• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics

Blog – realclimate.org – All Posts

Cuckoo Science La Science Coucou

9 Nov 2006 by Gavin

Traduit par Etienne Pesnelle

Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious ‘science’ on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science. A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completely unjustified conclusions are being drawn – but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.

Two pieces that have recently drawn some attention fit this mold exactly. One by Christopher Monckton (a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands) which comes complete with supplementary ‘calculations’ using his own ‘M’ model of climate, and one on JunkScience.com (‘What Watt is what’). Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these ‘cuckoo science’ pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).

But never fear, RealClimate is here! [Read more…] about Cuckoo Science La Science Coucou

Filed Under: Climate Science, Greenhouse gases, Sun-earth connections

Revealed: Secrets of Abrupt Climate Shifts

8 Nov 2006 by Stefan

This story is the dream of every science writer. It features some of the most dramatic and rapid climate shifts in Earth’s history, as well as tenacious scientists braving the hostile ice and snows of Greenland and Antarctica for years on end to bring home that most precious material: kilometre-long cores of ancient ice, dating back over a hundred thousand years. Back in their labs, these women and men spend many months of seclusion on high-precision measurements, finding ingenious ways to unravel the secrets of abrupt climate change. Quite a bit has already been written on the ice core feat (including Richard Alley’s commendable inside story “The Two Mile Time Machine”), and no doubt much more will be.

It was the early, pioneering ice coring efforts in Greenland in the 1980s and 90s that first revealed the abrupt climate shifts called “Dansgaard-Oeschger events” (or simply DO events), which have fascinated and vexed climatologists ever since. Temperatures in Greenland jumped up by more than 10 ºC within a few decades at the beginning of DO events, typically remaining warm for several centuries after. This happened over twenty times during the last great Ice Age, between about 100,000 and 10,000 years before present.

The latest results of the EPICA team (the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) are published in Nature today (see also the News & Views by RealClimate member Eric Steig). Their data from the other pole, from the Antarctic ice sheet, bring us an important step closer to nailing down the mechanism of the mysterious abrupt climate jumps in Greenland and their reverberations around the world, which can be identified in places as diverse as Chinese caves, Caribbean seafloor sediments and many others. So what are the new data telling us?
[Read more…] about Revealed: Secrets of Abrupt Climate Shifts

Filed Under: Climate Science, Greenhouse gases, Oceans, Paleoclimate

How much CO2 emission is too much?

6 Nov 2006 by david

This post is available in Slovak here (courtesy of Alexander Ač)

This week, representatives from around the world will gather in Nairobi, Kenya for the latest Conference of Parties (COP) meeting of the Framework Convention of Climate Change (FCCC) which brought us the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the task facing the current delegates is to negotiate a further 5-year extension. This is a gradual, negotiated, no doubt frustrating process. By way of getting our bearings, a reader asks the question, what should the ultimate goal be? How much CO2 emissions cutting would it take to truly avoid “dangerous human interference in the climate system”? [Read more…] about How much CO2 emission is too much?

Filed Under: Climate Science, Greenhouse gases, IPCC

AGU, AAPG and AMQUA

1 Nov 2006 by eric

There has been an interesting exchange of letters in the Forum section of the American Geophysical Union’s weekly newspaper, EOS. Last year, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) took the remarkable step of giving a fiction writer, Michael Crichton, its journalism award. Representatives of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA )1 took offense and wrote a letter to EOS about it. Then Fred Singer and Kevin Corbett wrote to AGU to complain about AMQUA’s letter.

Singer claims to be defending the AAPG, though it is by no means clear that the official position of AAPG is representative of its members (see the discussion on AAPG’s website, here (Note: subsequent to this article, these pages were put back into the members-only area)). For his part, Corbett accused the American Geophysical Union of “trenchant advocacy for a preferred political agenda.” We think that AGU’s official response was right on the mark: “AGU does not have any agenda in this arena beyond ensuring that the best available science is used in making public policy.” You can read the complete letters, and AGU’s response, here.
[Read more…] about AGU, AAPG and AMQUA

Filed Under: Climate Science, RC Forum

Ocean Circulation: New evidence (Yes), slowdown (No)

31 Oct 2006 by Gavin

Sometimes journalists are so focused on a particular story that they ‘hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest’. There was a perfect example of this last week in the Guardian reporting from the RAPID Climate Change conference in Birmingham (UK) which I was attending. The conference, whose theme was observations, modelling and paleo-climate related to the Thermohaline and Meridional overturning circulation (MOC) in the North Atlantic, could have been expected to attract media attention (particularly in the Europe) and indeed it did. However, the Guardian story, which started “Scientists have uncovered more evidence for a dramatic weakening in the vast ocean current that gives Britain its relatively balmy climate” was in complete opposition to the actual evidence presented and I wasn’t the only person to notice. How could the reporting be so wrong?
[Read more…] about Ocean Circulation: New evidence (Yes), slowdown (No)

Filed Under: Climate Science, Oceans

Rasslin’ swamp gas

30 Oct 2006 by david

In the early 1990’s, in defiance of IPCC projections, the methane concentration in the atmosphere abruptly stopped rising, and has remained nearly constant since then. Methane is a crouching tiger in the carbon cycle, with potentially enough available as hydrates and from peats to really clobber the Earth’s heat budget. The big question is, will atmospheric methane start rising again? [Read more…] about Rasslin’ swamp gas

Filed Under: Greenhouse gases

Global cooling, again

27 Oct 2006 by group

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in / Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin /A nuclear error, but I have no fear /’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river (chorus from London’s Calling, by Strummer/Jones, 1979).

[Read more…] about Global cooling, again

Filed Under: Climate Science, Reporting on climate

New Google search function

24 Oct 2006 by group

It can be easy to find climate science information on the web, but that information ranges from the excellent to the atrocious – and it can often be hard to tell them apart without some prior expertise. Wouldn’t it be great if someone could vet the information beforehand so that you had some confidence that it wasn’t completely bogus? Well, you need wait no longer!

Some of you may have already noticed that we have updated our search facility to use a new service from Google Co-op which is being launched today. The idea is that the search is restricted to domains and pages that have passed some kind of quality control. RealClimate is one of the demo sites of the new technology and we have started off with a selection of sites (IPCC, goverment labs, research institutes etc. – as well as RealClimate itself of course!) that we know provide quality information about climate science. As we get used to this service, we will be adding sites and pages that we feel are up to the mark. Suggestions for sites that we might not yet have found or have overlooked, will of course be welcome.

Eventually, we hope to have a service that could be an essential resource for the interested public, journalists, and possibly even scientists, that would give a higher quality level of information than is possible now. Let us know if this ends up being useful to you and if you have any suggestions for improving the service.

Filed Under: Climate Science, RC Forum

Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin

16 Oct 2006 by Gavin

In 1859, John Tyndall’s laboratory experiments showed that water vapour and carbon dioxide absorb infra-red radiation and that they could therefore affect the climate of the Earth. As soon as his paper was published (1861) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, he put out a press release for the London newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the concentrations of these ‘greenhouse’ gases…

Fast forward to 2006: Svensmark and colleagues’ laboratory experiments show that highly ionizing radiation can create ultra-small aerosol particles. As soon as the paper is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they put out a press release for the world’s newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the intensity of these ‘cosmic rays’….

History repeating itself? Well, not exactly. Tyndall actually restricted himself to describing his experiments and simply linking it to the work of Fourier a few decades earlier. It took more than another century before the credible quantitative estimates of these effects and their influence on past and possibly future climate were made, along with good enough observations of the gases to know that they have (and continue) to change significantly. However, Svensmark and colleagues, not wanting to wait for the credible quantitative results to come in, instead short circuited all of that tedious follow-up work, scaling up to realistic conditions, theoretical and modelling studies demonstrating that their effect was indeed viable, and simply declared in their press materials that the team had ‘discovered that cosmic rays play a big part in the everyday weather’ and ‘brings to a climax a scientific quest that has lasted two centuries’. Nobel prizes all round then.

Alas! if only it were that simple….
Una traducción está disponible aquí
[Read more…] about Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin

Filed Under: Aerosols, Climate Science, Sun-earth connections

How not to attribute climate change

10 Oct 2006 by rasmus

In an earlier post, we discussed a review article by Frohlich et al. on solar activity and its relationship with our climate. We thought that paper was quite sound. This September saw a new article in the Geophysical Research Letters with the title «Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record» by Scafetta & West (henceforth referred to as SW). This article has now been cited by US Senator James Inhofe in a senate hearing that took place on 25 September 2006 . SW find that solar forcing accounts for ~50% of 20C warming, but this conclusion relies on some rather primitive correlations and is sensitive to assumptions (see recent post by Gavin on attribution). We said before that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition. So what wrong with it…?

[Read more…] about How not to attribute climate change

Filed Under: Climate Science, Sun-earth connections

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 112
  • Page 113
  • Page 114
  • Page 115
  • Page 116
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 140
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
  • Koonin’s Continuing Calumnies
  • Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • 2025 Updates
  • A peek behind the curtain…

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Nigelj on Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • Tomáš Kalisz on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • patrick o twentyseven on The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
  • Secular Animist on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Ron R. on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Ron R. on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Ray Ladbury on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Nigelj on Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • Nigelj on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Tomáš Kalisz on The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
  • Susan Anderson on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Patrick McDaniel on Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • Ron R. on The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
  • Susan Anderson on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Susan Anderson on The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
  • Susan Anderson on The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
  • Ken Towe on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Ken Towe on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Ken Towe on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • Barton Paul Levenson on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Barton Paul Levenson on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Barton Paul Levenson on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Joseph O'Sullivan on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Atomsk's Sanakan on Unforced variations: Feb 2026
  • jgnfld on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2
  • Tomáš Kalisz on 2025 Updates
  • Tomáš Kalisz on 2025 Updates
  • Data on EPA’s final* ruling on CO2

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,398 posts

15 pages

250,348 comments

Copyright © 2026 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.