Recent Comments

Prev  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  Next

Comments 50901 to 50950:

50901. JackO'Fall at 15:22 PM on 14 December 2012
       Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
       Having just ran the HadCru3 numbers for the past 15 years (December 1997 through November 2012), it is correct to state that these numbers show a mild cooling over the last 15 years. At -0.007 C/decade, the cooling is statistically insignificant. However, it is there according to their numbers. Since I downloaded the text files and checked it myself, you are free to do so and see if I am full of it or not.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "the cooling is statistically insignificant"

       Then it is indistinguishable from zero. And thus you confirm that "It's Not Cooling".

       Please cease to create something where nothing exists. You essentially replicate the comment you made earlier, here. This type of behavior on your part constitutes sloganeering (repeating memes already disproved) and makes your comments subject to moderation. Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with this site's Comments Policy before posting further comments.

50902. JackO'Fall at 15:15 PM on 14 December 2012
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       I just looked at the datafiles from GISS, HadCru 3, RSS, & UAH (yes, you can download them yourself and plug them into a spreadsheet and see for yourself). Since everywhere I turn there is a different version, I needed to check for myself. For the last 15 years (December 1997-November 2012), here are the trends: GISS: +0.1 C/decade HadCru 3: -0.008 C/decade RSS: -0.01 C/decade UAH: +0.05 C/decade So, according to the climate records as of December 2012, warming has stopped for all practical purposes since 1998 (a mean warming trend of 0.02 C/Decade is close enough to 0 that only a zealot would argue the point). I also noticed there is a considerable gap forming between the records, if normalized to January 1980. (-intimations of dishonesty snipped-). (In all fairness, RSS and UAH are very close, HadCru 3 is in between those 2 and GISS, which shows the most warming)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] You knowingly or unknowingly prosecute a meme. A meme based on a lack of understanding of statistical significance. One detailed in this recent blog post here.

       Furthermore, when applying the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, the global warming trend in each of the major data sets IS statistically significant since 2000.

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

       Please read them for enlightenment.

50903. Doug Bostrom at 15:12 PM on 14 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Tom: [Rawls] gives two reasons why he was morally compelled... That's nice; endorsement from skeptics that "moral compulsion" is a rationale for lying. It's absolutely true there's a formal case to be made for lying in certain circumstances, even though it does not exculpate perpetrators of wrong-doing. Of course this means skeptics should retract their hysterical, self-righteous screeching over Peter Gleick, if they're to be consistent. Which begs the question, in what way is consistency really the hobgoblin of a small mind?
50904. DMCarey at 15:06 PM on 14 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       I'm expecting this will kick up a pretty good frenzy among those who will take absolutely any claim they can get the AGW is false without evidence or critical though. Those of us actively engaging in debates on the subject will likely have our hands full dealing with this nonsense (Sigh) Once more unto the breach, dear friends
50905. Tom Curtis at 15:00 PM on 14 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       One thing to note is that Rawls signed a confidentiality agreement in order to become an IPCC reviewer. In doing so, he falsely declared that he had relevant expertise in climate science. Now, however, he finds it convenient to release the draft, thereby being in breach of his contract with the IPCC. He gives two reasons why he was morally compelled to do so: 1) The IPCC has indulged in massive "omitted variable fraud" by not discussing the effect of the Sun, and particularly of the strength of the Sun's magnetic field on the Earth's climate by modulating the cosmic ray flux; and 2) Because the IPCC discussed the effect of the cosmic ray flux on the Earth's climate. That's right! Rawl's reason for being in breach of promise is that the IPCC both did, and did not discuss cosmic rays.
50906. dana1981 at 14:53 PM on 14 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       DSL @2 - true about the same Climategate model, but remember that Climategate 2.0 failed to make any impact because climate realists got out ahead of it and put the information in the correct context. That's what we're trying to do with this post, and would appreciate it if readers would spread the word. Let's get the correct information out there and debunk the myth before it gains any traction.
50907. DSL at 14:38 PM on 14 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context. By the time AR4 WG1 is out, the meme will be so entrenched in the (alas, not so critical) minds of the target audience, it will take them years to self-correct. Indeed, when AR6 comes out and dismisses GCRs, they'll probably claim it's a fraud because AR5 said (according to their opinion-making intermediaries) it was, in fact, GCRs.
50908. bjchip at 14:27 PM on 14 December 2012
       IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
       Why do the arguments being put forth on Watt's site remind me of articles in "The Onion" now?
50909. DSL at 14:12 PM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Jules, you may have already been there, but I'd go for google scholar (here's a useful search) and skim through the lit reviews and discussion sections. You can get a general feel that way and then ask more specific questions (not that your current questions aren't useful). Those google results will also have references that will direct you toward answers to your more general questions (e.g. warming oceans).
50910. DSL at 14:02 PM on 14 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Jack, come on. You ask for precision and then vomit a bunch of hearsay. On models, a hypothetical: you're walking down the street carrying a cake you've spent hours making. You see someone step out of a car 900 yards down the street. The person aims what looks to be a 30-06 in your direction. You see a flash from the muzzle. What do you do? You're arguing to do nothing, because the precise trajectory of the slug is unknown -- the aim of the person may be bad, or you may not be the target, or the bullet may have been inferior, or other conditions might significantly affect the trajectory. You wouldn't actually do nothing, though. The only question is whether you'd drop the cake to roll to safety, or whether you'd try to roll with the cake. Your instinctual modeling would calculate a probable range for each variable, and the resulting range of probable outcomes would be fairly limited, and most of those outcomes would be unpleasant. So it is with climate modeling. The variables are variable, but the range for each is limited. Climate modelers don't choose one run and say, "Here's our prediction." They work through the range of probable scenarios. Solar output, for example, is likely not going to drop or rise beyond beyond certain limits. We know the power of the various GHGs, and their forcing is likely going to be not far from the known power (see, for example, Puckrin et al. 2004). Climate feedbacks aren't going to go beyond certain bounds. Even the range of net cloud feedback--still understudied--is fairly well-established. To put it back in terms of the analogy, it's not like the shooter is wearing a blindfold, or is non-human, or the gun is a toy, or the shooter keeps changing from a couch to a sock to a human to breakfast cereal. It's not like the shooter is working under a different physical model than the target. And it's not like people haven't been shot before. There's plenty of geologic timescale precedence that supports the theorized behavior of atmospheric CO2. Finally, your assumption that we must drop the cake (spend alleged trillions, with the assumption being that these alleged trillions will not re-enter the economy in various ways) is a bad one. We don't have to drop the cake. We just have to be really smart about our moves. We have to have vision, and that is sorely lacking under the current economic and political regime(s).
50911. julesdingle at 12:58 PM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Hi SkS- as someone working agriculture I have noticed more and more differences over the decades- this despite 'limited' surface temp increase. Our main effect is jetstream related [curiously 2007 2012 were agriculturally similar]. So what is likely to happen to all that ocean heat? More Arctic melting? Less temp difference between equator and northern waters? More energy dumping into Atlantic storms so wetter UK summers? or is just going to reach some pressure point and blow? Are there any predictions? papers exploring hot seas? I'm off to do agricultural work in the heart of climate vulnerable Bangladesh- cyclone numbers appear to be much the same year on year and where I'm going it floods every year- sometimes twice from spring melts and monsoons [but this increase may be due to poor river management]. So what are the trends for warmer seas? Thanks if you can direct me. Jules
50912. scaddenp at 12:57 PM on 14 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Another useful page on model reliability which provides model prediction, the papers that made it, the data that verifies it. Incomplete models with varies degrees of known and unknown uncertainties are just part of life - you should see my ones which help petroleum companies make multi-million dollar drilling decisions. A model useful if it has skill - able to outperform a naive prediction. The trick is understanding what those uncertainties are and what are robust predictions can be made. The models have no skill at decadal or sub-decadal climate (unless there is a very strong forcing). They have considerable skill in long term trends. You a mathematical model to calculate detailed climate change. You dont need a complicated model to see into the underlying physics and its implication, nor to observe the changes in climate.
50913. Daniel Bailey at 12:41 PM on 14 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Sigh. Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted: • That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much. • That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool. • That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures. • That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures. • Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles). • That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. • The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. • They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right. • They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data. • The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO. • The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole. • The expansion of the Hadley cells. • The poleward movement of storm tracks. • The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude. • The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics. • The near constancy of relative humidity on global average. • That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase. Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
50914. Terranova at 11:27 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       I've been watching this site for a while. I get that the climate is changing and to a lesser or greater degree is due to humans and our actions. I've seen a plethora of "we must act now", but no realistic solutions. Technically, according to this article, Monckton could be correct on the temperature change. I see a lot of kvetching and "calls to action" but no legit solutions. Just saying'.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Perhaps you must have overlooked this recent post, still visible at left in the listing of recent posts:

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/agu-2012-solving-climate-problem.html

       Additionally, some of the authors over at Skeptical Science have published posts on personal solutions that the everyday person can do:

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evidence_That_Demands_a_Response.html

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=848

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Solutions-by-Rob-Painting.html

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Solutions-by-Daniel-Bailey.html

       Suggestion: less attitude and less kvetching; better dialogue is engendered with better attitudes and comment construction.

50915. Philippe Chantreau at 10:36 AM on 14 December 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Jack O'Fall, before commenting on a thread, it is wise to examine a page or 2 preceeding your intended comment. On the previous page, you could have found references to Sasgen(2012), Barletta(2012) and Flament&Remy (2012). You could also have found a comment from a member of the team that reconciliated the data in a paper published in Science, a team that includes both Barletta and Zwally. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract So, as it turns out, not only some recent info is available in this very thread, but SkS is regarded highly enough by researchers at the forefront of the field that they kindly help to stay on top of the current research.
50916. scaddenp at 10:09 AM on 14 December 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Zwally paper is a conference presentation highlighting an issue. A full reconciliation of the data sources has now very recently been published here which still finds net ice loss. You can find more discussion from one of the authors here. The important bit in the paper is understanding the uncertainties and errors in the various estimation methods and how to reconcile them. Funnily enough, it is nothing about author bias. (You might like to ask Jay Zwally his opinions on climate change (he is not a skeptic) and whether he thinks King's paper is invalid). I do think the page should be updated with the King numbers. Of some relief to modellers, the new numbers more closely reflect what the models predicted would happen in Antarctica.
50917. Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 14 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Jack... You're making completely erroneous assumptions. Even Ben Santer says that models don't do a great job. That is why they rely on model ensembles and multiple model runs. Santer also says that some models are better than others, but ensembles perform better than even the better models. AND weighting the better models makes the ensembles perform even better. It sounds more to me like you are looking for reasons to dismiss the science rather than honestly attempting to understand the science.
50918. JackO'Fall at 09:52 AM on 14 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       So, if I am to accept the science presented here, I must accept that: 1) We have a comprehensive understanding of all the inputs, feedbacks, timing, and interactions of the global climate, 2) We have defined this in a computer model identically with that understanding, 3) We have no bugs or unintended effects programmed into our computer models (Microsoft is very jealous), 4) We have an absolutely accurate understanding of the current climate, and 5) we have done all of this without opening up the models for public review by those who might disagree with them. If not, we have, at best, an approximation with lots of guesses and estimations that might be full of holes and bugs, yet we used it to make predictions that we trust enough to propose spending Trillions of dollars in response. Of course, at worst, we have crappy code that can cause more harm than good by convincing us of things that we don't know enough about how they came about to doubt. Please forgive me if I am still skeptical of the computer models. I do enough modeling in computers to be dubious of anything you get out of an imperfect model.
50919. scaddenp at 09:51 AM on 14 December 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Try reading the intermediate or advanced version of the article (or the appropriate chapter in the IPCC report). You will see that there are empirical studies of climate sensitivity. Read deeper into the papers and you will see that noone assumes climate is in equilibrium - the utility of term does not require it. Your comments on cloud feedbacks would have been justified for TAR but they are far better quantified now. Note also that models are doing a pretty good job of estimating temperature trends, even something as primitive as that used by the Broecker in 1975 ("Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" Science, v 189, n 4201, p 460-3, 8 Aug. 1975") which got temp for 2010 better good.
50920. JackO'Fall at 09:28 AM on 14 December 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Using a GCM to predict/verify sensitivity is flawed and hubris. We have a lot of known unknowns in the GCMs. They are not established science, but SWAGs. Assuming the climate is ever in equilibrium as the basis for a calculation is absurd. It is never, ever, in equilibrium. If it were, we would not see the changes that have occurred in the past. Until science has a better handle on clouds (and many other second-order feedbacks), any attempts to quantify sensitivity are relying on guessing about past events, but not on understanding why.
50921. catman306 at 09:24 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Help! Can someone please straighten out this (possibly) local skeptic? These are comments in "Vote for a Carbon Tax" (from CP) copied into a local paper's blog. http://www.athenstalks.com/vote-carbon-tax?page=1#comment609478 @catman: From the linked article (this article): "Similarly, the measured global surface warming trend over the past 16 years is approximately 0.09 ± 0.13°C per decade according to NASA, as anyone can check for themselves by using the Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator. The surface warming is not statistically significant — again, the uncertainty is larger than the trend, and possible values range from -0.04 to +0.22°C per decade. However, the most likely value is still a positive one, meaning the Earth's surface has most likely warmed 0.09°C per decade, or 0.14°C total for the period of late 1996 thorugh late 2012. Zero warming is one possibility within the range of uncertainty, but it would take a different statistical test to show that there has been no surface warming over the past 16 years, and that test would fail" Am I misinterpreting this? Do these two paragraphs basically say, "we don't have statistical proof of warming, but that doesn't mean it isn't getting warmer"??? "most likely warmed 0.09C" Not even a tenth of a degree, and only "most likely" at that. Hell, I wasn't even denying the idea of temperature increases, but this is making me wonder more about that. When I looked into the data supporting global warming a while back, I came away convinced of two things: average global temperature has risen since 1958; and average global CO2 has risen since 1958. Figuring out which is cause or consequence of the other seemed speculative. Further speculation seemed necessary to affirmatively say that human activity has created warmer climates. This link offers perhaps the most compelling evidence for global warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm However, there is still no direct link between human activity and temperature. It is all peripheral: A has increased since time x. B has increased since time x. B is proven to trap heat. Therefore, humans have affected the increase in A. That doesn't add up. Also, one has to enter the debate under the pretense of one specific time period: 1958 - to present. CO2 records prior to 1958, or otherwise prior to "industrialization" are measured using polar ice core air bubbles. This scientist argues that such methods of measurement are inaccurate: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm Additionally, if you look at year-by-year comparisons of average temperatures and average atmospheric CO2, you will see disproportionate peaks and valleys between the two. That is to say that years with exceptionally high CO2 levels do not always coincide with high-temp years. Year-by-year, it's hard to make the connection. But if you take the averages over the past 50 years you get the matching hockey stick graph. And that's assuming that the polar ice core measurements are true, despite the aforementioned argument that the displacement of water in ice makes the measured levels skewed. Again, I think it's a no-brainer to go with solar, hydro and nuclear (though the last one isn't my favorite). However, creating new taxes will neither solve the problem in time to save the Earth, nor will it actually push anyone to renewable sources. Until fossil fuel sources become so scarce that the cost skyrockets the shift probably won't happen. If these companies get taxed for carbon emmissions, they will just keep on keepin' on and pass the buck to the consumer. Kinda like smokers do with cigarettes.
50922. dana1981 at 09:18 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       tommm, Figure 1 basically shows global heat content (not completely because we're missing some components, like ocean heat content below 2,000 meters, but we've got most of it). If there's a volcanic eruption, for example, which blocks sunlight, the planet as a whole will accumulate less heat (more is effectively deflected back into space) for a short period of time, until those particulates from the eruption wash out of the atmosphere. So during those timeframes we would expect a dip in global heat content. As for ENSO ocean heat exchanges, I don't know that the data resolution is good enough to see that. Especially since it's a 5-year running average, so it's somewhat smoothed out.
50923. John Russell at 09:05 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       I think this new post from Tamino also shows pretty conclusively how ludicrous is the "no warming for 16 years" meme; even when just considering surface temperature.
50924. JackO'Fall at 08:59 AM on 14 December 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Can you adjust this page to take into account the most recent science on this topic? Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses – Presented by Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard I came to this site to learn more (I'm a mildly informed skeptic, hoping to be better informed, but I'm skeptical of most things), but after 10 minutes of research on this "myth", I am having trouble with your explanations. If the most recent research is showing ice mass gains, wouldn't ignoring that be denial? If the research is flawed, I want to know about the flaws. If it is too new to analyze, then mention that there is ongoing research that raises questions. If the researcher is known to be biased, show that. Or, if the research represents the best science on the subject, change your page to reflect it. (Maybe the skeptics aren't 100% wrong?) But to have a 2 year old page with information that seems out-of-date does not help me learn.
50925. tommm at 08:05 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Thanks. Also, to help me understand the plots better, why would the dip in oceanic heat content in 1990 occur simultaneously for the shallow and deep ocean? Second, would I expect to see heat transfers from the air to the oceans (or the other way around) due to ENSO, or is that too small to be seen on this plot?
50926. Daniel Bailey at 07:38 AM on 14 December 2012
       1934 - hottest year on record
       Going to have to update this rebuttal now:

       Global warming is directly linked to only a few weather events and climate trends. One of them, however, is warming itself, which could make 2012 a watershed climate change year in the U.S. More than superstorms, wildfires, and devastating drought, this year’s record-smashing spring and summer heat waves, with their melted airport runways and warped steel rail lines, are more evidence that climate change is real. Last week NOAA announced that 2012 was “likely” to be the warmest year on record in the 48 states, based on temperatures through November. At some point, however, likelihood turns into certainty. Does a warm December push the nation to the point where it is impossible for 2012 to be anything but the warmest year ever recorded in the U.S.? To answer that question Climate Central did the math, and the results are in.

       There is a 99.99999999 percent chance that 2012 will be the hottest year ever recorded in the continental 48 states, based on our analysis of 118 years of temperature records through Dec. 10, 2012.

       [Source]
50927. Doug Bostrom at 07:37 AM on 14 December 2012
       Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
       Oddly I never seem to get any work units from CPN. Was an early participant, have some completed unit credits from way back when, but nothing new is put in my queue.
50928. Glenn Tamblyn at 07:08 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       tommm Also the dips around 1980-83 and 1990-93 correspond to the eruptions of Mt El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1992. The data has a pentadal (5 year) smoothing so that spreads out the effect a bit.
50929. Steve Brown at 06:43 AM on 14 December 2012
       Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
       climateprediction.net is back up. They've had problems with power cuts due to a fire at their local electricity sub-station. http://www.climateprediction.net/news/climatepredictionnet-unscheduled-downtime-fire-local-electricity-substation
50930. Composer99 at 06:06 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       tommm: From about 1940 to 1970 there was global cooling due to the widespread presence of sunlight-reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere. As such I expect the net energy content of the Earth was decreasing during that time frame. By 1970 increased environmental regulation, combined with the overpowering of the aerosol forcing by greenhouse forcing - and voilà! Warming.
50931. tommm at 05:56 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Hi Folks, Can someone please explain why the sum of the three trends in Figure 1 is not monotonically increasing. For instance, there is a big dip on ocean heat content (0-700m) around 1966-67. Is this noise, or does it imply the energy is being transferred to some reservoir not shown in the plot? Thanks.
50932. Alpinist at 05:05 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       As Climate Central makes clear...nonetheless the spin will still be entertaining.
50933. Rob Painting at 04:56 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Alpinist - that's for the US only.
50934. Alpinist at 04:51 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       And then there's this from over at Climate Central....http://www.climatecentral.org/news/book-it-2012-the-hottest-year-on-record-15350 It'll be entertaining to watch the spin.
50935. lord_sidcup at 03:20 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       

       Zero warming is one possibility within the range of uncertainty, but it would take a different statistical test to show that there has been no surface warming over the past 16 years, and that test would fail.

       I don't expect you to do requests, but I have to say a post testing the 'no warming for 16 years' hypothesis would really useful. Deniers play tricks with words, and 'no statistically significant warming' has morphed into 'no warming'. A go to reference to demonstrate that fails would be really useful. Thanks for the R Pielke snr quote. Conflating surface temperatures with global warming is the corollary to 'no warming' and is all the rage amongst deniers at the moment.
50936. citizenschallenge at 01:50 AM on 14 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Incidentally, How's that Monckton Cure for AIDS doing? Lord Monckton: "I've discovered a cure for HIV!" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Though it sure would be fascinating to see the Lord's email exchanges with the blokes who have financed that fancy looking website. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (sniped ad hominen)
       Moderator Response: TC: Speculations about Christopher Monckton's mental state are, of course, ad hominen, and hence always of topic.
50937. DSL at 00:30 AM on 14 December 2012
       There's no empirical evidence
       Aye, thanks Paul -- it's an obviously highly useful tool and easy enough that people who've never engaged the science can get a toehold for their motivation.
50938. SteveS at 23:36 PM on 13 December 2012
       There's no empirical evidence
       Good to hear! Thanks for the work in keeping your website going.
50939. woodfortrees at 23:06 PM on 13 December 2012
       There's no empirical evidence
       Folks, apologies for the WFT downtime - it was caused by an IP allocation cockup at my hosting provider, and as Doug guessed, I didn't notice for a day! Should be fixed now in DNS but it may take a while to propagate. Best wishes Paul
       Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, Paul. If we can help in any way down the road, let us know.
50940. Sceptical Wombat at 21:48 PM on 13 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       chriskoz @ 5 Monkton is an hereditary viscount and therefore perfectly entitled to call himself a lord. However hereditary lords are not automatically members of the House of Lords - they have elections and Monkton has never won a seat. Monkton likes to conflate the two issues - what a surprise - and wave his passport around to prove he is a viscount.
50941. Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:42 PM on 13 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       mandas @1 - I don't think this article is intended to shame or convert Monckton himself, it is intended to arm those of us who are in discussion with people who believe him. I have already used this site twice in response to claims made by otherwise intelligent people quoting him in online forums. This article provides everything I needed to say in one well-written and accessible place.
50942. shoyemore at 19:05 PM on 13 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       Monckton has become an embarrassment to deniers by his embrace of right-wing wackiness like "birtherism". I am sure his espousal of causes like this is for financial reasons as he can command higher speaking fees. Like malamuddy did, one way to deal with Monckton is to point out the fantastical claims he has made over the years, like swearing out an affidavit claiming he has evidence concerning the birth certificate of the President of the United States. Indeed, the whole association of US climate denial with Creationism and birtherism is a gift that can keep on giving. It highlights the whole refusual to face evidence and facts that undermine a favoured ideology.
50943. Brian Purdue at 18:24 PM on 13 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       mandas@1 We can ignore Monckton but the unfortunate fact is he seeks and get attention because of his outlandish behaviour, which suits his backers down to the ground. He is about to tour Australia and New Zealand again so it is most important that his fraudulent science is “again” exposed.
50944. Doug Bostrom at 16:54 PM on 13 December 2012
       There's no empirical evidence
       Many of us are wondering what's up w/Woodfortrees, Steve. It's much cited and well-liked by folks of all stripes. Hopefully the proprietor is having a nice vacation somewhere and simply hasn't noticed it's down. (OK, that's sounds pretty unlikely but I guess we may as well be optimistic.)
50945. Tom Curtis at 16:42 PM on 13 December 2012
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       curiousd @124, if you look at the following diagram, you will see that one NO2 absorption band at around 7.5 micrometers wavelength (1300 cm-1 wave number) is shared with one of the absorption bands for CH4. Removing CH4 from Archer's model greatly reduces the size of the absorption band at 1300 cm-1; but, presumably, the remainder is the absorption by NO2. I have checked and NO2 is accounted for in the model, but its concentration cannot be adjusted in Archer's version. Please note that the solar and OLR spectrums shown in the diagram above are for globally averaged values. The actual power received from the sun by a surface at right angles to the incident sunlight is about four times that shown; and the actual black body spectrum of the sun, prior to attenuation by distance is about 4 million times greater than that from OLR. Further, the OLR is for a very humid clear sky situation, and is not typical.
50946. chriskoz at 14:44 PM on 13 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       malamuddy@3, Thanks for turning my attention to this "Democratic Labor Party" in Wagga. I didn't know about it either. With just one MP in Senate, they cannot make any difference to the political scene. After having invited this monkey clown calling himself a "lord" to perform another silly stunt (like those he performed in Doha and last year in Durban), their rating should drop even lower and we should see them losing the lonely seat soon.
50947. dana1981 at 14:22 PM on 13 December 2012
       This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
       mandas @1 - Monckton is just the vehicle through which we debunk this pervasive 'no warming in 16 years' myth. He's just a tool (by which sense of the word, I'll let you decide).
50948. SteveS at 13:46 PM on 13 December 2012
       There's no empirical evidence
       My apologies for what is likely an off-topic comment, but I wasn't sure of a better place to put the question. Has the Woodfortrees website moved? Google claims it should be at woodfortrees.org, but there's nothing there but an apache tomcat setup page. I hope nothings happened to the site - it's very handy.
50949. curiousd at 13:13 PM on 13 December 2012
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       I meant to say, if you set the methane to zero in the David Archer program the little peak still shows up. Anyone know what this is?
50950. curiousd at 13:11 PM on 13 December 2012
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       What is the tiny peak at about 1300 wave numbers in fig. 3? Although it is in the vicinity of methane, if you set the methane to zero in the David Archer program. Also in Fig. 1 above that peak shows up with no atmosphere. ?????

Prev  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  Next