Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 Next
Comments 53851 to 53900:
-
Composer99 at 02:12 AM on 14 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
With regards to being labelled alarmist, in order for the labelling to be accurate, the framing around it must also be accurate (that is, the person labelled as an 'alarmist' must actually be making unwarranted claims about the dangers of global warming). When the full body of evidence is examined, as well as the positions of the vast majority of scientific societies (but also of third parties such as reinsurers or, say, the branches of the US military), it is IMO unequivocally clear that the circumstances surrounding global warming are genuinely alarming. As such, as long as someone being labelled 'alarmist' is making their case with reference to the scientific evidence, it is IMO best to reject the label and the framing that goes on with it. -
chuck101 at 02:08 AM on 14 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Thanks Sphaerica, That's precisely as I took it. Basically, it's a self contradictory position and I can't believe that Eric can't see that. I was beginning to believe that I was the one who was going nuts! -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:05 AM on 14 September 2012It's not bad
AHuntington1 cen you give a verifiable source to support that hypothesis? I very much doubt rising atmospheric CO2 levels will have a significant direct effect on human health for the simple reason that most of us live in cities, or near places with large CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and terrestrial biota, which swamp the effects of even large increases in background CO2 levels. I did a quick search myself and found: A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity L-G Hersoug, A Sjödin, and A Astrup Human obesity has evolved into a global epidemic. Interestingly, a similar trend has been observed in many animal species, although diet composition, food availability and physical activity have essentially remained unchanged. This suggests a common factor—potentially an environmental factor affecting all species. Coinciding with the increase in obesity, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased more than 40%. Furthermore, in modern societies, we spend more time indoors, where CO2 often reaches even higher concentrations. Increased CO2 concentration in inhaled air decreases the pH of blood, which in turn spills over to cerebrospinal fluids. Nerve cells in the hypothalamus that regulate appetite and wakefulness have been shown to be extremely sensitive to pH, doubling their activity if pH decreases by 0.1 units. We hypothesize that an increased acidic load from atmospheric CO2 may potentially lead to increased appetite and energy intake, and decreased energy expenditure, and thereby contribute to the current obesity epidemic. Note particularly the point about CO2 levels being higher indoors. Perhaps not so beneficial afterall. -
vrooomie at 01:55 AM on 14 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John, you are *clearly* better at this than I: however, I have a spark of inspiration, which I'll lay upon you, then you can run with it.... Something along the lines of, 'How many Watts does it take to power a light bulb....' The rest is up to you! -
anon1234 at 01:53 AM on 14 September 2012It's not bad
One major positive benefit of increased atmospheric C02 concentration which has yet to be listed here is the enhanced efficiency of mitochondrial respiration that it would provide to animals via the Bohr effect. Because the Co2 to O2 ratio determines the hemoglobin's affinity for O2 and plays a major role in vasodilation/vasoconstriction (C02 is a vasodilator while 02 is a vasoconstrictor), increasing the ratio of Co2 to 02 significantly increases the distribution of 02 throughout the body, thus enhancing krebs cycle efficiency and general mitochondrial respiration. More atmospheric C02 is beneficial for plants (as has been described in this thread) and animals. -
John Hartz at 01:45 AM on 14 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
One more before I take the dogs out for their long walk... Dang it all, I told Watts not to turn off the lights when he left. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:22 AM on 14 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Eric, Let me try to paraphrase your position: Eric believes what 97% of the climate scientists believe, which is that myriad aspects of the science point to dangerous global warming, except he also believes the models are wrong, and therefore concludes from that position that we should ignore everything else that 97% of climate scientists believe. Have I got that about right? -
Bob Loblaw at 01:07 AM on 14 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John: As long as I'm role-playing a "climate skeptic", it behooves me to maintain a fairly large degree of self-inconsistency.... -
Ed_B at 00:16 AM on 14 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
(-snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Please repost your comment on a more appropriate thread, minus the all-caps and the accusations of dishonesty. -
JohnP at 23:44 PM on 13 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
The Night Before Minimum 'Twas the Night before Minimum and all through the house The windows were leaking, Santa searched for his spouse The foundation was gone, 'twas no chill in the air Santa knew things had changed but he did not despair Santa'd bought a big boat, he knew this day would come He'd seen temperatures rising, seen this "Day in the Sun" He'd put floats on his reindeer, put floats on his shop Now it's time they were moving "'fore there's no place to hop" "On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer and Vixen" "On Comet, on Cupid, on Donder and Blitzen" "To the top of the deck, to the deck is my call" "To the deck 'fore this ice flow is nothing at all" "We're off to the South Pole where ice sits on land" "Where there's no need for ice to find some place to stand" They loaded the boat with all in their care They started the engine, they set wind to hair "To all Warm September! To all buy a fan!" "Let's put out the deck chairs it's time for a tan!" "Think of me in your dreams. Think of me and my house" "There's no ice in the ocean, there's no ice 'neath my spouse" "Think of great ways to spin, think of great ways to say" "That the Earth is not warming, it's not warming NO WAY!" "Say goodbye to the Arctic for it's now a warm bay" "And I've just retired.. no sled for Christmas Day." -
John Hartz at 23:32 PM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
@Bob Loblaw #104: Like the Wattsonians, you excell at tying yourself up in a Gordian knot. Where's Alexander the Great when we need him? -
vrooomie at 23:04 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
This is one of those discussion areas into which I'm chary to wade: As I'm a 'Frisbeeterian," I'm agnostic on the whole topic. IMHO, it only clouds the issue and in the end (game) the only really significant difference is...do we destroy that which was given to us, whether by some omnipotent FSM, or simply a planet on which life evolved to us, now, or in 1000 years? I'm doing all I can to stave off disaster as far forward in the future as that future might exist. -
noble_serf at 22:49 PM on 13 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
@#1 (Wadard) I was a "denier," as in someone who had not read anything close to the science on the matter, but instead stuck to an editorial narrative. Two things happened. I found this site when I was attempting to refute a cliam about AGW. This site works. Also, I saw the reaction of my denier peers to the U.S. political process in 2008/2010, and I was shocked. It reaffirmed my decision to abandon previously held opinions. As for public policy in the U.S., I support firm, immediate action on all fronts, but I will not be suprised if we "burn it all" in our efforts to maintain a slipping standard of living. I think the solutions require a collective effort on the scale of U.S. reaction to WWII. As my parents can attest, nearly everyone was engaged together to reach a desired outcome. -
Wadard at 22:21 PM on 13 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
Very thought-provoking. As voters we have some clout every three years, on much contested ground. But the most leverage we can bring to bear in influencing the narrative are eye-balls and Twitter. Rewarding factual, accurate, unbiased, not falsely-balanced reporting of the science and news of climate change will bring in the advertisers. They will craft their messages and products to their discriminating audiences. And the corollary then is to not keep feeding the trolls, so I should stop wading into the denier sites and contesting the propaganda. I'm sure I haven't changed any minds. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:04 PM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Chuck101, I've tried to explain why I can't answer that in #59. My putting such a paragraph in every thread would be pointless and result in clutter. I can expand on my points here if you want me to. -
Kevin C at 20:04 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
Villabolo: Can you present evidence that a) Most US evangelicals are pre-millenial. b) Most US evangelicals are climate skeptical. Even in the 2007 Pew Forum report, the latter was not the case, and things have shifted since then, see for example the Evangelical Climate Initiative. US Baptists (the largest contingent) are split on the issue. SBC seminary staff are certainly predominantly premillenial, although it is not clear if this is reflected in the church as a whole. The millenial obsession is primarily a US one: I expect that outside the US few evangelicals could define their position. In the UK evangelicals are spread across the political spectrum, and views on climate are most strongly shaped by political rather than religious views. Creationism is also a minority view among evangelicals over here. -
chuck101 at 19:06 PM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
My point to Eric was that, Given that he says he accepts the 97% scientific consensus, so hence must accept that AGW is happening. Given also, that it appears to be happening faster than most of the estimates. (Nobody predicted that we could have an ice free North Pole by 2020, which we seem to be on course for). So given all this evidence, (which he apparently accepts), why does he make it contingent on the future development of computer models which can model to his arbitrary standards, and which may take twenty years to develop? This is like sitting inside a burning house and fiddling with the air conditioning. The logical and sensible approach would be, 'yes, I accept the evidence, AGW is happening and we need to do something about it now; and by the way, it would be nice to continue to develop the computer models so we can have some advance notice of what may occur'. To continue to insist that the models fit your arbitrary standards before you accept said evidence, (and potentially wait 20 years or so), is just nuts. -
Lanfear at 18:53 PM on 13 September 2012Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
Mark-US@80: "Take the made-up example of caribou altering ground cover in such a way that it accelerates albedo loss" FWIW this seems to be the opposite in reality, according to this study. Based on their measurements, the grazed area had a higher albedo than non-grazed. I would hazard a guess, that while this was done in Finland and Norway, and with reindeers, the same result is applicable to caribou too. In regards to your actual point, about what constitutes a feedback, it becomes a bit fuzzy in your example. While the increased CH4-release is very mechanistic in its nature and can be directly linked to the temperature rise*, the caribou-example has a lot of other variables involved. For example, they may move to cooler areas in order to avoid mosquitoes, which will also increase as the temp goes up. This means that the caribou-feedback becomes complicated and depends a lot on external circumstances. * Except that this may not quite be the case, Blok et al. 2010 argues that increased vegetation on top of the permafrost isolates it more efficiently from the heat. -
scaddenp at 17:49 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
DB, I agree. I would say the principle of "on earth as it is in heaven", and frankly the large body of teaching in Gospel on what the reign of God as opposed to a human king would look like, is at severe odds with what Villabola characterises as "pre-millenial". -
Bob Loblaw at 15:22 PM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John Hartz @ 103: ...but if I put it in quotes, then I'd be implying that I'm a denier admitting I'm in denial, which wouldn't work.... and calling myself a denier might violate the comments policy...Moderator Response: [DB] Only if used in a self-pejorative sense. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:15 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
As a conservative Christian raised in the evangelical tradition I feel compelled to respond in brief to this. Not all Christians are fundamentalist in the sense that underlies much of today's Republican Party in the US. For those raised under the principles of stewardship, we are governed by the mandate to live our lives under the knowledge that we will one day stand for a final performance review of our lives. And that an accounting will be made for everything that we did do...and everything that we didn't do. For Christians, it is given to none of us to know the day, time or hour; we carry the charge of remaining ready. In that sense, it matters little whether one is Pre-Millennialist or Post-Millennialist. Because under the principle of stewardship, the distinction doesn't matter. -
villabolo at 15:04 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
scaddenp @#13 No, that's the last thing I would desire as a topic under ordinary circumstances. We have enough to worry about the potential apocalypse of Global Warming without adding mysticism to any rational discussion. But..... Since John spoke from a Christian perspective I thought it would be instructive to point out that there are other perspectives from others who consider themselves Christians. The importance of their opposing beliefs lays in the fact that they are politically powerful in the U.S. Their irrationality is becoming the basis of our public policy. These ‘Christians’ have been demonizing environmentalists and us 'alarmists' and have even slandered John. It's good to know where your opponent is coming from - how he thinks. Know thy enemy. -
scaddenp at 13:52 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
Well only John can answer for John, but I'd say for many main-line and non-evangelicals Christians here, the answer would be "Huh?". How about neither? Is eschatology on topic for this thread do you suppose? -
villabolo at 13:40 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
@ DSL, Gentlemen, let's not get started ;-). -
Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
And if you've been bitten by an angry North American alpine critter who's angry at its rapidly changing habitat, you've been pika-ed. -
Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
villabolo - Not a problem: English is the language of exceptions, and homonyms (words with the same pronunciation, but different meanings and spellings) do not help matters... -
villabolo at 12:58 PM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
KR, I don't mind being corrected on my grammar or even punctuation; English is my second language. :-) It seems that "peaked" is a very common misspelling, Thanks for the correction. -
John Hartz at 12:57 PM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
@ Bob Loblaw #92: It took me a while. Brilliant! PS - For future reference, please bracket suggested balloon text in quotation marks. -
vrooomie at 12:45 PM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Dunkerson@96...this one is *your* fault...;) "Dark is *plant* food." -
Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
villabolo - Apologies for being a grammar/vocabulary stickler, but "peaked"/"piqued"? -
villabolo at 11:53 AM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
Scaddenp @6 "villabolo - odd question (what on earth is a "post millenial"). Why do you ask? Its not clear to me why this would be relevant." My apology for posting such an odd sounding question. I was in a rush and I thought that John would understand but I should have taken the time to explain it to a general audience. I asked those questions because John’s beliefs are at odds with the beliefs of most (not all) Evangelicals here in the U.S. (I don’t know Australia’s religious demographics). A particular theology has a lot to do with a persons' world view and different theologies affect how a Christian would view the environment as it relates to "stewardship" over the Earth (i.e. responsibility). Let's start of with "eschatology" 101 (end-times theology), I'll try to keep it painless. There are two basic worldviews as they relate to a Christian's view of the world and whether such Christians sees himself as responsible for the physical environment. It gets complicated but the basics are: 1) Pre-millennial: The belief that we are living in “the last days” in an unredeemable world that is not worth fixing. Christ will come at any moment to take his church away then all hell will let loose socially and environmentally. After the Earth is destroyed it will be turned into a ‘paradise’ which will last a thousand years i.e. “millennium.” This worldview assumes it is pointless to fix anything in the here and now. An analogy to their attitude would be: “Why paint the house when it has been condemned and will be torn down and rebuilt by the Landlord any day now?” This theo-ideology fits hand in glove with the non-religious ideology of the Political and Financial elites, hence the symbiotic relationship between the two in American politics. 2) Post-millenial: The complete inverse of the above. According to this belief it is Christians who are in charge of restoring the Earth and society before Christ comes. I assumed that John has this or a similar point of view since his Christian viewpoint clashes with that of most (not all) American Evangelicals. 3) Theistic Evolution: As to the question on John’s concept of Creation, I was wondering if John was a “theistic evolutionist.” Theistic evolutionists believe in the process of evolution - it does not clash with their Christian perspective. Many Evangelicals however – at least in the U.S. – are strict creationists with no concept of the Earth’s geological ancientness. They would make poor paleo-climatologists since one needs to have an evolutionary view to understand how climate is rooted in Earth’s history. I could tell right off that John does not ascribe to that view. I could also understand why the Christian Right, particularly in the U.S., would slander him as they have in the past. Again, I apologize for the seemingly bizarre nature of these questions but my curiosity about John’s Christianity was peaked. -
OregonStream at 11:49 AM on 13 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Good piece, but "ecosystes", and "supposdely" twice? Time to break out the spell checker. ;-) -
Chookmustard at 10:48 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
The guy who jumps to mind immediately is poor old Tim Flannery here in Oz. he gets lampooned and derided and accused of lying and inflating information. Papers,radio,Internet and tv all have a go at him, by the usual suspects (shock jocks, columnists etc). I don't get labelled in any particular way. My GF thinks CC is not a problem but that's probably because she likes to disagree with me. -
Solar cycles cause global warming
The closest match to the curve Soon & Briggs posted (that I've seen) is Hoyt & Schatten 1993, Fig. 10. The S&B graph differs in that it extends later (with the odd issues of verticals and doubled lines) than H&S, and is offset by ~10 W/m^2, but the overall shape is strikingly similar. The H&S graph was an 11-year running mean of multiple solar models including solar cycle length. A H/T to Leif Svalgaard on WUWT, who noted:...looks like the discarded 20-yr old Hoyt & Schatten data, which today is not generally accepted...
Again, as others have noted - Soon and Briggs simply have not sourced their TSI data, which doesn't match any current TSI record I am aware of. -
skywatcher at 10:30 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Andy S noted to me the possibility that the drafting was done by the Washington Times. That is a reasonable explanation for the poor plotting, but why on earth would they plot reverse slopes? Very poor plotting/tracing whoever did it! What remains are the substantive questions as to the source of the "solar radiation" curve. It is clearly plotted poorly, and does not appear to relate to other estimates (proxy or direct) of solar irradiance. Adding that to the cherry-pick of US land daytime temperatures (rather than global, or full daily, ie day and night), and this graph is very poor indeed. Soon and Briggs, show your working please! -
scaddenp at 10:20 AM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
villabolo - odd question (what on earth is a "post millenial"). Why do you ask? Its not clear to me why this would be relevant. -
skywatcher at 09:40 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
#15 KR - very interesting statement. I have to wonder if Soon and Briggs' graph at Washington Times is hand-drawn. Two graphical things lead towards that conclusion, one noticed by somebody else, the second by me (full resolution source, from newspaper article):
1: First, it is apparent that lines on the graph do not always join up smoothly, always progressing forwards in time, as they would if they were generated by a plotting program from a single series of data. This is most apparent around 1935 and 1953 in the "solar radiation" curve. In both cases, the line appears to go "backwards", or is not joined, and so is not a normal single time series. It may suggest multiple data sources, or poor tracing of a single data source; either is very poor practice.
2: Second, several of the line segments are perfectly vertical, despite both series being ostensibly continuous time series, and the resolution of the plot being sufficient (580 pixels/180 years) that lines of a year's length should all be non-vertical. Again, data should always progress forwards in time. No automatic plotting pachage that I am aware of would produce a plot like the one above. Examples are in the temperature plot around 1850 and 1895, and in the solar radiation plot at about 1960. The line segments frequently cover many years, and are clearly smoothed data, so there is no reason to think that what is being presented is monthly data (which would be of a resolution to allow vertical segments).
These very strongly suggest to me that the plot, uness it can be shown otherwise by the authors, is traced by hand, using a package such as Illustrator. The only other explanation is that there are multiple points for the same year, or even two points which go back in time, neither of which should exist in a timeseries plot like this.
These features, along with the lack of a source for the solar data, make me very suspicious indeed of the graph's provenance. It may just reflect poor practice (though what user of climate data cannot plot data from a spreadsheet?). The Comments Policy forbids me from speculating on other possible motives.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 08:56 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Dikran, your point is valid and i will need to address those reinsurer claims on the appropriate thread. -
villabolo at 08:47 AM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
I have a couple of questions for John C. I apologize if they were addressed in the video - I haven't had time to watch the whole thing. 1. Are you post-millenial? 2. Are you an "Old Earth" Creationist?Response: Sorry to disappoint you but I've never really taken the time to investigate eschatology and pre/post millenial theology. As for the age of the earth, this blog post should make my views clear. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:47 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Zeph, I made a general comment about model resolution here It's not an answer to trusting paleo climate models for sensitivity, I have a more direct critique of deriving CS from Paleo data in various threads such as here -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:35 AM on 13 September 2012Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
Here's an example of coupling regional and global models: http://www.clim-past.net/8/25/2012/cp-8-25-2012.pdf One advantage is being able to downscaling global model output to look at local effects (when looking into the future). There was an article here about the future of the Los Angeles basin using that technique. I thought this 2004 paper explained the advantages of combining high and low res models pretty well: NS Diffenbaugh, LC Sloan - Journal of climate, 2004. A key advantages is the availability of high res regional data, so it may not seem as applicable to the distant past. However I believe the regional models can still be validated against similar modern climate data (although I don't have a ref for that) and that would provide valuable input to the global model. My view is that although the papers mainly talk about the advantages of being able to handle topographic complexity in the regional models, the weather that is being simulated is often an example of "topographical complexity" without topography. That because the lifting in a front, although not fixed and unyielding like a mountain chain has many of the same small scale effects with the importance noted in the paper. -
dana1981 at 07:55 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
KR @15 - the correlation between local temps and TSI is independent of TSI? I think the 'statistician to the stars' may be losing it. I'm also glad that reputable media outlets have not published this utter nonsense. -
Zeph at 07:30 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
I have a suggestion re "models" for Eric and everyone. Let's not lump all models together. Reading Eric's posts earlier in the thread, I think that sometimes he is referring to AOGCM's and sometimes he is referring to other model (eg: paleoclimate). Computer models of one sort or another seem to be ubiquitous in science today. Of course at some level every equation and every statistical result is based on a model of the physical phenomena they seek to simplify and explain, and this goes way back. But since computer calculations are so easy today, computer modeling is now very common in everything from analyzing cancer cases to assessing avian biodiversity. Some things can inherently be better modeled than others, and the quality of modeling also varies. They have become essential tools, but can also be inaccurate or misused. If one is equally distrustful of all models used by science then one can discount much of what's been published in the last decade in many sciences. I think we need more nuance than that to meaningfully discuss the subject. In this context, paleoclimate research may indeed use some kinds of "models" in analyzing the data, but they need not be the same AOGCM's used by the IPCC and thus not subject to the same strengths or weaknesses. Eric wants GCM's to handle square mile grid cells and 100 years in 10 min segments before he (might conceivably) trust them. But what's that got to do with trusting paleoclimate estimates for CS? If the latter analysis uses models which he believes to be inaccurate, Eric needs to make specific critiques of those specific models, not just discount "models" in general. So let's all be more specific about which "models" we are referring to. If you mean a GCM, say so. If you mean some particular domain specific model used to analyze ice cores, say so. Let's avoid lumping them all together as simply "models". -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Now if Phil Jones had said something like that . . . -
M Tucker at 07:00 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John Hartz @95 I am flattered. I am not opposed to working up a post but I do all my writing here at work, in the free moments, some moments are more free than others. Of course I can do some work at home but no internet connection there. Feel free to contact me at my email address, which I’m sure you have on file, and I am happy to work with anyone to create a blog post on this topic. -
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"We don't need more light - you are being confused by the Urban Dark Areas..." -
John Hartz at 06:47 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Some afternoon delights... "Those light bulbs were made on an island in an urban area!" "From now on, we only buy lightbulbs made in pristine remote locations that have not changed in 200 years!" "The urban heat island effect casuses many to erroneously believe it is pitch black in here." "Light bulbs emit more heat than light. That's why it's getting so cold in here." -
John Hartz at 06:39 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
@CBDunkerson #96: Bravo! -
william5331 at 06:39 AM on 13 September 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
The effects of the deepening and stalling of the Rossby waves of the Polar Jet stream will pale into insignificance compared to the effects that will result if the Arctic Ocean collects enough heat to reverse the flow of the Polar Hadley Cell. If this occurs, the Ferrel cell will extend to the pole, it will meet the Equatorial Hadley cell at about 45 degrees North and masses of heat will be transmitted poleward. The Polar Jet Stream will disappear and the next jet stream south will move to about 45 degrees North. Undoubtedly it will have Rossby waves which push weather around the globe but it will be temperate and tropical weather systems rather than polar and temperate weather systems. -
CBDunkerson at 06:21 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"Light bulbs violate the second law of thermodynamics." "Darkness is colorless, odorless, and naturally occurring." "Research shows that it got dark before humans developed light bulbs." "Studies show that occasional darkness is healthy. Therefor perpetual darkness must be even better." "Changing the light bulb would destroy the economy." "If God wanted us to have light bulbs He would have made the stars big enough to fit in a lamp." "The luminosity hockey stick, showing rapidly increased light when the bulb is turned on, has obviously been faked." "I don't believe in light bulbs." "The government took all our light bulbs away."
Prev 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 Next
