|
|
| Home Arguments iPhone App Recent Comments Translations Links Support SkS |
   Latest Posts
|
  
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming. So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? Monday, 30 August, 2010Sea level rise: the broader pictureSea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. Sea level rise mutually corroborates other evidence of global warming as well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments. Posted by doug_bostrom at 10:26 AM | 14 commentsSunday, 29 August, 2010Human CO2: Peddling Myths About The Carbon CycleBefore the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others. Posted by gpwayne at 6:14 PM | 13 commentsSaturday, 28 August, 2010Why we can trust the surface temperature recordSurveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings. Posted by John Russell at 7:41 PM | 24 commentsSaturday, 28 August, 2010Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chainsNot all of the CO2 emitted by human industrial activities remains in the atmosphere. Between 25% and 50% of these emissions over the industrial period have been absorbed by the world’s oceans, preventing atmospheric CO2 buildup from being much, much worse. Posted by Michael Searcy at 10:11 AM | 35 commentsFriday, 27 August, 2010Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject. Posted by Andy S at 9:20 AM | 23 commentsThursday, 26 August, 2010Can humans affect global climate?When we experience weather events like hurricanes and floods, it’s very easy for us to feel insignificant and powerless in the face of such massive natural forces. How can humans influence this? Well, yes, we can. Of course we can’t influence a single weather event, but we can and do have a long term influence on the climate that causes it. Posted by John Russell at 8:30 PM | 33 commentsThursday, 26 August, 2010Climate Models: Learning From History Rather Than Repeating ItClimate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare. Posted by gpwayne at 12:00 PM | 31 commentsWednesday, 25 August, 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2ADMIN NOTE: On Monday, I must have had a senior moment - I meant to post the new Basic version of the "Arctic sea ice has recovered" argument but somehow ended up copying and pasting the Intermediate version. I'll take this as a cautionary tale not to rush a blog post just before going to sleep. In the meantime, here is the actual Basic version written by Graham Wayne: Posted by gpwayne at 9:26 AM | 27 commentsTuesday, 24 August, 2010Hansen etal hit a Climate Home Run -- in 1981Guest post by muoncounter Posted by muoncounter at 12:27 PM | 25 commentsTuesday, 24 August, 2010Station drop-off: How many thermometers do you need to take a temperature?An oft-cited skeptic argument is that the decrease in available temperature measuring stations during the 1990s introduces an increased bias towards warming. The argument is based upon the premise put forward by some climate change skeptics that stations which show more warming were kept and ones that show less warming were dropped. The reason this assumption is made is because during the 1990s there was a large reduction in the number of meteorological stations being used for global temperature analyses. Posted by Robert Way at 9:45 AM | 18 comments |
|||||||
| © Copyright 2010 John Cook | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us | |||||||
 |
|
