Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 Next
Comments 57401 to 57450:
-
Lionel A at 22:25 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Backing these brave messengers, Phil Jones, Mike Mann, James Hanson et. al. all I can, as well as the memory of Steve Schneider courageous to the last. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:24 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Daniel Bailey, MI, USA -
Bob Lacatena at 22:14 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Bob Lacatena, MA, USA -
Jim Eager at 22:03 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Jim Eager, Canada -
jonclark at 21:48 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Please keep up the great work Dr. Jones. Jon Clark, USA -
fouquart at 21:47 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
yves fouquart, France -
Tom Curtis at 21:44 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Tom Curtis, Australia. -
jonathansf13 at 21:39 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
We continue to fight the good fight, weighing evidence against money. Jonathan Friedman, Arecibo, PR -
thi_sanna at 21:37 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Thiago Sanna Freire Silva, Brazil. -
mspelto at 21:28 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Your work has been an important staple of my learning since 1988. I appreciate your commitment to excellence, and your will to not be deterred from science. -
urostor at 21:14 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Łukasz Sobala, Poland -
jsam at 21:12 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
John Samuel, UK -
nautilus_mr at 21:00 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Mark Ryan, Melbourne, Australia. -
RonK at 20:46 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Dr. Jones, until this morning I thought all this zombie apocalypse stuff was utter nonsense. After reading a few of the dreadful emails you have received I now see I was wrong and that it has already happened. It just turns out zombies are slightly more sentient and have slightly better communication skills than are commonly portrayed. At least the fiction writers got one thing right. Zombies do seek out those with brains. Ronald Kent, PhD, Rutland, Ma, U.S.A. -
Roman_01 at 20:33 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Roman Polach, Czech republic -
Fred Windsor at 20:28 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Richard Sanders, Cambridge, England. -
JohannaCT at 20:01 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Johanna Törnwall, Sweden -
jmacmot at 19:55 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
John McFadgen, New Zealand -
pikaia at 19:27 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Alan Clark, UK -
soo doh nim at 19:17 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Charlie Azzolina, USA -
Peter H at 19:12 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Supported via email. -
sauerj at 19:01 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Joseph C. Sauer, Indiana, US -
donpetroleum at 18:59 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Peter Muldoon, UK -
Susanne at 18:44 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Susanne Oates, Australia -
Arch kennedy at 18:43 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Arch Kennedy, Australia -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:42 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Gavin Cawley, U.K. -
caroza at 18:25 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Caroline Barnard, South Africa. Full support and sympathy. I admire your work and the fact that you have managed to keep doing science in the face of a bigoted, ignorant and hateful assault like this. -
baldmagic at 18:08 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Happy to support you Phil. Keith -
scaddenp at 18:00 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Phil Scadden, New Zealand -
les at 17:34 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
e-mail sent. Though you could have made this an opt-out. Send a list of everyone ever registered on SkS with the letter except for those who post here saying that they agree with the barbaric vitriol spewed over Jones et al. -
malamuddy at 17:29 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Neil Harris, Australia -
shoyemore at 17:24 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
... well, third! If you need mt name, it is: Toby Joyce, Ireland -
shoyemore at 17:23 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
I am proud to be the first to apparently add my name to this letter. Phil, keep up the good work! -
heijdensejan at 17:21 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Jan van der Heijden, Netherlands -
GrahamC at 17:19 PM on 30 June 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Graham Coghill, Australia -
dana1981 at 16:53 PM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Apparently Michaels circa 2008 was a lot smarter than Michaels circa 2012! -
DonaldB at 16:48 PM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
"...the lack of statistically significant warming since 1996... is of unknown importance at this time." Michaels seemed to have a better idea of how important it was when he addressed the Heartland conference a few years ago: "What happened, and this is why this argument is so very, very dangerous, is that solar activity and the La Nina we're in now [He was speaking in 2008] have conspired to add up to produce very, very little temperature change in the last couple of years. What's going to happen is, one of these years, that's going to turn around. If you make that argument now, you're going to have a very, very difficult time defending the future. Global warming is real and the second warming of the 20th century- people have something to do with it. Get over it." -
dana1981 at 13:08 PM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Roger - indeed, we'll have a post on the Exxon CEO comments in the near future. -
Pierre-Normand at 10:41 AM on 30 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
I think this answers Daisym's query: "It is plausible that the unique surface thermal properties of urban areas (e.g. heat capacity, emissivity, conductivity) could also affect the warming there. While these properties are included in the Noah land surface model, there is little evidence that they result in a differentiated urban effect, because the warming in the urbanized coastal zone is so similar to that over the coastal ocean." Hall et al. p.11 -
Tom Curtis at 07:57 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 @18"Is it safe for me to think that the pure sea level risings around the globe are about the same?"
CRV9, rises is sea level due to thermal expansion or changes in salinity do not involve direct changes in mass distribution, except that water from regions with higher sea level from these causes will tend to flow to regions with lower sea level. As the causes of long term temperature differences are (by definition) stable, the region of increased sea level will be stable as well, but the tendency of water to flow will redistribute heat elsewhere, and mitigate the sea level rise at the source of the heat while causing a rise elsewhere. It is, therefore, not a uniform rise, but not a localized rise either. Changes in sea level due to the melting of ice sheets, glaciers and ice shelves which rest on the sea floor do result in a substantial shift in mass. Ignoring gravity, the water will spread over the entire ocean surface, with a tendency to rise higher near the equator due to the Earth's rotation. However, because there is now less mass at the former ice sheet (or glacier etc), the ocean is less strongly attracted gravitationally to the former location of the water, and will move away. This will result in much larger sea level rises the further away from the source you are, and can even result in sea level fall close to the original source of the water. This is illustrated in the following graphic showing the effect of the loss of much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet on Sea Level:
To make things even more interesting, a significant change in mass at the Earth's poles will slightly change the Earth's rotation, which in turn effects ocean currents, tending to pile water higher on east coasts than west coasts (in the case of the loss of the WAIS). (discussion here)
-
Pierre-Normand at 07:53 AM on 30 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Michael: "Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." The question about the future bears no relationship to the strawman claim about the past you keep beating up. Your reference acknowledges the UHI effect. It's just that station siting doesn't introduce any significant bias in the reconstructions of historical temperature anomalies. That's because (1) the sampling isn't biased, and (2) the reconstructions aren't spatially fine-grained. This is as should be. They're meant to pick up climate signals. But the question about the future isn't a question about climate signals, but a question about causes of high frequency spatial variation. They're two separate issues that you keep conflating. Look at the map in the OP and how greatly both current observations and modeled predictions vary over areas just a few miles apart. Are you suggesting that only variations in natural geography can account for it and urban geography likely plays no significant role? I can't see why the contrary suggestion (merely a question, actually) would be extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence. -
CRV9 at 07:50 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Thank you, thank you, KR, Daniel, Rob. You can't imagine how much I aprreciate your replies. That was what I thought but couldn't really express or properly articulate it, specially in details. (And it is almost impossible to find a place where I could ask simple questions and wouldn't wake up those and contaminate the place.) -
Daniel Bailey at 07:24 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Indeed. Ask any sailor worth his salts and they will quickly tell you (the scurvy lot of 'em) that sea levels vary due to wind, tide and phase of moon. For reference, a copy of Bowditch's American Practical Navigator is invaluable. (Full Disclosure: Published by my former employer) (Fuller Disclosure: I had no hand in the currently available edition nor do I profit by the sales of it. More's the pity...) -
Rob Painting at 05:45 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 - The US is sinking. The US was levered up by the presence of the giant Laurentide Ice Sheet (imagine a see-saw, or teeter-totter) and, due to the elastic nature of the Earth's crust, has been slumping back down ever since the ice sheet began to melt away (much like a person hopping off the other end of a see-saw). The dark blue areas in KR's image are areas rebounding upwards much faster that anywhere else, because these were heavily loaded by ice mass at the height of the last Ice Age (Glacial Maximum). But that is but one mechanism which affects global sea levels - one operating over millenial timescales. On shorter time frames, changes in ocean currents and winds can piles water mass up in a region, increasing the rate of sea level rise there, despite the global average being smaller. Such is the case with islands in the Pacific, such as Tuvalu. Stop thinking of sea level as level, it isn't. If you were to hop on a boat and sail around the world, relative to a fixed distance from the centre of the Earth, you'd actually be sailing up and down hill as you went. This is because Earth's mass distribution and gravity is rather lumpy and, therefore, sea level varies from region to region. This will all be discussed in upcoming posts by the way. -
KR at 05:36 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 - As John Hartz pointed out, redistribution of ice melt to the liquid at the equator is also a factor. Looking back at some of my references, thermal expansion is not uniformly distributed, nor are changes in salinity - I apologize for overstating the rate of redistribution. And combined with long term wind patterns, some areas such as the Western Pacific are showing sea level rise as much as 5X that of the global average. Meanwhile, the western coast of the US shows a sea level decline. Cazenave and Llovel 2010 has some excellent images of this distribution (see Fig. 3). The uniform global trend is ~3.4mm/year. Water does mix fairly slowly, especially below the top 100 meters where winds churn the "well-mixed" layer. Below that there are much slower thermohaline circulations, which help account for a 500-800 year oceanic CO2 adjustment period as seen in previous ice age cycles. That doesn't mean it's entirely stationary, though - and if a particular portion of the ocean expands or contracts the effects will ripple out from there ("Just a jump to your left... and a step to the right"). Local effects, however, are very important in judging and predicting sea level rise! -
Roger D at 05:14 AM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Naomi Oreskes "Merchants of Doubt" documents well the past cases of "skeptics" saying that it is too expensive to reduce/ limit some harmful activity. History has shown that the advocates of buisiness as usual were mostly wrong regarding the cost-benefit equation faovoring waiting. And on the "hey, we'll just adapt" (non)strategy for dealing with climate change we now have the CEO of Exxon-Mobil. It could be interesting to see the responses of various "skeptics" to this deviation from the "it's not us" script. -
r.pauli at 04:41 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
North Carolina politicians demonstrate that global warming is a social/cognitive problem that resides with humans not science. -
CRV9 at 04:20 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Thank for your quick reply, KR. I thought that the pure sea level rising at the East Coast line is higher than other areas, because of ocean currents, gravitational differences and other factors except local ones. So this is actual physical sea levels at local areas with local variables. Is it safe for me to think that the pure sea level risings around the globe are about the same? I mean without global and local variables, would water from melting ice from both poles move quickly enough to spread out throughout around? I wish I don't sound dumb. I thought water mixes kind of slow like air in the atmosphere, like a bunch of large volume of bodies of water here and there, or differences in different oceans. Yes, I did watch videos of ocean currents and winds around the glob from NASA. -
John Hartz at 04:08 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
KR: Doesn't the centrifugal force caused by the Earth's spinning on its axis tend to concentrate SLR along the equator, especially in the Pacific? -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:34 AM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
The "changing our way is too expensive and will kill the economy" motto is a most common line of argument among deniers that goes back as far as the lead paint battle. The reasoning is deeply flawed and an acknowledgment of failure from those using it. They often try it when everything else has failed. It is a last ditch attempt to show that the benefit does not outweigh the cost, by trying to inflate the cost in ridiculous proportions. The implicit acceptance that the action proposed have the benefits presented by their proponents is worth noting. Usually, the costs they argue are so removed from all thoughtful estimates that it's not even near plausible. Sallie Baliunas argued that phasing out CFCs would cost "trillions" of dollars. Interestingly, so far this century the only thing that has cost trillions of dollars was the financial fiasco that came crashing down in 2008.
Prev 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 Next
