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  2231  2232  2233  2234  2235  2236  2237  2238  2239  2240  2241  2242  2243  2244  2245  2246  Next

Comments 111901 to 111950:

  1. What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    It's worth it. Just one woman publicly said that the bathtub analogy explained the 3% accumulation to her. I'll bet there were a few others, and they all have friends and relatives who'll hear a different story from now on. And many of the others seemed impressed to find that he had neither horns nor tail.
  2. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    macwithoutfries and others: I don't think the latent heat associated with melting ice is large enough to play much role in this question. Unless I'm getting my orders of magnitudes scrambled, melting one gigaton of ice requires 333.55 x 10^17 J. Let's consider both sea ice and land ice. Over the past decade, according to PIOMAS, the Arctic Ocean has lost around 500-1000 km3 of sea ice volume per year, depending on what you pick as starting and ending dates. This works out to around 1.5 to 3 x 10^20 J/year. Sea ice in the southern hemisphere mostly disappears every year, so it's not really relevant. For land ice, NSIDC says that in recent years melting land ice has contributed 1.19 mm/year to global sea level rise (1993-2003 ... presumably more since 2003, but this is good enough for now). This corresponds to 433 gigatons/year, or 1.4 x 10^20 J/year. So ... the latent heat taken up by melting sea and land ice has been on the approximate order of 4 X 10^20 J/year. This is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the values being quoted in this thread for upper ocean heat content anomaly.
  3. What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    The program can now be watched via the "webextra" tab on the SBS-website. I'm not through watching it yet but it for sure is interesting!
  4. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    HR #14 Good points HR. BP #5 has of course thrown a very big spanner in the OHC works. Moderator John has produced a rerun of the chart of OHC for the top 700m from a prior thread: "Robust warming of the upper oceans" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=78&&n=202 Please re-read BP#6,#16,#30,#45,#72, and my own humble contributions #24, #43, #60. I think that we showed that the jump in the OHC chart in the 2002-03 period was impossible; and most probably an artifact of the XBT to Argo transition - ie; an offset. Yet 'scientists' simply did a linear curve fit through this composite chart and called it 0.64W/sq.m rise in OHC equivalent for 16 years. Yet if you average Lyman's 7 curves on the 2010 chart from 2003-2010 - it is pretty flat - strangely coinciding with the full deployment of Argo. Could it be that better Argo measurement has shown little if any OHC increase for the last 7 years? Could that possibly mean that far less extensive and inaccurate XBT measurements prior to 2002 were not very reliable, and that the whole OHC story prior to 2002 is likely to be as useful as a third armpit? Which punches a hole right through the theory of an increasing warming imbalance of the order of 0.9W/sq.m. And you all wonder why there are sceptics? Hello?
  5. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    gpwayne@6 Pielke says "with respect to the diagnosis of global warming using Joules of heat accumulation in the oceans, snapshots of heat content at different times are all that is needed. There is no time lag in heating or cooling. The Joules are either there or they are not. The assessment of a long-term linear trend is not needed." Now it strikes me that fundamental here is the variability in the data. Be it via measurement error, bias caused by changing currents, changes in the balance of latent (ice melt) vs sensible heat etc etc, there is inherent variability. Personally, I'd look for changes beyond 2 sigma as a basic test as to whether a claim was significant or not. I'd guess that Pielke's assertion that snapshots are meaningful fails this test, in the same way that BP's use of quarterly data isn't meaningful. I had a quick look for the raw data, but it's in too complex and fragmented a form on the NOAA site for me to run a regression quickly. I'd guess that the natural variability precludes any quantitative use of the data without at least looking at a 5 and maybe 10 -20 year period. Anyone more competent than me able to give us the trend since (say) 1970 and the standard deviation of residuals of the 12 month and three month averages ? Does anyone other than Pielke and BP seriously think individual datapoints can be used as a snapshot to calibrate the overall global heat balance ?
  6. macwithoutfries at 22:25 PM on 7 September 2010
    Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    The '2004-2009 anomaly' on which Pielke Sr. clings is probably from the huge latent heat from the arctic ice loss - which also happened to be at a very high level in the 2004-2009 interval - combined with the constant decrease in solar output consistent with the downward trend of the solar cycle!
  7. What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    All the usual denier talking points, Stephen Schneider had so much patience.
  8. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    HR @24 - "This is not a mechanism to get the energy to depths were it can't be measured by ARGO." I didn't suggest it was, I would have said so otherwise. Regardless, interesting that such a short lived event "may" be a significant player in ocean heat transport.
  9. What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    What do you get when you put 2 scientists in a room when one is a Skeptic and one is an Advocate of Anthropogenic Global Warning?
  10. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    20.Daniel Bailey From reading his posts I get the feeling Pielke is happy to engage with climate scientists of all shades. I can understand why he wants to avoid moderating comments while at the same time being frustrated by it. 21.gpwayne Erm are we reading the same thing? It's all about science. Can you quote the emotionalism? The only time he gets personnal is to refute your name calling and even then he uses his peer-reviewed work to show your error rather than claims of victimhood. 23.Dappledwater These seem still only to describe mixing in the upper ocean (above 1km). This is not a mechanism to get the energy to depths were it can't be measured by ARGO.
  11. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    MattJ @71 -"The biggest failing I see in Trenberth's diagram is that although sure, the energies add up as you say, the huge value of energy in backradiation is never explained" scaddenp @72 - "Since it is a pciture of global heat flows, I cant see what you could gain by day/night - its day somewhere, night somewhere." The diagram is clear to me as well, but how many laypeople overlook the contribution of incoming solar radiation? i.e. it only occurs to the side of the Earth facing the sun, whereas back radiation occurs day & night all over the planet?, I'd guess quite a few.
  12. What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    I tried viewing the video in the UK, but it isn't streamed live. However I can watch last weeks episode, so the Schneider talk should work later. BTW, the long shots of the studio make it look very futuristic.
  13. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    AT @15 - "It is relatively hard to get warmer water to go DOWN a column of water" More pieces of the puzzle seem to be emerging all the time Observational evidence for an ocean heat pump induced by tropical cyclones (Sriver 2007) & Climate change: Tropical cyclones in the mix
  14. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    Graham (moderator) @44 - The Elsner 2008 paper doesn't address my question. I'll continue fossicking through the literature on hurricanes, I'm sure you're busy enough.
  15. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Dumb question: I would expect "nondenialists" and/or real field experts claim that the methodology for gathering data has improved immensely since the 1950's, and that since there is now more data, the "real" ocean temperature over time is being acquired. Meanwhile, however, it has supposedly been increasing. How does one differentiate these two effects?
  16. What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    There is an amazing recent talk and video by Steve Schneider at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/schneider08/schneider08_index.html
  17. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    OK girls and boys - I see the link to Pielke's item is already up here. As Daniel points out (beating me to it) we have a blog here on which he could have debated the issue. Instead, we get a defence on his site without the option to discuss it. Personally, I think he's making some rather odd assertions, including playing the rather sad 'victim' card. Still, if your argument don't quite add up, I guess a bit of emotionalism will cover the cracks, right Roger?
  18. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Might be interesting to keep a watch on Antarctic sea ice extent and the rate of change , it seems to be doing some interesting things down there .
  19. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    GC, my comment on that more relevant thread complements scaddenp's comment that he has correctly put on that other thread. Gee, it seems you've made that same contention on that other thread earlier, and were given the same information in return. But you never responded and now are repeating the same contention.
    Moderator Response: Everybody please follow scaddenp's example by continuing this discussion on that other thread.
  20. Station drop-off: How many thermometers do you need to take a temperature?
    (Replying to GC from another thread but more relevant here). GC - the article you cite shows that dropping the stations doesnt produce a warming bias. However, your post implies that you think that wicked scientists are willfully holding back data that they should be using. However the data isnt in their hands to withhold. To quote NCDC. "The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time. The rise in maximum and minimum temperature stations and grid boxes in 1995 and 1996 is due to the World Meteorological Organization’s initiation of international exchange of monthly CLIMAT maximum and minimum temperature data over the Global Telecommunications System in November 1994." (Source here Of course nothing that a willingness to pay more tax on your part to support these data collations wouldn't fix...
  21. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    GC - the article you cite shows that dropping the stations doesnt produce a warming bias. However, your post implies that you think that wicked scientists are willfully holding back data that they should be using. However the data isnt in their hands to withhold. To quote NCDC. "The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time. The rise in maximum and minimum temperature stations and grid boxes in 1995 and 1996 is due to the World Meteorological Organization’s initiation of international exchange of monthly CLIMAT maximum and minimum temperature data over the Global Telecommunications System in November 1994." (Source here Of course nothing that a willingness to pay more tax on your part to support these data collations wouldn't fix...
  22. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    michael sweet (#46) Amen to the idea of using all the data. I totally support John Cook on that one. When it comes to selecting surface weather stations for inclusion in HADCRUT3, GHCN and NOAA/GISS databases the same idea should apply. Yet this excellent website seems to meekly accept that over 80% of the available stations have been discarded since 1975. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Station-drop-off-How-many-thermometers-do-you-need-to-take-a-temperature.html
  23. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    I thought Ryan Maue's website might be useful for the discussion. The final section in Graham's article "Never mind the frequency, feel the width" worries me. What seemed to be the most recent concensus was summed up in a Nature paper earlier this year. It was authored by most of the personalities involved in the debate and seems to have come to the conclusion that we can not yet distinguish any anthropogenic signal in the hurricane data. They remain certain of future predictions. So Graham's comments should really be in the future tense rather than the present tense. Any suggestion that the recent increase in any hurricane metric is anything but part of the natural variability is wrong.
  24. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Re: HR (19) Thanks for the Pielke link. Perhaps it's just me, but does anyone else see the irony in this quote from the link:
    "What would be useful is for the weblog Skeptical Science authors to discuss the value of using (and issues with using) the accumulation of Joules in the climate system as the primary metric to monitor global warming."
    and that Pielke allows no comments on his post urging more discussions at Skeptical Science? The Yooper
  25. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    You seem to have riled the beast. :) Skeptic and denier do seem to be inappropriate with regard to Pielke snr. 18.Pete Dunkelberg Agreed but there is absolutely no reason to believe that energy is transferred to the deep at rates that would clear up the missing heat problem, as things stand we almost certainly have to look somewhere else.
  26. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:00 PM on 7 September 2010
    Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Conservation of energy is fairly classical, and much better known than ocean currents.
  27. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    BP #5 I fear that you are creating false expectations that the measurement model for ocean heat can be more precise than is currently possible. I'd expect to see detailed statistical work demonstrating the validity of the problem you allege that you have observed, not just a mere assertion, which is the current status of what you have written. On a related note, I see that you are allowing an accusation that you may be engaging in scientific fraud to go unchallenged.
  28. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Glenn Actually there have been studies of Ocean Basins. Interestingly the Basin that is warming the most is the South Ocean and there have been basins in the North that have cooled. The Dutch paper touches on some of that. Waar blijft de energie van het versterkte broeikaseffect? I find it rather interesting that we don't see weather in the oceans like we do on the surface. Maybe it is there but at a much slower time scale.
  29. actually thoughtful at 10:45 AM on 7 September 2010
    Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    I think Trenbeth is right that this is a very sad state of affairs (not being able to show where the heat is). If you think of the ocean as a water heater (cylinder for some readers) - you can maintain incredible stratification. I have seen 40F at the bottom of a 4 foot tank and 140F on the top (ie 55C across 1.3 meters). But this requires NO mixing! So if the oceans are mixing, that kind of stratification is not going to happen. It is relatively hard to get warmer water to go DOWN a column of water. I will be very surprised if we find oodles of heat at lower depths. Which, to my mind, makes it a mystery. It is one the VERY few chinks in climate theory. As you blast away at my comment - no need to tell me I have oversimplified - I promise that I know that!
  30. actually thoughtful at 10:31 AM on 7 September 2010
    What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
    52 embarrassed skeptics (if they are honest)
  31. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    4.Gordon "it is very clear to me why Pielke did not use 2001 as the starting point for his claim." The ARGO system that measures OHC saw a huge expansion in instruments around 2003. This gave something closer to global coverage. It makes sense to highlight a 'complete' data set and avoid comparing this to a spatially and temporally weak data set. As BP has pointed out energy in the ocean should be a relatively stable beast, it's difficult to generate real world mechanisms that allow large, fast shifts in the amount of measured energy once you have a reliable, global measuring system. 8.Pete Dunkelberg and 12.Glenn Tamblyn Classical theory of the oceans is that energy is only slowly transferred to greater depths. I'm not against overturning concensus ideas but ........
  32. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Perhaps also as a general point wrt the basic versions. Should they link to the scientific papers directly, or should they link to the corresponding sections on the intermediate level. I also think the second graph is confusing for a basic level description. You need to go to the paper to understand the significance of the different lines and the whole point of basic posts is to avoid that level of complexity.
  33. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    It might be worth stressing that the Levitus study relates to the upper ocean, top 700m, that the Argo floats sample down to 2000m, the average depth of the oceans is 3800m and the maximum over 10,000m. There is a lot of uncertainty about what is happening down deep and the change of heat content of the top 700m is the difference between the heat flux in from above and the heat flux out to deeper levels
  34. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    I also think the diagram is crystal clear. That is not the problem. We spent over 300 posts on the waste heat and related threads trying to explain the exchange of heat in the atmosphere to Johnd and RSVP and at the end they still did not understand. Since my last post scaddenp, Tom Dayton and Phil have all tried to help. I doubt that they will succeed.
  35. Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
    I noticed that the Pew graph used ALL the available data from the north atlantic. BP's US landfall graph probably uses 5% of the data, (or less). This relates to John Cook's mantra that we need to look at all the data and not just one litle piece. You can look at 5% and say that you see no pattern, only noise. Or you can look at the whole picture.
  36. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Well the diagram seems crystal-clear to me - a brilliant depiction of the energy flows. However, it isnt going to make sense if you dont understand the individual processes, especially black-body and greenhouse which I guess is the source of confusion. Since it is a pciture of global heat flows, I cant see what you could gain by day/night - its day somewhere, night somewhere.
  37. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Scadenp, #65: the way this argument drags out shows the weakness of using that diagram. Indeed: some years ago, I remember being told that one of the famous French math journals, I forget which, had banned articles including proofs which were in turn based on diagrams. Their attitude was that if you need a diagram, then you had not worked out your proof in sufficient detail and rigor. I suspect the same thing is going on here. I have yet to see a good diagram on this issue, Trenberth's is copied over and over -- and is misinterpreted over and over. Yet somehow all these people copying his diagram seem to have forgotten the old saying: the definition of insanity is repeating the same failed operation over and over and expecting a different result. The biggest failing I see in Trenberth's diagram is that although sure, the energies add up as you say, the huge value of energy in backradiation is never explained, and seems to even violate conservation of energy when compared to the energy irradiated at top of atmosphere -- wherever that really is. Then more confusion is added by using yearly average figures, where the energies are averaged over day and night, even though the picture of the energy flows (in particular, their directions) is so very different.
  38. Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
    That's strange, George--I don't see the quote you say you took. However, I suggest the best venue for discussion of this particular topic is in the comments section of your blog, where Steve Easterbrook himself has responded well.
  39. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    johnd, the conversion of latent heat to sensible heat by the condensation of water vapor does not happen at the surface. It happens in the atmosphere. Thermals transfer energy only from the surface up, not down. Hot air rises, it does not sink. Those two heat "sources" (note the quote marks) heat the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere radiates up and down.
  40. Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
    Hi Tom (#22): Thanks for the suggestion. But the entire post is based on a quote I took out of that exact post by Easterbrook. Should I aver that I did not stop reading when I got to that quote in the post? Or that I subscribe to Dr. Easterbrook's blog? I would be glad to discuss the merit of Argument From Authority to decide if IV&V for climate codes is meaningless. George
  41. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    michael sweet at 05:31 AM, there is no dispute as to whether overall the energy budget is balanced or not, or that the energy received at the surface and leaving the surface is the same. That is what compiling an energy budget is all about, so I am bewildered how you can confuse quantifying the nett contribution each process makes to that balance with the combined nett result. Is this a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees, I doubt it. It appears that the point of there being a nett loss of heat from the surface when back radiation is offset against heat radiated off is being avoided simply because the maths of -390 plus 324 = -66 is not compatible with a notion that would be satisfied if it was a positive value instead of the negative one it is. If it was a positive value, then the overall balance would still be maintained by additional energy being input into the evaporation process or thermals and transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by those means. If we were to look at it the other way, the heat energy that is lost through evaporation is in part being driven by the heat energy contained in the rain that returns to earth, and a portion of that energy then becomes part of the energy that increases the heat that is being radiated off. The most basic law of physics confirms that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. The argument that you are making is that even though energy is being utilised in one process, it is still available to be used in another process concurrently. That often is demonstrated by accountants as being possible, and widely believed by the masses to be true, but at the end of the day it is simply a matter that someone couldn't tell the difference that a negative value makes to the balance sheet as opposed to a positive value. A deficit is not a surplus, nor a debt an asset, but there are many who will claim otherwise. Is it that when the house purchased for $390,000 is sold for $324,000, that $66,000 then becomes available to renovate the house just sold? That is the argument being put.
  42. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd - looking further at all your comments, you seem to making inappropriate divisions. That evaporation energy only comes from the solar input; that surface radiation is only tied to backradiation etc. The surface would radiate from the solar input alone if there was no atmosphere - you cant make that separation. What warms the water? ALL the incoming energy. What causes the surface radiation? The energy from ALL incoming radiation. What causes backradiation? All the energy in the atmosphere whatever the origin.
  43. Spanish and Catalan translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
    That's all very nice, but I really don't think it is the Spanish-speaking part of the world that is the lead player in obstructing action on AGW. It is the English-speaking parts, esp. Canada (that immensely destructive shale oil project), our own USA, and now, India. The next language population that needs to be targeted is either Russia or China. After the huge wildfires in Russia, they are more likely to listen now than just two years ago, though it will still be a huge uphill battle to get them to stop selling oil and gas. Why, stopping it is still out of the question: with much luck, we may get them to shift to more gas than oil, cutting back on both. But in order to get Russia to cut back, China has to stop buying so much oil. But China still hasn't taken the hint from the dust storms battering their capital, they bring online another coal-fired power plant each week. So the Chinese translation is probably the most urgent. Finally, as for the comments on languages, I have little trouble understanding Castilian even though I hear and speak only Latin American Spanish. And in fact, the formal written Spanish they study in school in Mexico and South America really is quite close to Castilian: it is the many who never got past 3rd grade who have trouble understanding Castilian. Perhaps this is why I even hear popular singers (on the Spanish language radio-stations here in California) singing in Castilian, pronouncing "thinko" instead of "sinco" for "cinco".
  44. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    GC - Feedback is context of current discussion is something that changes in response to temperature. Water and CO2 in atmosphere are dependent on temperature so both are feedbacks. Forcings are changes that are independent of temperature. Emitting millions of year accumulation of CO2 into the atmosphere is a forcing. It will cause CO2 feedbacks as well. In contrast, you cant change the H2O in the atmosphere independent of temperature, so it cant be a forcing. John Cook - how about a simple spreadsheet on the site (illustrative purposes only) to show how feedbacks work? eg T = k1 * solar + k2*GHG + c1 GHG = f1 * T + c2 Then iterate through time.
  45. Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
    gmcrews, I suggest you read Steve Easterbrook's recent post, "I Never Said That!"
  46. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    BTW: a word like 'monotonic' really doesn't belong in a basic version either. I first saw the word in a High School Calculus class. Those who didn't get that far have never seen it.
  47. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    Answering 3^ Very Tall Guy: yes, it does, but in a basic version, we really do want to avoid terms like SNR. The target audience just blanks out and stops reading it. This is unfortunate, since it is not THAT hard a concept, but that is the reality we have to deal with.
  48. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    JohnD So can you explain why by adding sufficient thermal energy to CO2 by whatever means to enable it to enter the atmosphere, it is considered a forcing, whereas by adding sufficient thermal energy to H2O by whatever means it is considered a feedback. You do not need to add thermal energy to CO2 to make it enter the atmosphere, unless your planet is below -78C (~200K). This is a sublimation point of CO2 (when solid turns to gas). You do need to add energy to H2O because it is a liquid (or solid) at normal earth temperatures. Liquids, such as H2O, (but not CO2 which is a gas) do have a vapour pressure which, as several people have tried to explain to you, is dependent only on temperature. This is why it is a feedback; if the temperature of the atmosphere increases (by whatever means) then the vapour pressure of water increases too. More water vapour in the atmosphere means more IR absorption which means that the heat that will escape into space is retained in the atmosphere for longer, and so the planet heats up. You are still confused about rates of evaporation, seeming to think that this affects the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This is simply wrong. If the rate of evaporation slows (without the temperature changing) then so does the rate of condensation - so no change in the overall amount.
  49. Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
    I love the comparison with lung cancer and shortness of breath! That choice of an example is hard hitting, succinct, and persuasive.
  50. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd - I am not skirting anything. I am trying to put my finger on which part of fundamental physics you do not understand. I am really struggling to make your sense of comments at all. eg you claim surface losses 390 but only gains 324 so a net loss of 66 which must cool the surface. Huh??? LOOK at the diagram. The surface gains: 168(solar) + 324 (backradiation) = 492 It losses: 390(radiation) + 24 (thermal) + 78 (evaporation) = 492! They balance as they must. I am at loss as to how you could interpret the diagram the way you have.

Prev  2231  2232  2233  2234  2235  2236  2237  2238  2239  2240  2241  2242  2243  2244  2245  2246  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us