Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 Next
Comments 58601 to 58650:
-
AlwaysWatching at 08:56 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Lyndon While, Australia -
tony at 08:54 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Tony Clifford-Winters, France -
CTG at 08:50 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Colin Sharples, New Zealand (Ph.D. UEA, 1996) -
Griffin at 08:47 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
My heartfelt thanks Malcolm Griffin, Canada -
Tom Curtis at 08:30 AM on 1 July 2012Glaciers are growing
wealthychef @41, figure 1 in the basic article represents a full rebutal of the fake skeptic claims. If you look at it, you will see a gradual loss of glacial ice from 1850, which represents the ongoing glacial retreat for some glaciers since the little ice age. However, two features stand out. First is the much more rapid loss of ice since 1970. If glacial ice loss simply represented the restoration of equilibrium after the LIA, glacial ice loss would gradually slow as it approached that equilibrium. Hence, the recent very rapid ice loss shows clearly that the cause is a recent warming rather than the warming that accompanied the end of the LIA. Second is the brief accumulation of glacial ice from 1950-1970. Global temperatures actually cooled slightly during that interval, primarily due to the rapid accumulation of sulphate (SO4) in the atmosphere from the burning of coal. The important factor here, however, is that that brief cooling could not have resulted in an overall gain in glacial ice unless the glacial ice was very close to equilibrium. That gain in glacial ice therefore contradicts the fundamental assumption of the fake skeptic argument, which is that glacial ice balance is far from equilibrium, and continues to be lost because of a warming episode that ended over a century ago. Typical of fake skeptic arguments, the argument presented at climate-skeptic.com is depends on superficial knowledge of the data to retain its plausibility. -
Charles08537024 at 08:14 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Charles Scott, Canada -
John E. Pearson at 08:12 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
John E. Pearson Los Alamos, NM -
john mfrilett at 08:09 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
John Rilett Canada -
Wyoming at 08:01 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
James Dunlap Virginia, USA -
Uncle Pete at 08:01 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Peter Bergs Brisbane Australia -
jenikhollan at 07:53 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Jan Hollan, Czechia -
ronspross at 07:44 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Ron Spross, TX USA -
Forrest at 07:39 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Mark White, PA, USA -
Andrew Mclaren at 07:34 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Thanks to Phil Jones and other climate scientists for all their many years of dedicated hard work, and for having the courage to stand up to all the abusive denialists out there! Andrew McLaren Canada -
David Kirtley at 07:28 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
David Kirtley St. Louis, MO, USA 104F -
Steve Fish at 07:24 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Hang in there, we are counting on you! Steve, Northern California, USA -
Simon7021 at 07:23 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Simon Edmonds Wellington New Zealand -
John Hartz at 07:17 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
John Hartz Columbia, South Carolina USA -
oneiota at 07:12 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Mahn England, Australia -
dwr at 06:56 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Registered to post message of support. David Rice, Belfast, UK. -
Martin Vermeer at 06:49 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Martin Vermeer, Finland -
chrismc at 06:42 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Chris McCall, UK -
vmin at 05:46 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Vladimir M., USA -
chuckbot at 05:39 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
I once did an article explaining the concept of a temperature anomaly, and wanted to use data from an article Dr. Jones had worked on. He was extremely helpful and nice in our communications. Charlie Soeder, USA -
donaldg at 05:31 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Hang in there, Dr. Jones! Donaldg Donald G., California, USA -
climatehawk1 at 05:27 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Thomas Gray, VT, USA -
Gordon Parish at 05:21 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Gordon Parish, Ohio, USA -
jimb at 05:19 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Jim Bowron Canada -
ghtonhorseshoeridge at 05:08 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Sandy Hauserman, VT, USA -
Paul D at 05:07 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Paul D, UK -
Rick Brown at 05:07 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Rick Brown, USA -
Oliver Perkins at 04:57 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Of course you may use my real name. Oliver Perkins, Haskell, Texas, USA -
bpl1960 at 04:45 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Hang in there, Dr. Jones! God rewards those who tell the truth. You've got friends. Contact me if I can help in any way. -Barton Paul Levenson -
malcuk at 04:37 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Malcolm Parks, UK -
Susan Anderson at 04:30 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Susan Anderson, Boston and Princeton, USA -
dwatkins at 04:13 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
David Watkins, USA -
hank at 04:04 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Hank Roberts, California -
Bentben at 04:02 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Ben Shepherd, Sydney -
keithpickering at 04:02 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Keith Pickering, USA -
michael sweet at 03:55 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
When the history of climate science in the late 20th century is written your work will stand out as a great contribution. I am sorry for your troubles. Keep up the good work. -
JosHagelaars at 03:51 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Jos Hagelaars, Netherlands -
JonnyT at 03:49 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
P.S. By FOI request, I meant to Phil Jones, not to Skeptical Science - the 'anonymous' names would therefore be exposed indirectly. -
JonnyT at 03:44 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
I hate to put a bit of a dampener on this worthy cause but be aware that this email to Prof Jones when sent would in all likelihood be open to an FOI request so I would urge you to reconsider including anyone on the message that clearly wants to remain anonymous (i.e. has submitted their name to you via email). -
John Mason at 03:14 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Hear, Hear! Cheers - John -
Cugel at 03:09 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Kevin Brown, South Wales -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 02:57 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Chris Parker, UK -
DSL at 02:56 AM on 1 July 2012Glaciers are growing
Oh, and Chef, did you click on the "intermediate" tab above? That has information on the number of glaciers monitored -- directly relevant to the cherry-pick claim. -
danielbacon at 02:55 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Daniel Bacon Chattanooga, Tennessee. USA -
DSL at 02:54 AM on 1 July 2012Glaciers are growing
Chef, what evidence was given for the claim? Some glaciers have cycled through gain and loss over the course of the current interglacial, but most of the world's ice hasn't been monitored until fairly recently. To use those few glaciers that have 200-year old records to make a claim about global ice mass loss--that's a cherry pick itself. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has more detail: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/ The sharp reduction in global ice mass over the last 30 years is well-documented. Not all glaciers are retreating. The overwhelming majority are--Antarctica most alarmingly. Interestingly, increased atmospheric water vapor should mean more available snow, and thus an increase in glacial mass. Nope. Too warm. As a proxy for AGW, it's pretty good. After all, what could be causing this ice loss? It's not increased insolation, because there hasn't been increased insolation. It's not volcanic activity under the ice, because that's not happening either. Further, whatever alternative theory that might be proposed for such loss, it would still have to take into account increased global energy storage via increased CO2. If it were discovered that black carbon was the culprit, that wouldn't suddenly negate the known physics of atmospheric CO2. -
pvincell at 02:49 AM on 1 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Paul Vincelli, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
Prev 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 Next
