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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next

Comments 61551 to 61600:

  1. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    "It seems that I am 'horribly' wrong all over the park Marcus. It only that were true."

    Yes, you *are* horribly wrong Ken-& still are-but that's what happens when you rely on Coal Industry propaganda & not actual *facts*.

    Do you deny the press reports about 85% of Queensland's Coal mines being partially or completely flooded? Do you honestly believe that won't have-or hasn't already-had impact on supply?

    Also, if Coal Power stations are *so* flexible, then why do we get constant load shedding in Summer? Why do the plants operate at close to 100% capacity 24/7, when off-peak demand is barely *half* of that during the day? They'd hardly waste the fuel, so I'd guess its because they *can't* turn down the power to match supply.

    As to Transmission & Distribution losses, in spite of your claims this has everything to do with *distance*-the longer the distance between energy supply & energy demand, the greater the losses in electricity along the line. Distributed Generation is the only way to reduce-or eliminate-these losses, but inflexible coal power stations don't fit into a distributed generation framework very well.

    I've read far & wide on Wind-Farms, & your comments continue to display your ignorance regarding them. A 3MW Wind Turbine, operating at 30% Capacity Factor, will actually generate 8,000MW-h per year. Of course, without storage, some of the excess capacity-especially at night-will either go to waste or won't be harvested (i.e., excess capacity will get shut down). This is why VRB's have proven so successful at raising Wind Farm Capacity factors-to as high as 60% to 70%. Again, from my reading, current capacity factors are between 20% to 40%, with most modern Wind-farms achieving 30%-35% (without storage)-your ignorance of these facts doesn't make them any less real.
    Your talk of the negative health impacts of "Infrasound" merely prove that you spend way too much time reading The Australian for your information-a well known, anti-renewable newspaper. There is absolutely *no* medical basis for this so-called "disease", & its extremely odd that no one who actually has the wind farms *on* their properties (& are thus being *paid* for the use of their land) has actually been effected by Infransound-only those who live several kilometers away & object to the view. I wonder how they'd feel living near a coal power station & its associated, open-pit coal mine?
    Your claims about the distance taken up by a wind farm are equally facetious. Are you going to tell me that Coal Power stations, & their associated mines, don't take up land? Yet, unlike Coal Power stations, land with wind turbines on them are still able to be used for other purposes.
    Lastly, though your concern for endangered birds is....touching, its not a very good reason to oppose wind farms. Modern Wind Farms actually have very little negative impact on bird populations &-in fact-its been shown that the negative environmental impacts of the mining & burning of coal do *far* more damage to bird populations (per MW-h of electricity generated) than wind turbines. You know, what with all the land degradation & the harmful emissions from the power station-as well as the looming impacts of climate change. Seriously, Ken, I think you need to read a little more widely than the brochures handed out by WMC, BHP & Rio-Tinto.
  2. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Robert Way at 13:24 PM, I agree.

    The links provided in another post --"[DB] There is no robust evidence (AFAIK) showing that oceanic cycles affect the global land+sea temperatures, as Tamino thoroughly shows (here and here for starters)." were not very informative.

    The Tamino examination of the MEI only looked at 1975 onwards whilst the AMO examination went back to 1880.

    Firstly they should all address the same time frame, and secondly the matter cannot be properly understood or quantified by individual analysis of separate systems.

    The objective should be to examine the global response and so the systems from every ocean, every ocean, have to be examined in order for the nett response to be determined.

    It is very clear that all the systems oscillate differently, at times in concert, at other times offsetting and yet other times intensifying the effects of adjacent systems. The time spent in each phase varies as well as the magnitude, so trying to analyse just one system over less than one complete oscillation provides virtually nothing meaningful in a global sense.

    Has anyone produced a study that has tracked the nett total heat that is sunk or released to or from the oceans due to all such the cycles?
  3. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Firstly, I dont buy that we need to go to zero. We just have reduce one hell of a lot (but then I work in oil/coal so maybe that is rationalization). Hard to see how we drop coal for steel-making.

    Second, I was impressed by the range of fuel options for liquid fuels detailed by cudby in from smoke to mirrors for those applications that have to have them.

    Will they be as cheap as FF. Nope, but then who thinks climate change will be free?
  4. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    84 Gilled I know what an envelope is mathematically.
    That proves exactly and identically nothing about your statements except that they are mumbo-jumbo psudo science. You say the words but don't link them to reality.

    I really have no idea why you bother. It fools no one. For the attention, maybe?

    Anyway, at least we agree that you have completely failed to backup your points I had noted above. So there, really, is an end to it.
  5. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    "Obviously poor countries can develop only through an increase of FF consumption," Here we go again. Tell us what to read to back that assertion.
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel - still havent got a yes/no to #752. Are you prepared to have nature be the arbitrator?
  7. HumanityRules at 10:18 AM on 23 March 2011
    Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Dana,

    In your 'Other forcing' section you give two references neither of which actually deal with the role of ocean oscillations from what I can see (Meehl
    and Tett
    .
  8. HumanityRules at 10:13 AM on 23 March 2011
    Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    27 dana1981

    I still don't get it. Surely the point of the article is that you have some how accounted for the warming in this period. Is that the point?

    My objections are that you haven't, there are so many fudge factor and unquantified 'others' that you can make your sum add up to whateve you want.

    Why choose 66% for the unrealised warming, it could just as well be 33% over a 30 year period? Did you factor in equilibration for solar, I don't see that? You seem unconcerned that solar forcing may be 3X too high compared with recent estimates. You throw in fudge factors such as ocean cycles without stating magnitudes. Solar may be 0.1oC but let's fudge that up to 0.15oC with indirect effect which in other contexts you would probably dismiss as speculative. Does it matter that 0.15+0.15 does not equal the warming for this period (which maybe 0.4oC or 0.45oC)? Anybody can make numbers add up to whatever they choose to when there is so much wiggle factor.


    Here's my version

    Warming for 1910-1940 is 0.45oC (HADCRUT)

    CO2 contribution is 0.07 (33% of .22, equilibration)
    Solar contribution is 0.03 (1/3 of 1W/M2 based on newer TSI estimates)
    'Other' forcing must be what's left 0.35oC

    Conclusion - Ocean oscillations and 'others' play the major role in climate.

    I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion but give yourself enough wiggle room and you can make any conclusion you want.
  9. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    adelady, I don't know what you mean by "have to". Obviously poor countries can develop only through an increase of FF consumption, despite all what is written about all marvelous possibilities to make it without them. They probably don't read enough.
    Les - I checked that even in English, envelopes are not always packaging letters ;)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(mathematics)
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel@761
    "In this situation radiation through the intervention of GHGs is exchanged with the higher levels of the troposphere which are below freezing. Some of the xchange might well be with deep space, but only a small part; which of course cannot easily be separated out."

    Would you please expand on this using some science? I can not make sense of what you are trying to explain.
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #754. Thanks Phil

    Glad that everyone's agreed on that one!
  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #760 DSL you wrote:-

    "Ok, then put it in a clear vacuum box and point it at the night sky. With no internal heat source, and no way to receive energy (according to your physical model), it should cool down at its rate of emission (and internal conduction) until it reaches near absolute zero"

    There is a comparable effect known as 'clear sky' frost; the condition when surface frost appears e.g. on car windshields, even when the air teperature is not below freezing.

    In this situation radiation through the intervention of GHGs is exchanged with the higher levels of the troposphere which are below freezing. Some of the xchange might well be with deep space, but only a small part; which of course cannot easily be separated out.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ugh, LJ -- not the alleged solar cooker evidence. It is proof of nothing. The reflective surface focuses incoming radiation. That radiation could be coming from the atmosphere. Your argument is that we can't differentiate between radiative transfer and conduction/convective transfer. In other words, why doesn't the solar cooker cool to near absolute zero when pointed at the open night sky? Something must be heating it.

    (expected response)

    Ok, then put it in a clear vacuum box and point it at the night sky. With no internal heat source, and no way to receive energy (according to your physical model), it should cool down at its rate of emission (and internal conduction) until it reaches near absolute zero. I'll wager that it won't, though. I'll wager that it cools more slowly, because even if we warmed it up to 50C before we put it in the box it's still receiving infrared radiation from the atmosphere. Photons can't choose their paths.
  14. Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
    #4 perseus: feel free to check my maths (please?! :P ), I did it by dividing the luminosity by the speed of light, since power/c = force for light. Then turning into pressure by dividing by the area.

    I assumed the radiation would be absorbed, I suppose it could be reflected and you'd have to multiply it.

    Iirc, luminosity grows as approximately M^4 but it's a long time since I did astrophysics! In that case some massive stars (50 times solar mass, say) would have significant radiation pressure at some levels.
  15. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    "at equilibrium, this CO2 change [from 1900 to 1940] would be expected to cause a 0.22°C increase in the average global surface air temperature."
    Due to the ocean lag and other anthropogenic effects, "the best estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to the 1910-1940 warming is approximately 0.1 to 0.15°C". By 1960 it's 0.15 to 0.2°C, or roughly half of the 0.3°C average surface warming. I'd call 50% significant.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    mods - I really do think that damorbel, and particularly 755 & 757 violates the comments policy.

    Although not exactly an ad hominem attack, it is an attack on the work of many, many physicists through the ages. On behalf of those upon who's shoulders most of us stand - bun on who's feet damorbel seems to be stepping, I pray you, make it stop!
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    CBDunkerson750

    You said:
    "In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality."

    Focusing a large radiative input to a specific point is NOT what proponents argue. Redirecting radiation is not a point of contention. I say cold atmosphere radiation can not shorten terrestrial radiation, GHG proponents say otherwise.

    Google solar cooker. The principal works by redirecting and focusing, from a large hot area, radiation to a small target area. When facing the sun (hot),the focal area (the small area) gets very hot. When facing away from the sun (the cold atmosphere) the focal area (small area) gets cold. So the small target area looses energy via the large area to the cold atmosphere. See this process (unlike the magic box) abides the 2nd law, Hot to Cold. The atmospheric LW does NOT accumulate within the target area. The target area looses energy to the radiating atmosphere. GHG physics concludes conversely.
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #756 muoncounter

    That's exactly what #755 explains.

    In #750 CBD writes :-

    "In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality."

    No amount of redirecting, refocussing adding together etc.,etc., of photons can increase their energy: warmer the Earth's surface may well be but it is not a radiation effect*.


    *It is actually a gravity effect.
  19. Rob Honeycutt at 08:03 AM on 23 March 2011
    CO2 has been higher in the past
    Jay Cadbury... (Continued from the Preventing Misinformation thread.)

    Models tell us very little about whether we can survive if we heat the planet back up to the levels of 65 mya. Models only tell us about the climate. Survival is going to have to do with the ability of species other than ourselves to adapt to such a dramatic and rapid change in climate.

    Paleoclimate records tell us far more about how species deal with rapid climate change. And there you don't find such pretty pictures of how well living things adapt to change.

    Yes, we are a very adaptable species. We are probably the most adaptable mammalian species there is, though probably less adaptable than many species of insects. So, is that the world you want to bequeath to your grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Us and the insects? Again, not a pretty picture.

    But don't worry. There's nothing we can do that nature won't fix in, say, another 20 million years. A mere blink of the eye, as they say.
  20. Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
    perseus,

    In our sun, gas pressure is much more important, but radiation pressure can become significant in much larger stars.
  21. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    I'm sorry dana but I don't understand. Figure 1 shows no statistical anthropogenic warming between 1900 and 1940, but you say that a significant percentage of that small warming is anthropogenic ? I can't get your point . Which percentage and why is it "significant" ?
  22. Rob Honeycutt at 07:55 AM on 23 March 2011
    Preventing Misinformation
    Cadbury... I'm moving the conversation over to CO2 was higher in the past where you can read a response to your comment here.
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Ryan

    I have read the entire thread, in case you've missed the numerous references to comments from November and December.

    You apparently have also missed the point about 'at the same frequency'; IR photons have considerably less energy than visible light photons. CBD's point here is quite valid, with or without the parabolic geometry (which is a mere artifact of your solar cooker analogy). You've not proved anything with it, except how much you are willing to argue for the sake of argument.
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Just to make one thing clear.

    Photons from a 'hot' (5780K) source like the Sun can be refocussed at any distance (if the mirror is big enough) to recreate the surface temperature (5780K) of the source, but no higher.

    No amount of refocussing etc., etc., of photons from a cold (255K) source, like the upper troposphere, can produce a temperature higher than 255K... anywhere.

    It's the photons you see, they don't have enough energy.

    They may have all the power (W/m^2) you can imagine* but no amount of refocussing, adding together, accummulating in reflecting cavities etc., etc. will raise their energy. Or, in other words, increase the temperature of.... anything. That is what the 2nd law is all about.

    It why quantum theory holds sway. And why the 'GH' effect is not a radiation effect... from... GH gases.

    * Power is not energy. Power is W(atts); energy is J(oules).
    A surface emitting power has two options it can emit relatively few 'hot' photons to get power 'P'. Or it can emit a large number of low energy photons to get the same power 'P'.

    There is a lot of grief on this thread cause by contributors not distinguishing between power balance and energy balance by defining both as 'W/m^2', that is a mistake.
  25. Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
    In the interest of keeping a high standard here, I think I need to point out that why a star becomes a red giant is an unsettled question.

    "Despite all the investigation into
    the subject, the question has yet to receive an answer
    that is satisfyingly simple and sufficiently rigourous.
    There is still no consensus on why stars become red
    giants." (Stancliffe et. al. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.0406v1.pdf)

    I also think that showing ishochrones and/or evolutionary tracks would be more helpful than an HR diagram
  26. The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    alan marshall 38

    And when we should have this "Climate Protection Agency", I suppose it is up to them to best decide how fast or how slow climate needs to change, since there will always be some target. Or will they take climate back to how it was in 1850?
  27. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    I also don't know why you're referencing the 1999 'hockey stick'. I provided a link to more up-to-date reconstructions in Comment #30.
  28. The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    rsvp @45. Only if it was chlorine. Other methods don't have quite the same impact, though they do have some.
  29. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Gilles, the "hockey stick" shows a ~0.4°C temperature increase from 1900 to 1940, and ~0.3°C increase from 1900 to 1970, just like the instrumental temperature record. As I have said several times, a significant percentage of that small warming is anthropogenic. I hope this is the last time I have to say it.
  30. keithpickering at 07:01 AM on 23 March 2011
    Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
    OK, one reference I found is Guinan & Ribas 2002, ASP Conference series 269, 85, available here.

    The luminosity function (fig. 2) appears to be an exact match to the 7% per billion years log function (which isn't too much different from Gough's linear function). The equation would be

    L(t) = L(t0) [eln(.93)(t-t0)]

    ... where age t is expressed in Gyr.
  31. The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    villabolo #37
    about that white shirt...

    Was originally white by dumping used bleach into the environment, which externalizes costs as well, or is this not so?
  32. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    "b) improvement doesn't result in a decreasing energy consumption for a given wealth, but in increasing the wealth for a given energy consumption"

    But that doesn't have to be from fossil materials, does it?

    This item about Bangladesh tells us people can just skip right over the fossil powered step. Once they've made a bit more money with the system they've got, they'll be buying a bigger and better version of that. They won't sit down and wait for government or big business to build a centralised fossil burning power station.
  33. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:49 AM on 23 March 2011
    Preventing Misinformation
    Well I will say this website is far more fair and honest than realclimate or ( -snip- ).

    @Rob
    It is a possibility that we cannot return to the GAT of 65 mya but I argue that since humans are the most adaptable species ever to exist, and since animals were present 65 mya, we can survive in this type of climate. My problem with your argument is that there just isn't anyway to test it. In my opinion, the only way to test such a hypothesis would be to find a planet similar to earth's, with people on that has a co2 concentration of 560ppm. Of course it is a fool's dream so we have to use models. And I'm not saying that this is bad and models shouldn't be used, only that models are only models.
    Moderator Response: You must comment on the appropriate threads. See my moderator response on your previous comment, for instructions on how to find those. Regarding models, see "Models Are Unreliable." Further off-topic comments will be deleted from this thread.
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    What is disputed...a cold atmosphere warms the warmer earth.

    No-one believes the cold atmosphere warms the warmer earth. The Greenhouse effect slows the rate at which heat escapes from the earth. Period.
  35. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    ... I realize that that first sentence looks like I think I've dug my self into a hole. That was poorly put. It was meant to be advice to Gilles... redundant, I know; as he's clearly off digging himself into other holes else where.
  36. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Gilles, >the shape is perfectly natural and can be produced only by natural variability

    There is no such thing as a "natural shape". The shape does not tell us whether it is natural or not. That can only be obtained via understanding of the underlying physics and forcings that are involved. That is precisely what the scientific literature does (and what this post discusses).
  37. The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
    "It doesn't say much about the origin of ground warming." only if you don't accept conservation of energy. Come on, you agree with one result of radiative physics but disagree with another based on exactly the same physics.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    CBDunkerson750

    You said:
    "In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality."

    Focusing a large radiative input to a specific point is NOT what proponents argue. Redirecting radiation is not a point of contention. What is disputed...a cold atmosphere warms the warmer earth.


    Google solar cooker. The principal works by redirecting radiation, (from a large area) to a small focal area. When facing the sun, the focal area (the small area) gets hot. When facing away from the sun the focal area (small area) gets cold.

    How can this be?

    Maybe you should understand what you proclaim to know.
  39. The True Cost of Coal Power
    "despite everything you can read." So once again you are making an unsubstantiated assertion and at the same time admitting that this assertion flies in the face of what has been written. Right.
  40. Teaching Climate Science
    Gilles - fig 2 is normal science. You create a model for reality, you test it by calculating results and comparing to reality. What method would YOU propose for looking at how much temperature would change based on natural forcing only? Create another identical earth - or use your best computer model for earth? This normal science in every field I am used to.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - I didnt describe any experiment. I proposed that an experiment be designed such that normal understanding of physics and your understanding would calculate a different result. This is normal way to test scientific arguments. I asked if the experiment didn't go your way, whether you would be prepared to abandon your view and read the textbook. (ie, behave like a scientist).

    Got a yes/no? In fact, have you got an experiment that you think validates your views over mainstream physics?
  42. Rob Honeycutt at 06:13 AM on 23 March 2011
    Preventing Misinformation
    Cadbury @ post that might not be deleted... You merely need to look at the radiative forcing related to enhanced GHG concentrations and you will clearly see why they are going to do something.

    If you are under the assumption that we can take the planet where we currently exist, have evolved, have developed agriculture and large complex human society... take that and raise the global temperature back to where it was 65 mya and actually survive... then you are clearly a denier of the first order.
  43. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:05 AM on 23 March 2011
    Preventing Misinformation
    @IanC

    I fail to see how anthropogenic emissions are going to do anything when they are well below historical averages of atmospheric co2. Additionally, I fail to see how there are going to be climate catastrophes with a GAT of 12C versus the GAT of the past 600 million years, which is 22C. Please explain yourself.
    Moderator Response: Peruse the Arguments list, where among the many relevant posts you will find "It's Not Bad." You can also type It's Not Bad into the Search field at the top left of this page. Also "It's Not Urgent," "CO2 Is Not a Pollutant," "CO2 Was Higher in the Past," and "CO2 Was Higher in the Late Ordovician."
  44. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    right, it was only to be sure, so I go on cautiously.

    So you're saying that if you look at the following curve , before 1960, i.e. by hiding the post-1960 part (I could wipe off the last half century if you have no finger to do it), then, the shape is perfectly natural and can be produced only by natural variability ?




    is it right ?
  45. Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
    *blink*

    When 'skeptics' question the increase of solar output over time I've always just said, 'look... we have alot of stars to check it against'... but this works too. :]
  46. Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 23 March 2011
    The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
    Gilles... You might want to look at figure 3 here.
  47. Philippe Chantreau at 05:50 AM on 23 March 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    For myself, Tom, I kinda like your box idea. It could be called a path lengthening device, increasing the number of photons in the system at a given time. Time is often the missing idea when considering GH effect. At equilibrium, energy in and energy out at TOA are equal. Increase IR opacity and energy out at TOA becomes less than in, until the surface temp increases to radiate enough out through the increased opacity. There is no violation of thermodynamics at all.
  48. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    I'm still trying to figure out why Gilles is asking questions which are very clearly answered in the article.
  49. Preventing Misinformation
    Arkadiusz - the first paper you cite is talking about human climate effects thousands of years ago. The second paper is talking about soil carbon emissions as a feedback.

    There is no question that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities. To be blunt, the "doubt" about which you speak is limited to your own confusion about the subject.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJ: "The atmosphere acts like a parabolic dish...you don't really believe that...do you?"

    In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality.

    "Hey CB, read up on solar cookers...when not cooking can be turned away from the sun, and COOL the focused contents. How can this happen...how, with intensified hot radiation form the dish atmosphere?"

    Congratulations... I cannot discern an argument coherent enough to refute.

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2015 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us