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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Comment Search Results

Search for http://www.quadrant.org

Comments matching the search http://www.quadrant.org:

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

Tom Curtis at 19:13 PM on 14 June, 2011

jonicol @60 the claim that the "climate group" do not provide any substantial evidence is straight forwardly false. Nor is it a falsehood that could be believed by anyone who has made a serious attempt to understand the evidence for global warming, as for example, by reading the IPCC reports and referenced papers.

By publishing an an article in Quadrant, as also by taking a position as Chairman of the Australian Climate Science Coalition you have set yourself up as an expert on climate change. Despite that your writings are littered with errors and you plainly do not understand the underlying physics. You repeat egregious errors with no apparent attempt at fact checking.

For example, you could have fact checked your claim that the "tropospheric hotspot" is a "signature" of global warming by reading that part of the IPCC AR4 which deals with spatial variability in forcings, ie, section 9.2.2. There you will find not a single claim of that nature, although the difference between solar and greenhouse warming in their effects on the stratosphere is clearly mentioned. Given that, why, I wonder, have you identified as a "signature" of greenhouse warming something the IPCC does not so identify, but fail to identify as a "signature" something they clearly do mention?

Einstein may have boasted that it only takes one paper to show the was wrong. In your case it takes not even that, but only simple editorial fact checking.

Climate's changed before

Ned at 00:00 AM on 10 June, 2010

Upon further investigation, the "recycling" here is kind of fascinating. Johnston's document relies heavily on a 2007 paper by Lindzen in E&E (yes, another E&E paper ... Johnston is looking worse and worse).

That E&E paper was recycled by Lindzen in a 2009 blog post.

That blog post by Lindzen, in turn ... is the very same "skeptic argument" quoted by John Cook and then debunked at the top of this thread!

In other words, we've come full circle ...

Climate time lag

thingadonta at 14:25 PM on 27 July, 2009

Regarding radiative imbalances on this post, from Richard Lindzen:

"It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative -- strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity".

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results