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  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  Next

Comments 129901 to 129950:

  1. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    According to NOAA data (not their agenda-biased, thanks to Hansen, narrative reports), for the first 7 months of 2008 the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 13.5% of the total linearized increase during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 13.6% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
  2. CO2 lags temperature
    Apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. This causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. (The web site is controlled by Middlebury, not me.) Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback from water vapor does not exist.
  3. Philippe Chantreau at 13:07 PM on 11 September 2008
    Neptune is warming
    Late thanks but well deserved for Dr. Foukal. That puts everything in perspective.
  4. Philippe Chantreau at 13:04 PM on 11 September 2008
    Mars is warming
    Re-reading through this, I thought it would be worth pointing to a detail mentioned by Stanislav Lev. Mars is not really the closes planet to Earth. Although Mars happens to be very close at times, in average, Venus is closer.
  5. Temp record is unreliable
    Someone just suggested to me (from a book called 'Heat' I believe) that the earth has taken millions of years to store the potential energy of oil, gas, coal etc... and we're releasing it in a few hundred years so its bound to have an effect. Is this credible? How does this release compare to volcanic activity for instance? Opinions please! And apologies if this is the wrong thread for such a question. Just to tack another thought onto this: as people generally have an overriding opinion on AGW, do you think the multitude of factors and questions such as the one I've asked above are generally explained to support one's own 'overriding opinion'? And further, how many factors and questions would it take for someone educated in this field to 'change' their overriding opinion? I openly admit that I plead ignorance before I plead an opinion! The back and forth on this subject is dizzying.
  6. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    Quietman, Forget that last question, I found it in your post #21. It's marvelous what you can find if you just look back far enough in the current thread. ;)
  7. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    Quietman, I am unfamiliar with this research. Has there been any significant change in the number or magnitude of subduction zones, that could explain an increase in global temperature? Oh, and what is the exact name (or URL) of the "Volcano thread" I can't seem to locate it?
  8. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    John, Your article equates GW with AGW. Simply stating that 'global warming' is causing arctic sea ice to melt says nothing about the cause or nature of the warming. Based on all the evidence I have seen (including your article above) the jury is still out on whether the perceived arctic sea ice melt is natural or man-made... only time will tell.
  9. Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
    Quietman, Yes, sadly, I fear you are correct.
  10. Philippe Chantreau at 05:24 AM on 10 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    You say Watts is data driven but you're not presenting any data. Watts is as biased as they come and also incompetent in time series analysis, the link I posted shows as much. To my knowledge, Watts is not a scientist but if you have a science publication of his to point to, I'll be glad to look it up. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/ I don't know what predictions you're referring to, what I recall reading from people who actually study ice was that a loss such as that of 07 was unlikely to be equalled. However, there was great unpredictability due to the loss of multi-year ice. Blog opinions and the like are not what I'd be looking at for this, perhaps that's what you're alluding to. Why not give links to these "consensus predictions"? The ice cover is larger than last year indeed, not by much and significantly lower than 2005, so it is the second lowest on record; I said that if you had data to dispute that fact I was all ears, that still stands. You're not offering data, just rethoric. The Links I posted above show Arctic and Antarctic sea ice anomalies. Arctic is down, Antarctic is flat. There is no statistically significant change of Antarctic sea ice in the satellite era observations. Once again, if you have data to dispute that, present it. http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ It shows very well which trend is "tiny", or non existent, and which one is "definite." As for pre satellite data, I understand why you don't want to go there, it shows a huge loss of Antarctic sea ice that would not help your case. Data here: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadisst/data/download.html The overlap period with satellite data shows excellent correlation, as shown here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/ "If gw is happening, shouldn't the Antarctic warm?" Interesting question. Why don't you try to find out? The answer is not exactly simple and involves the Southern Annular Mode, among other things. You are getting a little sloppy in the rethoric. It does not help your case either to remind that last year's loss was due to an extraordinary combination of weather factors. This year, the combination did not repeat, yet the ice loss is very close, indeed closer to 07 than to 05, which is 3rd lowest on record and already well below 79-00 average. It obviously means that an extraordinary combination of weather factors was not necessary for a very large loss to happen again. Other sloppy rethoric points are: The calling on Al Gore, which I do not recall ever mentioning in this discussion, or on this site (or ever? not sure). Link to one of my posts to correct me if I'm wrong, although it does not have anything to do with the subject. I don't care about Gore. The calling on "catastrophic" whatever, which I do not recall mentioning either. You are essentially trying to make a strawman using stuff that I never even approached. Looking at my posts here will clearly indicate that I am not into catatastrophism. Some people are, not me. I do think that GW can have quite serious consequences; that's different from predicting doom. My fears? Be more specific. I am defending, with an abundance of data, the point of view that the last 2 years' loss of Arctic sea ice have been significant, statistically and otherwise. The fact that the Northwest and Northeast passages have open water at the same time is quite significant. Where did I state a "fear?" That idea of "constriction" of ice is interesting. Have any pointer to a scientific source explaining the concept?
  11. The link between hurricanes and global warming
    Interesting. Ned Potter did a blog at ABC News (US) that indicated this may have something to do with an eastward shift in their origin. I argued that the shift in origin was likely due to climate shift (climate change), meeting with much resistance by some because I indicated not AGW. It is a very interesting topic.
    Response: Elsner 2008 isn't just looking at particular region such as the North Atlantic but globally across all ocean basins. But it also begs the question, if warming sea temperatures are not lending more energy to hurricanes making them stronger, why not?
  12. Wondering Aloud at 23:10 PM on 9 September 2008
    It's the sun
    Yeah I've been looking. I think we may be running headlong in the wrong direction. The satellite data that was supposed to prove a positive feedback from CO2 causing increased water vapor in fact show the opposite. I don't say we are certain but it is starting to look like there is no way CO2 can be a large climate driver. Coupled with the paleo record clearly saying it isn't...
  13. Wondering Aloud at 23:05 PM on 9 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Wow! Anthony Watts wasn't the source, just the reporter, and now he is unreliable? Never mind, objectivity has left the building. Being accurate and data driven now makes you "unreliable". Anyone who does not preach the "Gospel" of Al Gore must be crazed. As I said in the first place this year ice cover was more than last year. Which is clearly true despite the "consensus" predictions of a few months ago. We also know that last year had non GW reasons for being low, as John stated in the original post. Your assertion that the Antarctic shows no trend is very interesting. If the world is warming shouldn't the antarctic ice be shrinking? No trend? you have an interesting ability to call tiny trends definite if they support you and larger ones non existent when they don't. It is clearly colder in the Antarctic than 50 years ago. Further 2007 was a record high for Antarctic sea ice extent since satellite records began just as it was a record low in the North. Sorry, I forgot, nothing can possibly disprove or even argue against catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 it must remain forever unfalsifiable, Amen. Maybe we should discuss "all time" records that could not possibly be correlated, like pre and post satellite, and then we can lament the vanishing polar bear. Occams razor is slicing this issue to ribbons. As for circumnavigating the pole in open water I suggest you go ahead and try it, start today. It won't prove anything the constriction of the polar sea is the reason ice can survive summer up there. But, I think it would calm your fears very quickly.
  14. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi, In #198, you said;- "So try http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm to sort through what Prof. Segalstad did say and what he meant when he said it. Why should others have to do your literature search for you?" LOL! Nothing in the link you provided contradicts my original point, which was that Tom Segalstad is a well respected scientist, and one who has left the IPCC because he simply doesn't believe that their "science" is correct. If you think that I have misrepresented "what Prof. Segalstad did say and what he meant when he said it", please feel free to show me how. In the light of this, your throw-away line; "Why should others have to do your literature search for you?", is both childish and offensive.
  15. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    Mizimi Yes, we know from past plate positions how placement changes climate (in general) because of equatorial storm formation and large land mass desertification. I think Palaeos.com covers that issue. What the current article is about is somewhat different. It's about heat exchange at subduction zones, an issue that I have been arguing for about a year now.
  16. It's the sun
    Pep I just finished reading the short version Beck draft. What did you find objectionable? Mizimi What web site are they posting this argument on?
  17. It's the sun
    sorry, my s key must be sticking in the up position.
  18. It's the sun
    WA I agree. BTW Have you had a chance to view any of the articles that I linked to on the volcanos thread? Every time I look for newer articles I run across another one on climate sensitivity to something or another. Spencer says it lower to CO2, Kay says it higher for TSI and the last article I posted a link to in volcanos says it's plate tectonics.
  19. Philippe Chantreau at 09:52 AM on 9 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Anthony Watts as a reliable source? Please. Go for what they have there if you want, I have formed my opinion on Watts and his site and have not yet seen reason to change it. Watts' blog is by no mean a place to start on anything. Saying that there is an Arctic ice increase this year when last year's loss was staggering is profoundly misleading. It's like saying that you're getting plenty of food if you're eating an apple per day after a week of total fasting. EVEN IF it is 10% more than last year, that would make it a 17% departure from the 79-00 average and 2nd lowest on record. As I said earlier, that would include all records, not only satellite. If you have real data to dispute that, I'm all ears.
  20. Wondering Aloud at 07:19 AM on 9 September 2008
    It's the sun
    A theory must do two things it must explain what has been observed and it must be useful to predict the result of future experiments. A theory that fails in either way is discarded. In both cases the AGW by CO2 hypothesis has some big trouble. Please don't try to make it a theory. We need it to be much better, but I don't know if it needs to be discarded.
  21. Wondering Aloud at 06:09 AM on 9 September 2008
    April update on global cooling 2008
    So where is the September update? I predicted a double bump... looks like I was right. Yes it was a WAG... my future predictions have exactly no predictive value.
  22. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    QM: Yes, another thread I am pursuing ( when time allows!!)is any correlation between tectonic plate movements and global temps due to land distribution; It seems clear to me that the Nhemisphere land mass has a big influence on several factors affecting GMT.
  23. It's the sun
    R. Keeling has posted a rebuttal and Beck has posted a reply so the debate has begun.
  24. Wondering Aloud at 03:53 AM on 9 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Well I can't find it right now, here is a place to start though they are debating over weather the increase is 10% or 30% and it looks like it is coming in a little higher than the 10%. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Extent
  25. Philippe Chantreau at 03:37 AM on 9 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    You can doubt or believe whatever about significance, that has no bearing on facts. It is a fact that, if not for the landmass of Greenland, you could circumnavigate the pole in open water above the Arctic circle as we write this. You need to cite a source for that 13% figure and say what it represents. I look at ice extent, monitored by NSIDC: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ The 08 minimum has not happened yet, so citing your unsupported, unexplained 13% as if it was already recorded is misleading. It's kinda strange that you repeat that same number from several days ago, although the 08 extent has decreased in the meantime. You'd have to show me the maths demonstrating that this and last year's loss of Arctic sea ice are not statistically significant and that Antarctic sea ice is actually outside of range. Why don't we look at these graphs: http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ I note that they're not exactly on the same scale because if they were, the Arctic one would end way outside of the graph. The Antarctic, however, shows no particular trend. Also you need to say which way you want to have it: the 07 Antarctic "record" is a satellite era record only, which does not seem to bother you when it's in the southern hemisphere. However, you emphasize the satellite observation time span about the Arctic, even though the 07 low is lower than any other observation ever, including non satellite. For those interested, more info on that here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/ The links I gave above contain more detailed maths about the Arctic vs Antarctic subject: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/denial/ It is from last year but is just as applicable this year. If you find that time series analysis faulty, by all means explain why it is so.
  26. Wondering Aloud at 23:59 PM on 8 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Try not to lose it Phillipe. We saw predictions given with great certainty that 2008 was going to set all time records for arctic sea ice loss. Never mind "all time" is only 30 years. It didn't happen and only some last minute current effects got it close. this year was 13% higher sea ice cover at minimum than last. I doubt it has any significance, just like last year didn't. If you are unaware that the antarctic remains cold and that sea ice around the antarctic is at near record levels you'd best broaden your filters. Ice shelfs are supposed to break off, it might matter if it happened far more than usual (if we knew what was usual) or if it had no other explanation like volcanism upstream, but since that is not the case in the antarctic... Meanwhile despite polar bear populations also being at unprecedented highs, the World Wildlife Fund runs a series of scare adds about vanishing polar bears.
  27. Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
    HealthySkeptic It depends on how old they are and how healthy. They will die claiming AGW even if they are crushed by glaciers.
  28. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    Mizimi The oceans also receive and store heat from the earth. See the link to plate tectonics in Volcano thread.
  29. Philippe Chantreau at 15:05 PM on 8 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Koyaanisqatsi (tough screen name, really), no reason to google when you can get the info from the horse's mouth: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/langswitch_lang/in The featured link to Science unfortunately is not part of the free content, so you'd need subscription to see it. It's also worth looking at the credentials of the contributors. You can look these up too: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7098/full/442009a.html http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science--technology-web-a-2005-10-03&page=2 EMS provides only web hosting to the site. Real Climate states clearly it is by no means affiliated to EMS. None of the contributors receives any kind of financial compensation from EMS or any other source. They are all working scientists employed by a variety of agencies and universities and run the site on their spare time. Here is EMS' site: http://www.sciencecommunicationnetwork.org/
  30. There's no empirical evidence
    Well, Beck's analysis seems to disprove the base line data used to start the whole issue, so what does that do for the AGW theory?? http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf Even if you put a higher anomaly factor in than Beck, you still end uf with substantially higher CO2 figures than were used to construct the AGW argument. It will be interesting to see the responses .....
  31. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    I wish people would stop using emotively biased language instead of 'scientific' language. Water vapour does NOT amplify anything. It simply acts as a buffer, storing heat and releasing it according to well known physical processes. GG's do NOT 'force' anything : that implies they have some inherent power...which they don't. They moderate heat loss through buffering IR.
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Another site, listed as neutral at the above linked site is Title of Link Opposing Views, that has a Yes and a No column and rates the accuracy.
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi Re: "If in doubt, I Google on the organization, the articles authors, etc." I do that when in doubt as well. I agree Climate Skeptics is somewhat unreliable as they are too one sided. I do read at Climate Debate Daily becasue they catagorize the articles into pro and con columns and I can find both good and bad articles in both columns (much prefeable to all bad). PS Google "Real Climate" for authors and funding.
  34. It's the sun
    Mizimi In rural America, coal and wood still warm many homes, albeit the systems have become somewhat more sophisticated than they were when I was growing up. I would like to use a windmill here but they are quite expensive. I'm waiting for the prices to come down.
  35. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe They also have a newer sister site, Palaeos.org which is a wiki site, but it lacks the humor of Palaeos.com and that's one of the attributes that I like.
  36. It's the sun
    The Biomind.de site contains the full extract; the other is an abstract of the pertinent findings. One possible way to check 'accuracy' is to check out the annual coal tonnages around the 1850-1960 periods as oil did not supplant coal until after this period. I rather suspect (!!)a surprise, especially since coal-burning appliances were notoriously inefficient in those times. Equally ...how much wood was burnt during this period? rather a lot I think, and in very inefficient ways.
  37. Philippe Chantreau at 02:14 AM on 8 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Thanks for the Palaeos link, Quietman, great site.
  38. Philippe Chantreau at 02:12 AM on 8 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Koyaanisqatsi, curves are fudged with A LOT on so-called skeptic web sites. Example, icecap.org, ran by Joe D'Aleo. Check out how his "analysis" is analyzed by a real mathematician here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/ Of course, there is the always funny Anthony Watts. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/ Look at the comments thread, it is enlighting as to how Watts handled the all thing. Last year I lost count of how many of those sites were attempting to convince readers that the opening of the Amundsen Northwest passage was not remarkable. They were not even arguing the significance of it, simply trying to misrepresent what was happening. WA's post above is typical of a common argument trying to suggest that the loss of Arctic sea ice (very significant since 05) is compensated by the increase of Antarctic sea ice (not statistically significant). The amount of pure and simple deception on so-called skeptic sites is MASSIVE. The other thing they like a lot is conspiracy BS and accusations of fraud against all scientists whose conclusions they dislike. A case in point was the outcry for J. Hansen to release GISSTEMP code, which was done but has led nowhere, as you could expect. Although I do not look much at environmentalist's sites on GW, I gather that there is a lot of exaggeration there on many aspects. One especially annoying one is the relation between hurricane activity and warming. So far, the only thing that can be reasonably asserted is that warmer SSTs do lead to faster intensification of storms. Everything else is debatable. Nevertheless, what I have seen from "skeptics," their double standard of scrutiny for liked vs. disliked hypotheses and the similarity of their methods to that of the tobacco industry led me to be very skeptical of the skeptics.
  39. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, I don't look for who's right wing or left wing , I look for who's lying and who's not. 100% of the time, it's the right wing and the deniers that lie. And you still haven't addressed the specific points I've made or the references I've provided. Another denier tactic. Please explain the difference between the graph on the petition project website and the graph on this website. And tell me which one you give credibility to. Should be simple, yes?
  40. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I don't seem to have much problem identifying which are right wing and which are left wing sites. It's usually, not always, fairly obvious. If in doubt, I Google on the organization, the articles authors, etc. The truth is out there. I agree...best to read what they say and decide if it adds up to crap or crackerjacks. I'm not familiar with Friends of Science and their server is not responding right now. I mention Climate Skeptics because I realized I was reading mostly GW environmentalist materials and web sites. So I thought I'd engage the so-called Climate Skeptics in a healthy debate. What was I thinking? I was savagely attacked for simply asking why they applied a curve to UAH satellite and said I felt a straight line filtered out the noise better (as is done here, I think). A 5-th order least squares polynomial curve was used, although it took me a long time to get that information. It actually looks as though that curve was fudged a bit to make it appear as if global temperatures had dropped during the period just before the satellite data and at the end of the satellite data (2007, I believe). Very odd. I persevered a bit, but most replies to my ?s were of the "if you knew anything about science, you'd..." variety. So much for debate. There are honest GW/AGW skeptics or deniers out there...I am certain of that. Well-intentioned skepticism is essential to scientific debate. It keeps us all honest and forces us to think and rethink the science.
  41. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS What do you think about the Friends of Science website?
  42. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi I agree completely. My problem has been discerning who is right and left wing so I look for key words just like when I am involved in an argument with a creationist (but the key words are different of course). If a political party or name is used, the words "global warming" rather than "climate change" or "climate shift", or obvious falsehoods (the opposite of something that I know as fact, albeit I am limited there somewhat) and with creationists it's "scripture" and for I.D. it's "validate" or the third law of thermodynamics. But some sites that are claimed neutral are actually quite biased and sites that are called denier sites by alarmists sometimes are neutral or just anti-alarmist, so it's difficult to tell. So I read what they say and then decide if it's crap or not.
  43. It's the sun
    Pep Actually I have not read it yet and I don't know if its the same as what Mizimi read but I will take a look at both links later.
  44. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, Thanks for the link. That's a useful web site. All the article does is urge caution and suggest the most extreme predictions of global sea level rise are unlikely. Emphasis on "unlikely". The authors wisely avoid the use of the word "impossible", but then they are scientists. The fact is we don't really know quite what to expect with any certainty...but you and I already understand that. Where you can get into real trouble is reading and believing nonsense at right and left wing blogs. Usually they get things completely wrong, although I confess I hold right wing blogs most accountable for outright deception. Gore has been accused of being an alarmist, but so many of his claims have turned out to be about right. For years, even before it was mentioned in the press, I was concerned about our climate being in an roughly unstable or meta-stable climate equilibrium. Once the "tipping point", if there is one, is reached, it may not matter what we do to try to correct the problem. That is still a concern. As an example of unhealthy GW or AGW denial, try: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
  45. It's the sun
    I would take 180 years with a grain of salt. http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf :) welcome
  46. It's the sun
    Pep That was an interesting read, even if it was a draft copy. I found the sections on ENSO and other ocean oscillations particularly of interest. Thank you.
  47. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Mizimi Overall I agree with you. There are even a few species that I would like to see just go away. But as a naturalist I can and do appreciate all species, living and extinct. I just think that extinction is natural and evolution must take it's course. Non-human hominid species for example have been declining since man first evolved. It's not mans intent, it's just nature. Yes, many of the more primitive cultures simply see them as food. Even more primitive cultures see us as food. There are no simple answers or solutions.
  48. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Some food for thought on this subject: Global Warming And Evolution In The Amazon "The results of a new study suggest that past climate changes and sea level fluctuations may have promoted the formation of new species in the Amazon region of South America."
  49. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    As an example of alarmism and what scientists really think, take a look at this article at Scientific Blogging.
  50. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    John Well written. I like this one much better than the original.

Prev  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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