christensen and Shariv might wish for. However, the correlation between "Cosmic Ray Intensity" and "Sunspot Number" shown in your Figure 2 is striking. Likewise, Figure 4 that shows the imperfect correlation between "Cloud Formation" and "Cosmic Ray" variation. Personally, I don't buy the idea that GCRs have a major impact on climate but these are interesting correlations that need to be better understood.
  20. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    Re: Akasofu Kevin Trenberth offers up some perspective on Akasofu. Speaks for itself. The Yooper
  21. Hockey stick is broken
    Re: Bodo (38) AFAIK, the missing posts are a result of a dispute between Wordpress and Tamino over content. At one point, one of the two parties pulled all past content. All posts prior to March or so of this year are gone from Tamino's Wordpress blog. Some of the missing content is still accessible, as I note. The Yooper
  22. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Re: johnd (103)
    "Before you can use points 1-3 to arrive at 4, you have to decide one more condition as proffered in point 1, that being "all else being equal" Where is the evidence that all else is indeed equal? Or has ever been equal for that matter."
    Thanks for pointing that out. The missing step, of course, is the tie that links the rising CO2 to that emitted through fossil fuel use. The extra/increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can be shown by isotopical analysis to come from fossil fuel emissions. So, all else being equal, unless skeptics can come up with a physical mechanism that explains why fossil-fuel derived CO2 emissions do not act as greenhouse gases, we our causing the temperatures to rise, and the Arctic Ice cap (the Northern Hemisphere's refrigeration equipment) to dwindle. The Yooper
  23. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    Or is a peak in warming 8 years following the 2002 peak? Their line of reasoning seems inconsistent.
  24. Hockey stick is broken
    As far as I know Tamino has written a book, and that may be a reason why he deleted the older post.
  25. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    Good article Dana. One variation I’ve seen on this skeptic argument is that the length of the solar cycle (10.66 years on average) is more meaningful to cloud effects and/or temperatures than the amplitude of the cycle. Cycle 23 was a long one, ~12.5 years long, which means we should experience cooling over the 8 years following the 2002 peak. Of course they predict the next few cycles to be long ones too. I’m sure it’s no more than astrology but some clear evidence against this line of reasoning would be nice to have. A snippet of this idea is presented below with a link to all the gory detail. “The cycle length of cycle 22 which peaked in 1990 was 9.8 years. Landscheidt has suggested a lag of up to 8 years between solar peaks or troughs and temperatures, which would mean a peak warmth from 1995 to 1998. Global temperatures appear to have peaked in 1998. The current longer quieter cycle 23 may be behind the cooling in the last 7+ years.” – Ultralong Solar Cycle 23 and Possible Consequences May 26, 2008
  26. Hockey stick is broken
    Moderator: The link to Tamino's post "Not Alike" in the Further Reading section is broken. The actual link to where it can be accessed is: http://web.archive.org/web/20080220174450/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/not-alike/ Courtesy of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine". Tamino's posts older than March of 2010 are gone, and pre-existing links to them are probably broken. Posts older than August 22 of 2008 can be found at the archive search link provided. Anyone have any ideas for missing posts between those dates? The Yooper
  27. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    Thank you, very informative and well written! There is one paper you could add, Rohs et al. 2010: A correlation study of high-altitude and midaltitude clouds and galactic cosmic rays by MIPAS-Envisat, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012608.shtml They also examined forbush events and they found a small effect (while Calogovic et al. 2010 found no effect), but in the wrong direction!
  28. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Badgersouth, For the global numbers in this article expressed in W m^-2, multiply by the surface area of the Earth, about 5.1x10^14 m^2 to get from W m^-2 to W (this will be J s^-1). Then if you want to get to Joules over some time period, multiply by the number of seconds in that time period (there are about 3.156x10^7 s per year). Note the time-scale for the estimates in this article is a few decades. Hope this helps.
  29. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Could I make a request to dana1981 ? Could the Scenario A and C projected emissions for 2010 also be included in Table 1 in the main article ? This might help clarify what, inexplicably, is causing so much confusion.
  30. actually thoughtful at 05:08 AM on 27 September 2010
    Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Doug I have no problem with these basic level posts. As a layman, I sometimes run into situations where a skeptic challenges me on something that I know, but don't remember the details well enough to give a rebuttal that meets my standards - off to skeptical science I go! But lately the trend has been an excess of the super basic and a paucity of posts based on new journal articles. I hasten to add that I understand the work required to read and understand, let alone recast it in a way that appeals to less knowledgeable folks like myself. But that is part of what makes skeptical science so great, and I miss it.
  31. actually thoughtful at 05:00 AM on 27 September 2010
    A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    The other erroneous component is that "C" was based on a leveling off/rapid decline of CO2 emissions in 2000 (as the article states). This appears to highlight the "skeptic" tactic of looking at the pretty pictures (Scenario C is closest to actual temperatures) and never taking the time to understand why. In reality, it is a visual expression of the fact that we are seeing mild heating in a La Nina (tends to cooling), solar minimum (tends to cooling) and a PDO cooling regime. In the past, these items pointing towards cool would mean global cooling. We have no global cooling. We have global warming, and occasionally, global treading water. One has to wonder - what happens when any of these turns towards warming?
  32. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    kdkd Thanks for the link. While what all is said there may have all kinds of merit, given no better theories etc., I cant see this as more than just a theory, since it all supposedly happened "3.5 billion years ago". The presentation however couches all this stylistically as indisputable fact, which I find a little bothersome, and no less dangerous than dogmatic aspects of myth cultures it may attempt to topple. For instance, are they sure it wasnt 3 billion years and not 3.5 billion years? And if you think I am making a bit too much of this, just wait until "they" come up with a genetically engineered anaerobic bacteria that is going to save us from global warming (if they havent done so already).
  33. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    AT, see the note in the green box at the end of the article.
  34. actually thoughtful at 04:22 AM on 27 September 2010
    Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    I am going to claim this is on topic - I like skepticalscience because, of, well, the science. I know journal articles are being published at least monthly. At the risk of asking others to do work, I request that at least one blog post a month be based on a new science article. It seems we are digging deep to come up with this topical treatment of the lamest denier tactic "well, stop breathing then!"
  35. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Archiesteel#102 "The fact that scenario C looks closer to reality is that it contains *two* erroneous components that cancel each other out and make it appear similar to real-world outcomes (for a while, at least). It is a curiosity, a coincidence, nothing more." As an experienced modeller, I am aware that models can sometimes apparently give the right results due to erroneous components cancelling each other out. Do you mean model sensitivity and radiative forcing are the erroneous components? Model sensitivity at 4.8 °C for 2xCO2 is the same for all scenarios. Therefore, I would be pleased if you would explain the other "erroneous" component in Scenario C that cancels out the error to give the correct real-world results. "Did you even read the article? The reason Scenario 2 (near real-world emissions in) gave inaccurate results was because of a wrong climate sensitivity value (4.2C instead of 3.4C)." Yes I did read the article. I note that you could use a similar sensitivity correction and substitute Scenario C for Scenario B (at least until 2000) and write an almost identical article using Scenario C. This article would be slightly better because it would more accurate than Scenario B for this period. Scenario C has similar forcings to B up until 2000 and diverges thereafter with lower emissions. It is interesting to note that when the scenarios diverge at 2000, the real-world follows Scenario C and not Scenario B. Happenstance? Perhaps.
  36. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    I have a question for cruzn246. Why is it so difficult to trust what the experts in the field of climate have to say?
  37. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Chrisd3 - yes, thank you. Makes sense now :-)
  38. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Roger Yes I have seen wildly different figures, some placing cattle meat two orders of magnitude above that of vegatables in terms of Carbon equivalent per unit energy others with much less difference. Here is just one source CO2e from foods
  39. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    chriscanaris@9: "I wouldn't count livestock bred for meat or dairy products since even if we became pure vegans, methane producing animals would still roam the earth (think of the vast herds of American bison and don't forget the termites - another source of CH4)." Nature adjusted well to the CH4 released by billions of methane-producing animals grazing naturally on the earth for millions of years. It is only recently, since we took to burning huge amounts of fossil fuel to disrupt nature, has this become a problem. To see how we have systematically destroyed the earth, I recommend reading Topsoil and Civilization. The fact that we have systematically destroyed most of the world's topsoil makes climate change effects all the more serious.
  40. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    KDKD: yes, primary science. Now changed. Roger A. Wehage: apologies for my insolence:) Acronym now defined. And thank you both.
  41. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    "For example, what is the basis of the straight line in the figure you show in #14?" The line is simply placed there by the man who made the chart. Fits pretty good. For that matter, where does that graph come from? My, you get your shorts in a wad when something contrary comes up. What is the cause of those wavy ups and downs that ride your straight line? Decadal shifts in the NAO and PDO most likely. It's an accurate temperature record so what does it matter? "There are temperature reconstructions going back to the LIA (some available in the articles below); yet your graph projects the same straight line backwards as well as forwards." It's not an important part of the graph. He is just trying to show warming from 1880 through 200. God, i see so many graphs from the pro folks that start in 1980, what is the problem with this? What is the justification for that?
    Moderator Response: Please use the preview when posting anything other than plain text. Thanks.
  42. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Lazarus #11: Your response captured the essence of the situation, but it's not really accurate, for a couple of reasons. First, the CO2 we exhale actually is "new" CO2. Remember, this is a carbon cycle, not a CO2 cycle. The CO2 we exhale was created by respiration. Second, the carbon in the CO2 generated by fossil fuels burning also came from atmospheric CO2, so it isn't really different from exhaled CO2 in that respect. What's different is that it took millions of years to accumulate, it was sequestered for further millions of years, and we're releasing it over a time span that can be easily measured in decades. What you said was a fair representation of the practical difference between respiration and fossil fuel burning. No matter. The deniers will still catch you out on such oversimplifications and call you a liar or worse.
  43. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    19: "Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change" Wow, a paper (published, when?) that sets out to fit straight lines to data and ends up with ... straight lines. And uses the fact that you can fit straight lines to data as proof that straight lines are appropriate: "An intuitive approximation of the changes shown in Figure 1a (NASA:GISS). It is shown as the red line." "The red straight line was drawn by the JMA." And once 0.5C/century is established as the slope of all these lines (with the explanation in Fig 2a that it is "caused by natural cause" -- I didn't make that up), said line is projected back to 1500. Very insightful work. I enjoyed this quote from p. 7: "Although the global average temperature (T) changes can be approximated by a linear relation as a fraction of time (t) (T = at), CO2 changes are more like T= bt^2, suggesting that the T-CO2 relation is not simple." But temperature itself is a simple straight line +/- some decadal ups and downs? I found the graph on watts up, doc, where the word was ... it's all good.
  44. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    @GC: "You object to my use of the "lies" quote but fail to criticize John for doing the same thing. I guess what really matters is who you agree with." Actually, what really matters seems to be if you're attacking the credibility of a respected statistician or not. That's what you were doing with regards to Tamino, and that's why such snide comments were deleted. Because his work is devastating to the goals of the Climate Denial Machine, Tamino gets attacked a lot. The lesson to learn here is that such behavior won't be tolerated on any serious science site, such as this one.
  45. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    I was challenged to answer a similar question on a forum and paraphrasing myself I answered simply; The CO2 we breath out comes from the food we have eaten, it has just been recycled,it isn't NEW CO2, while the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is.
  46. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    renegadeguy #4 "This article doesn't really answer the question of whether a massive increase in the human population over the last couple of centuries has had an overall effect on CO2 emissions from breathing." Yes, it does. It's a cycle; the size of the cycle doesn't matter, it's still a cycle. No matter how many people there are, the carbon they exhale all came out of the atmosphere in the first place. Of course, this applies only to exhaled CO2. Clearly an increasing population will leads to increasing CO2 emissions in other ways--just not in breathing.
  47. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    Daniel Bailey (#6), It is not often that I agree with sentiments expressed on this blog and from time to time my comments get a little pointed. Sometimes I get a nudge from John Cook to tone it down Nevertheless, I have a profound respect for John and almost all the folks who show up here even while expressing dissent. Anyone who has tried posting a dissenting opinion on Joe Romm's "Climate Progress" or Tim Lambert's "Deltoid" will tell you that "Decorum" takes a back seat to "Ad hominem" or complete censorship.
  48. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    More on Syun-Ichi Akasofu: click! Agrees with: Ray Evans, Gerhard Gerlich, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Sarah Palin, Vincent R. Gray, Qing-Bin Lu, Denis Rancourt Disagrees with: Martin Parry, IPCC, Al Gore, Svante Arrhenius, Rajendra Pachauri, Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate
  49. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    scaddenp (#13), You need to lighten up. When I use the "lies" quote it is invariably a caution to be wary of statistics, especially when you have no way to check the data yourself. I think the M&M demolition of the MBH 08 & 09 papers illustrates this point. You object to my use of the "lies" quote but fail to criticize John for doing the same thing. I guess what really matters is who you agree with. Here is a link to an article on the use and misuse of statistics. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1928
    Moderator Response: Not to be hot on the "redirect" trigger but over the last couple of days we've had a spate of possibly useful conversations on a variety of ongoing topics left orphaned in the wrong threads. For those who feel compelled to respond to GC's remark as it specifically pertains to the threadbare hockey stick controversy, please follow up on M&M versus MBH at the Is the Hockey Stick Broken thread.
  50. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    muoncounter: "For example, what is the basis of the straight line in the figure you show in #14? For that matter, where does that graph come from?" Since Google is still our friend :D ...it's from here: Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change (3/30/2009): (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming) and (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming) Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research Center, Fairbanks, University of Alaska http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/2natural.pdf

Prev  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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