71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:10 pm
ican, I suggest that there are more reliable sources than the Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon cartel, who have been excoriated by the scientific community for misusing proxy data, as in that paper which you repeatedly cite, which is pretty much a rewrite of the same data and the same graphs that they have been peddling since about 1998,

I suggest you also go to the sources--the satellite data for TSI, which are now in through the latest solar minimum, which just occurred a couple months ago. As the satellite data have been showing for the last thirty years, TSI is not increasing. As a matter of fact, it has decreased over the last three cycles. Try something like NOAA, which is just a tad more reliable than well-known cranks like the Andersons and Willie Soon and the OISM.

And take a look at that stupid Soon graph that you keep reposting, of US temp versus their supposed solar variation. Keep in mind that nobody else uses that 1372 W correlation, since it comes from an erroneous calibration on the NIMBUS 7 stellite, which hasn't been functioning since 1994. Notice that the only reason someone would suggest a correlation is because Soon et al fiddled with the scale, particularly the vertical scales of the two variables and then arbitrarily overlapped them. Notice that for most of the time when their suspect solar output is rising, the US temps are slowly falling, or vice versa. There's only about thirty years of the 150+ years it's supposed to cover where there's much of an agreement in slope. You'd probably get more of an agreement by chance.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 06:54 am
"Scientific" research and conclusions in the service of the corporate public relations strategies.

Close to 100% of everything Ican and Foxfire (or others arguing their view) post here derives from PR entities established/funded by energy/oil companies. Usually, as in the case below, these corporate connections are purposefully hidden to give the impression of objectivity.

Quote:
Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: March 26, 2008
In October 2006, Dr. Claudia Henschke of Weill Cornell Medical College jolted the cancer world with a study saying that 80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented through widespread use of CT scans.

Small print at the end of the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, noted that it had been financed in part by a little-known charity called the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment. A review of tax records by The New York Times shows that the foundation was underwritten almost entirely by $3.6 million in grants from the parent company of the Liggett Group, maker of Liggett Select, Eve, Grand Prix, Quest and Pyramid cigarette brands.

The foundation got four grants from the Vector Group, Liggett's parent, from 2000 to 2003.

Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, editor in chief of the medical journal, said he was surprised. "In the seven years that I've been here, we have never knowingly published anything supported by" a cigarette maker, Dr. Drazen said.

An increasing number of universities do not accept grants from cigarette makers, and a growing awareness of the influence that companies can have over research outcomes, even when donations are at arm's length, has led nearly all medical journals and associations to demand that researchers accurately disclose financing sources.

Dr. Henschke was the foundation president, and her longtime collaborator, Dr. David Yankelevitz, was its secretary-treasurer. Dr. Antonio Gotto, dean of Weill Cornell, and Arthur J. Mahon, vice chairman of the college board of overseers, were directors...
full article here
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 07:36 am
Argo's cool reception
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 07:40 am
ican711nm wrote:
Parados, you act as if you cannot read accurately and comprehend more than one graph at a time. Together they support my claims. Here again are the three graphs I posted:


http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png
!!!Arctic Air Temperature versus Solar Activity and CO2 trend.

In this first graph, please note that the number of years between points on its abscissa are 20 years apart. The solar irradiance and arctic temperature curves in this graph go up to about the year 2002.
The last time I checked 2002 is NOT 2005. The rest of the curve for solar irradiance is the same as the next graph.

Quote:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide5.png
!!!US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity.

In this second graph, please note that the number of years between points on its abscissa are also 20 years apart. The solar irradiance and US surface temperature curves in this graph go up to about the year 2007.
A simple measuring device shows the end of the graph is 2010 or 2011 and the last point on the graph is 2005. A child should be able to tell you this. Measure the distance from 1980 to 2000. Divide that by 2. Add that to the distance after 2000. Mark a straight line up from that. You will go through the red line at a point almost at the end of the red line. Now we simply look at the red line's thickness. Software for making lines this thick adds 1/2 of the thickness of that line to all points used to create the line. The red beyond the 2005 line is about 1/2 the thickness of the line so the last point is roughly 2005.


Now we do the same thing for the center height of the red line. 1975 reads at approximately 1370.625 and 2005 reads at 1371.125. It is NOT a distance of 1 w/m2 no matter how generous you try to be in your reading.

Quote:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide13.png
!!!Composite versus CO2 activity.


In this third graph, please note that the number of years between points on its abscissa are 50 years apart. The right most gray area covers 1975 to 2005. The solar irradiance, and global temperature curves in this graph also go up to about the year 2007.


Lets face facts here, parados. You need to learn how to read graphs more accurately.
The grey area doesn't cover 1975-2005. It covers the area that is warming. It is roughly 1975 til today but the edge of the grey is NOT equal distance from 1950-2000. If it were really 1975 then your 1 w/m^2 claim would be even more obviously made up.

Again.. we simple use a measuring device and a straight edge. The line is the same curve used in the other 2 graphs. Can you NOT make a straight line ican? It is really quite simple to do. Try printing out the graphs you keep posting and sit down make the marks required to support your claim. You will find your claim is complete hokum based on these graphs.

Hint - you MUST measure from the same point on the line at both years. You can't measure the top of the red line in 2005 and the bottom of the read line in 1975. Of course this does raise the question of why the red line is a .25w/m^2 thick. It also raises the question of why Soon uses the particular graph line he does.(If Soon did use such a graph.) Soon's work, according to his abstract as I already mentioned, is done in dedadal and multidecadal regressions. He doesn't use single years. Why don't you post Soon's work which the graph supposedly came from?

So get out your straight edge and measuing device ican. Make the measurements and come back with your corrected statements. There is no 1w/m^2 increase from 1975-2005 in the graphs you keep posting over and over. You only make yourself look like the fool you probably are.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 07:53 am
McGentrix wrote:

During the last 5 years the sun's irradiance has decreased by almost 1 w /m^2 in the course of the solar cycle. Heck. If we read ican's charts the way he reads them we would have to say that the TSI has decreased by 2 w/m^2 in the last 5 years. We would expect the global temperature to decrease as the solar irradiance decreases. Okie and others have argued that is the case. But when it is pointed out that there is no real decrease during this time period but only a "plateau" okie and ican suddenly want to ignore the solar irradiance figures and claim there is no man made global warming because there is no warming at all.

You guys are all one trick ponies. You select your data when it supports you and then throw it out the window when it doesn't support you.

Does the 11 year solar cycle exist or not? if it does exist then why wouldn't we have cooling from the high to the low in the cycle? If there is no cooling from the high to the low, what is the possible cause for that lack of cooling? You can't claim that the warming from 1975 to today is caused by solar irradiance increases but then ignore the solar irradance decrease from 2000-2007 because it suits you.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:14 am
Blatham writes
Quote:
Close to 100% of everything Ican and Foxfire (or others arguing their view) post here derives from PR entities established/funded by energy/oil companies. Usually, as in the case below, these corporate connections are purposefully hidden to give the impression of objectivity.


I'm sure you sincerely believe that, Bernie, being the fair minded, unbiased, and objective sort that you are. I'm sure you can also show with some degree of accuracy that your assertion is true without any problem so that you won't be unfairly accused of dealing in implied ad hominem and a huge red herring with an article on tobacco funding won't be noticed. Do you think the distinguished scientists in this discussion, i.e. Highseas, Minitax, Okie, etc. are equally guilty of inappropriately using oil company research?

Yes some--I'm suggesting not all or most--AGW skeptics have received funding from oil and coal companies. So have some AGW proponents, but that's not important right now. For starters, why don't you start with the Argo collaboration and show how that fits in with your nearly 100% observation?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:37 am
This is the first time I opened this thread in awhile. I don't know why anyone would waste her time engaging people who essentially are arguing that the earth is flat.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:28 am
Don't bother us here. We were having intelligent discussions here. Go back to your Obama worship threads.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:30 am
McGentrix wrote:

Thanks for the interesting article, McGentrix.

If this had supported AGW, is there any doubt this news would have been front page?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:33 am
okie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Thanks for the interesting article, McGentrix.

If this had supported AGW, is there any doubt this news would have been front page?


No doubt at all.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 10:09 am
The German ARGO project started already in 2004, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the supervision of the PTJ. It involved the cooperation of all mayor maritime institutes.
Now it's part of the global Argo array of 3000 floats.

All that is part of the Ship Of Opportunity Programme (SOOP).


You'll find a lot of results in the various publcations by the fishing ministries, transport ministries, defense ministries ...



The Argos Project is one of the topics at the 3rd Extreme Weather Congress.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 12:46 pm
nothing to get exited about ... it's just a chunck of ice about to break off .
watch the video clip at "source" .

Quote:
Antarctic shelf 'hangs by thread'

By Helen Briggs
Science reporter, BBC News



The Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming places on Earth
Flyover of the breaking ice shelf

A chunk of ice the size of the Isle of Man has started to break away from Antarctica in what scientists say is further evidence of a warming climate.
Satellite images suggest that part of the ice shelf is disintegrating, and will soon crumble away.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf has been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s.

Six ice shelves in the same part of the continent have already been lost, says the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

Professor David Vaughan of BAS said: "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

"I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread - we'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."

'Like an explosion'

BAS researchers were alerted to the break-up by daily monitoring of satellite images. They sent a Twin Otter aircraft on a reconnaissance mission to video what was happening.

Jim Elliott, who was on board the plane, said he had never seen anything like it before.

He said: "We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage.

"Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble - it's like an explosion."

A 41-by-2.5km (25-by-1.6 mile) berg appears to be breaking away, with much of the Wilkins Ice Shelf protected only by a thin strip of ice spanning two islands.

Since an ice shelf is a floating platform of ice, the break-up will have no impact on sea level. But scientists say it heightens concerns over the impact of climate change on this part of Antarctica.

'Unprecedented' warming

Professor Vaughan predicted in 1993 that the northern part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf would be lost within 30 years if climate warming continued. But he said it is happening more quickly than he expected.


He told BBC News: "What we're actually seeing is a chunk of the ice shelf drop off in a way that suggests it is not just a normal part of iceberg formation.
"This is not a sea level rise issue, but is yet another indication of climate change in the Antarctic Peninsula and how it is affecting the environment."

Scientists say the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Southern Ocean towards the tip of South America, has experienced unprecedented warming over the last 50 years.

Several ice shelves have retreated in the past 30 years - six of them collapsing completely.

Other researchers believe the Wilkins Ice Shelf may hang on a little longer, as Antarctica's summer melt season draws to a close.

Dr Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado said: "This unusual show is over for this season. But come January, we'll be watching to see if the Wilkins continues to fall apart."


Story from BBC NEWS:

source including video clip :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7313264.stm

Published: 2008/03/25 16:55:23 GMT

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 12:49 pm
IPCC (i.e., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has done incompetent and fraudulent work checking the solar cycle's effect and water vapor's effect on average global temperature.

These 400 scientists have said as much:
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


SOME EXAMPLES OF THESE 400 SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.""Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001:

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw:

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.""The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 12:52 pm
Gee, Ican, who would have thought that all those esteemed scientists were bought and paid for by big oil? Big oil is tough, huh.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 12:57 pm
It is well known that Morano's blog on the committee's website promotes the views of climate change skeptics.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 01:07 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
It is well known that Morano's blog on the committee's website promotes the views of climate change skeptics.

It is well known that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change promotes the views of climate change believers.

It is also well known that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has falsely claimed that their views are the views of the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 01:11 pm
It is well known that the IPCC promotes the use of actual science.

Those at the IPCC use actual numbers. They don't make up numbers from fuzzy graphs that are suspect to begin with.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 01:44 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Gee, Ican, who would have thought that all those esteemed scientists were bought and paid for by big oil? Big oil is tough, huh.

Laughing
Foxfyre, I bet IPCC (i.e., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) true believers think "all those [skeptical] esteemed scientists were bought and paid for by big oil." I bet all the IPCC's scientists are trusted by IPCC's true believers to not be bought and paid for by big UN General Assembly (or a majority of the governments it represents).

We all will have to decide who are more trustworthy: people seeking their own profit from their own work, or people seeking their own power from their own falsities.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 02:58 pm
By the way ican....
You left off the disclaimer included at the very beginning of the MINORITY committee report that states as follows..
Quote:

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]


So it seems these scientists are only questioning the predictions of catastrophic man made warming. They aren't questioning if the warming exists or even if it is man made. They are ONLY questioning predictions of "catastrophe."

All the MINORITY did was take statements of scientists out of context and then ican extended that claim to they were somehow skeptical of global warming. It is nothing else. These scientists did not testify for this report. They were not asked to be in the report. Their statements were just given meaning that may in no way reflect their actual opinion on global warming.

So speaking of people seeking power from their own falsities. You might want to check the mirror ican. You are full of things that aren't quite what you claim.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 04:52 pm
parados wrote:
By the way ican....
You left off the disclaimer included at the very beginning of the MINORITY committee report that states as follows..
Quote:

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

...

I did not find this disclaimer within the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. That's why I left this disclaimer off. Please let me know where in this report I can find this disclaimer.

Quote:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

Front Matter

Summary for Policymakers

Technical Summary

Frequently Asked Questions (extracted from chapters below)



Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Chapter 3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change

Supplementary Material: Appendix 3.B. Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems (including references)

Chapter 4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground

Chapter 5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level

Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate

Supplementary Material: Appendix 6.A. Glossary for Terms Specific to Chapter 6

Chapter 7 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry

Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation

Supplementary Material: Appendix 8.A. Supplementary Figures and Tables

Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Supplementary Material: Appendices & References

Chapter 10 Global Climate Projections

Supplementary Material: Supplementary Details, Tables & Figures

Figures Showing Individual Model Results for Different Climate Variables

Chapter 11 Regional Climate Projections

Supplementary Material: Appendix 11. Tables, Figures, References



Annexes: (1)Glossary, (2)Authors, (3)Reviewers, (4)Acronyms



Index



Uncertainty Guidance Note for the Fourth Assessment Report



Errata for the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report



Figures
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 02:16:12