Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 Next
Comments 59401 to 59450:
-
scaddenp at 07:02 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sapient Fridge. Me too. It's good to know the answer to that question. I also make it clear what reasonable evidence would convince me that climate theory has serious flaws.If no evidence is good enough or question avoided, then no point producing evidence or even a serious discussion. As far as I can see must pseudo-skeptics are politically-driven, convinced any solution might limit their "freedom", raise taxes, expand government, or heaven forbid, involve international cooperation. No point in a private argument, and for public arguments (blogs), only worth rebutting errors for the benefit of other listeners. -
rockytom at 05:06 AM on 6 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Just a note of positive congratulations to Kevin C and Bob Tisdale. This is an example of what this blog is about. No negatives here; just positives with the readers best interests in the science in mind. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:14 AM on 6 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
pauls: Do you have a reference showing that a "GCM with a realistic model of the ocean" is run in a mode where it only uses a slab ocean that is "little more than a surface with a low heat capacity"? Such "swamp models" were very common in the early days of GCMs (i.e., back in the 1960s and 1970s - remember: I'm "ancient") due to computational issues, but I can't see how it would be of any use to develop a fully-coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM to investigate how climate reacts when full ocean dynamics are included, and then shut off the ocean dynamics to investigate the long-term sensitivity. In other words, my hunch is that you're wrong, but my mind is open to whatever references and evidence you can provide. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:08 AM on 6 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
John: "ancient", when it comes to age, generally tends to follow the rule that anyone older than 10*(my age)^0.5 is "ancient". For the young whipper-snapper who is 30-31, square root of that times 10 is about 55, so I am ancient by his standards, as I just turned 55. When he was 16, 40-year-olds seemed "ancient" - and I would have been 40, so I was ancient to him back then, too. As I am old enough to remember discussing Hansen et al, 1981, in grad school, I must be really ancient. [By the time you get to be 100, you are ancient.] -
ajki at 01:09 AM on 6 May 2012There's no empirical evidence
Within chapter "CO2 traps heat" is a pdf download link to: Philipona, R., B. Dürr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765. The pdf is not (directly, May 2012) reachable through the link (agu.org). I did not check wether it is paywalled or requires registration/login before reading. Link to the abstract page on agu.org Currently (May 2012) Dr Marty provides the pdf over his personal page on slf.ch (WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF). Since this is one of the "directly measured" evidence papers cited by many (IPPC 2007, Rahmstorf&Schellnhuber...), there should be a safer and better accessible place for it. -
muoncounter at 00:18 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Unfortunately, victull's claim is too ambiguous to seriously debunk. 'Doubts there's been surface temp increase' ... siince ...when? The end of the last glacial maximium? Last December? It is exactly this type of 'throw-down' denial that shows the weakness of the denialist position. And shows how easy the deniers think it is to fool the average person with vague claims. That's how we know we're right! -
Daniel Bailey at 23:49 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Actually, michael, victull has set up a straw man argument. The straw part is the undefined term "serious skeptic". As most understand the term, true Skepticism means using the scientific method to assess the known data and physics to derive the explanation that best-fits the totality of the data. Of course, this means real scientists are the real skeptics. And the vast majority of them accept AGW as a robust scientific theory (as shown by the vast hosts of scientific organizations and bodies, whose members number legion, who have issued position statements accepting AGW). Thus, the "serious skeptics" do not include the like of the fake-skeptics. Like Heartland groups, their minions and their paid puppets. Those who now fight a rear-guard, hand-waving battle of delay. Like claiming:"No serious skeptic really doubts that there has been surface temperature increase, nor that CO2 has radiative properties which may slow down heat loss."
As all who have not been asleep for the past several decades know full well, victull postulates an empty, vainglorious pile of straw. Bereft of citation or substance. -
michael sweet at 23:12 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Victull, You have quite a list of hand-waving assertions. Care to provide any links or references for them? Provide links to AGW catastrophists you think need to be dismissed and why their claims are aurtageous. If you leave out the skeptics who concede surface temperature increase and CO2 radiative properties not many are left. Can you provide a list of who these remaining deniers are? What are their remaining doubts? Provide links to arguments that support their positions. Hand waving claims can be dismissed with a hand wave. -
JimF at 23:03 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sapient Fridge@10 I like your second question, so I will add it to mine. And you are right that it seems as if nothing will change their minds. I think that we all should realize the difficulty it puts on the believer side when they debate this issue vs. the skeptic side on the national stage. For those who watch and have not made up their minds they see one side say "We are not absolutely sure, but we THINK..." and the other side say "We are 100% sure and the other side is LYING..." Its much easier to then side with those who say they are sure and appeals to emotion, rather than the side that is not sure and appeals to scientific study. Just my take on it. -
victull at 22:58 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
No serious skeptic really doubts that there has been surface temperature increase, nor that CO2 has radiative properties which may slow down heat loss. Where there is serious doubt is whether the planet's energy imbalance is currently growing or shrinking and the magnitude of the component forcings. Shrinking presents problems for the magnitude of CO2 and feedback effects especially clouds. There has been alarmism on both sides of the AGW debate. The looney skeptics should be discounted in the same breath as the AGW catastrophists. -
Sapient Fridge at 21:14 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
JimF, I have tried asking fake skeptics "What observation, real or hypothetical, would convince you that global warming is happening?", or "If global warming were really happening then what do you think would be different from what we see today?" They are good questions because if they say nothing would persuade them, or ignore the question, then it shows that their viewpoint is not evidence based i.e. no evidence would ever convince them, no matter what. A common response is for them to start handwaving like miniature windmills, or ask for impossible data e.g. sunspot counts going back to the age of the dinosaurs. The closest I got to a real response was someone who said that if global warming was really happening then the temperature rise would be much faster than it is. For that person at least I think the observations they want will arrive in the coming decades... -
scaddenp at 13:19 PM on 5 May 2012CO2 lags temperature
Islander, your comments seem to imply you think all ice ages should be equal? However, the milankovitch forcings driving the glacial cycle vary because of the superposition of cycles. To see this, have a look at the graph and discussion here. Also worth having a read of Berger and Loutre 2002 to see some idea of the factors in whether the forcings trigger an ice age or not. There is a 5 part series discussing comparisons with the last interglacial here. -
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 5 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
BC @57, mixing of the deep ocean takes hundreds of years, in part because of the very slow exchange between deep ocean and surface except in the North Atlantic, and Antarctic Ocean; and in part because of the much greater volume of the deep ocean compared to the surface, with the deep ocean having approximately 5 times the volume of surface layers. After the deep ocean and surface reach equilibrium for CO2 concentration, CO2 concentrations will continue to reduce due to the weathering of rocks and the deposition of carbon rich skeletal remains in sediment at the bottom of the ocean. This process takes thousands of years. In this image, showing the results of various models, the initial rapid reduction is due to equilibriation in the ocean, while the long slow reduction that follows is due to geochemical sequestration.
-
Dragonwyst at 10:41 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I don't usually comment because of being "just a nurse", however, reading Part 1 and part 2 shows something rather glaring to me. It is the difference between the way a scientist in the field presents a considered approach and the way the media reports anything. I was in the audience (somewhere at the back where no-one could recognise me on TV it seems) for the Q & A and documentary titled "Can I Change Your Mind About Climate Change". One thing I took away from that was the comment ( can't rememember who exactly said it - most likely Rebecca Huntley) that we cannot sustain a fear response. Media reporting is designed to evoke emotional, even visceral, responses. This, I think, more than anything has driven the polarization of responses to the information. I have also recently consumed, with great glee, the book "Wilful Blindness" by Margaret Heffernan. In the early chapters she shows how people who are presented clear evidence refuting sometimes rather bizarre beliefs, don't change their beliefs, but instead become more extreme and polarized. There needs to be substantial internal discord before change is possible. Somewhere between media-fuelled reporting and the drivers of wilful blindness lies the reason so many people find it difficult to keep an open mind. What saddens me is knowing that for some people the fear element is a real, very-close-to-home factor as they lose their fresh water to salty seas. More than anything, there need to be new ways to communicate that don't rely on strategies that polarize and feed wilful blindness. -
Hopeful at 09:57 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I think the absolutism in the arguments of the "skeptics" needs to be pointed out. It is not consistent with scientific thinking/reasoning for a start as you said Rob. And the lay "skeptics" think in absolutes also. Cognitive behaviour therapy/rational emotive therapy is about learning to drop the absolutism (never,always,all,none) and people labelling (left wing conspirators, anti-progress greenies)and thinking more realistically about specific issues. The consequence of more realistic thinking is more constructive behaviour and feelings. The skills of realistic rational thinking are life skills which enhance self efficacy in challenging situations. I think "skeptics" need to become more aware of their irrational,absolutist and unrealistic thinking ie " ALL the lines of peer reviewed evidence supporting AGW theory are completely wrong as are all the leaders in the relevant sciences and all their expert organisations and I will never accept any evidence supporting AGW theory and become very angry when lefty greeny alarmists talk about reducing emissions". A more realistic rational way to think is "There is now a very large body of peer reviewed evidence across multiple lines of investigation supporting AGW theory. The leaders in science and their expert organisations are confident that AGW is unlikely to be wrong. It is therefore unrealistic for me to expect that all the peer reviewed evidence and leading scientists are wrong and that all people who accept this evidence are lefty greeny alarmists. Since most of the warming has been bought about by using fossil fuel energy to create wealth and prosperity in the developed world over the last 150 years and the significant threat AGW poses to human health,food security, geopolitical stability and the biosphere, it is prudent and responsible to bring together our best brains and expertise to plan and implement risk management strategies, to reduce emissions as quickly as possible and to disengage with politicisation of the issue. I understand that this will cost money but am not prepared to leave a legacy of irreversible climate disruption to the next generation". It would be nice if a reasoned statement was made for people to publicly declare whether or not they agree so their children who will face the consequences will know whether their aging parents were part of the problem or part of the solution and signalled for government to act on their behalf on this issue.Moderator Response: TC: All capitals converted to bold for compliance with the comments policy. Compliance is not optional, and we do appreciate your cooperation in this. -
BC at 08:49 AM on 5 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
DSL. Thanks for the links. I'll do some browsing, which may take me a while. I've read much of the first link in your blog on the 2 May post, and the rest look good too. What I'm interested in reconciling for myself are these two facts 1. the large ocean flows can move heat quite effectively on decadal timeframes, as explained in this post 2. CO2 doesn't get mixed quickly in the oceans, despite these flows, and CO2 absorption only happens at century and thousands of years timescales - "mixing of shallow and deep oceanic waters takes place over hundreds to thousands of years" - SKS post 2 May,-"Two centuries of Climate Science". So the oceans don't absorb as much as was expected in the past; hence the atmospheric build up that is occurring -
JimF at 06:21 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Not being a scientist, my discussions with friends and skeptics here in the US tend to be less clinical and much more philosophical, I think. But I do like to ask them one question: "What would it take to change your mind from being a skeptic to a believer?" Is there a scientific organization, a temperature, a climatic series of events, or anything that will make them consider the reality of AGW? I never get an answer, which leads me to believe that nothing short of a tag on CO2 molecules which says "from car exhaust" will ever change their minds. I tell them that if trusted scientific organizations such as NAS or AGU become skeptics, I will change my mind. Or if my candytufts bloom on Mother's Day like they used to rather than 2 weeks earlier like they have for the past number of years, I will change my mind. But I can't even get them to even consider the question. Which tells me they are VERY sure that they are right. Or even unwilling to consider the alternative. -
DSL at 05:38 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Yah, it's important to remember that Heartland knows quite well that the logic is flawed. They're not actually stupid. They know that even though most people will reject the logic, they'll also carry forward the unconscious association. And now, of course, the internet is blasting that association all over the place, inadvertently serving to further Heartland's interests. Heartland should be characterized as anti-democratic because their stated goal is to increase doubt. The hoaxers will undoubtedly agree that the logic is spot on but that Heartland shouldn't have exposed themselves to the liberal media (this is the WUWT response). -
Composer99 at 05:15 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
I'm surprised Monckton didn't make the list of speakers. As for the billboards, the empty, flawed logic behind them is easily exposed and disposed of with the following argument: Heartland Billboard Argument P - The Unabomber (and other undesireable characters) claimed it is important to combat climate change C - Therefore, people who claim it is important to combat climate change are like the Unabomber Analagous Argument P - Hitler owned and loved dogs C - Therefore, people who own and love dogs are like Hitler I'd say the billboard campaign makes it very obvious that the Heartland Institute is indeed engaged in scientific denialism rather than any honest skepticism. If they had a strong case to make using scientific evidence, they'd never have had to resort to such a foolish endeavour to begin with. -
Islander at 04:01 AM on 5 May 2012CO2 lags temperature
If the Milankovitch forcing triggers the beginning (and end) of interglacial periods with the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses providing the positive (and negative) amplification, then I think that it is very important to understand why the heating at the beginning of the Holocene ended short of the previous maximum temperature of the previous four interglacial periods. The benign temperature stability of the Holocene is a major factor in the development of civilization which arguably might not have happened at a higher (or lower) temperature. I haven't seen an argument as to why the heating ended prematurely. Can you direct me to relevant research? -
vrooomie at 03:47 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Dikran@5: It may be that, to *us*, but to many who are 'on-the-fence' about the so-called "controversy" (and, in my position as an earth scientist, I see it {snip}, even from colleagues) it may {snip} slow down) efforts to make this critical science issue as effective as they must be, if we're to get any real handle on slowing down the depradation of our planet. I've been to this horse race before, in the automotive industry, and shibbolths and outright lies persist. They *especially* perdsist if not foguth, hard and forcefully, with facts, data, and clear rationale. As scienctists and activists, we have but a few tools at our disposal, and one is {snip}, when they make foolish moves, like HI has done, and undoubtedly will continue to do. As a practicing scientist (trained classicallly, raised in the classical 'rational and dispassionate' scientific bent) to be confrontational towards efforts like HI, Koch Industries, you name it, is a bit crosswise to that training. However, when battling fire...sometimes, as Wag Dodge found out in Montana, in 1949, you *must* use fire to fight it. It can be done non-ad hominem style, but {snip} be done with the full force of factual analysis. So, like BoulderBob in another thread, I'm {snip}Moderator Response: TC: All caps snipped, for compliance with the comments policy. Given the extent of all caps in this post, it would have been much easier to just delete the post. Please read and comply with the comments policy in future posts to avoid that possibility. Thank you. -
pbjamm at 03:15 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Here is the list of speakers: http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/ I don't think any comment can be made that would do more damage to the credibility of the Conference than that list does. -
Kevin C at 02:28 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Thanks. While we're at it, I've spotted another detail I forgot to describe to the text. I added an offset of -0.03C to the red line in Figure 3 to highlight the similarity between the change in the adjustments and the change in the final data series. This offset comes from the net change in the mean over the baseline period. Some of the residual differences are presumably also attributable to the new methods, however I don't think that the remaining differences can be isolated using just the published data. -
Bob Tisdale at 02:14 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Kevin C: Kennedy et al (2011) was a two-part paper. You've only provided a link to part 2 at the end of your opening. The first part is here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf -
KR at 02:12 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
pbjamm - I would agree; it's the Argument Clinic. This is one of the purest examples of the Argument by Association fallacy I have ever seen. Heartland is shooting itself in the foot with this - I cannot imagine what they thought this would accomplish. I guess this just demonstrates that the 'skeptic' side, the ones arguing that there is no problem, have no factually based arguments left... -
Kevin C at 02:11 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Original introduction:The Hadley centre of the UK Meteorological office has for a number of years maintained a dataset of sea surface temperatures (SSTs), HadSST2, which has formed the basis for estimating global surface temperatures. The HadSST2 dataset was used in the widely quoted HadCRUT3 temperature record, as well as forming the basis for an interpolated record, HadISST, which is used along with ERSST in NASA's GISTEMP record. The source data is the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS), which includes historical records from many sources.
Updated introduction:The Hadley centre of the UK Meteorological office has for a number of years maintained a dataset of sea surface temperatures (SSTs), HadSST2, which has formed a basis for estimating global surface temperatures. The HadSST2 dataset was used in the widely quoted HadCRUT3 temperature record, as well as providing the in-situ sea surface temperature component of HadISST since 2007. HadISST is used along with Reynold's OISST in NASA's GISTEMP record. The source data are versions of the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS), which includes historical records from many sources.
-
Kevin C at 01:54 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Bob: You certainly know more about the background material than me. I'm new to SST data and have not studied the history, or the other datasets in any depth. I'll check the background and update the post accordingly. As to the rest of the post, it is almost entirely a review of the Kennedy paper, and so should be less dependent on my limited (and flawed) background reading. -
Bob Tisdale at 01:29 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Kevin C writes in the first paragraph of the post, “The HadSST2 dataset was used in the widely quoted HadCRUT3 temperature record, as well as forming the basis for an interpolated record, HadISST, which is used along with ERSST in NASA's GISTEMP record.” Error 1: HADSST2 and HADSST3 are based on different ICOADS datasets. Error 2: HADISST was introduced the 2003 Rayner et al paper “Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century.” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf HADSST2 was introduced 2 years later in Rayner et al (2005) “Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset”. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf So your claim that HADSST2 formed “the basis for an interpolated record, HadISST” is obviously wrong. Error 3: GISS uses HADISST from January 1880 to November 1981 and NOAA’s Reynolds OI.v2 SST data from Dec 1981 to present, not the NOAA ERSST.v3b data. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html Would you like me to read the rest of your post? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:25 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Rob, Dana, Andy, sometimes ordinary language is better than philosophy 101. I hope you're sure that it is unwise to jump off tall buildings, unwise for kids to take up smoking, and unwise for earth's humans to greatly increase the amount of greenhouse gasses blanketing our one planet, and unwise to persist in acidifying the oceans. btw a prominent link to the OA not OK pdf would be nice. It might be added to the little rectangular image as the letters 'pdf'. -
pbjamm at 00:57 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Sadly there are people who believe this stuff. I have argued with them in the past. Through most of it I thought I had chosen the wrong door in the Argument Clinic. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 00:50 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Lucas Verma @ 1 Mind your words. 3°C is not a rate, it is equilibrium sensitivity. Transient sensitivity is closer to the idea of a rate. -
BoulderBob at 00:45 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Now, I'm angry: Heartland Billboard CampaignModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Better just to raise ones eyebrows and shake ones head in sadness, at least for the blood-pressure! The weekly digest thread is probably more appropriate for further discussion. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:35 AM on 5 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
All participants please note: Realist is just another sock puppet of Delmar/Tealy and will be dealt with accordingly. In the meantime, DNFTT and please return to your normal conversational activities. Have a noice day (pun intended). -
DSL at 00:30 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Oh, am I going to have fun with this one across the internets. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:21 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
IMHO they have just scored an own goal. It is so obviously mere rhetoric that anyone with more than half a brain will see it immediately for what it is an will feel vaguely insulted that the HI should think something so lacking in subtlety would fool anybody. Of course it could be ironic humour, but somehow I doubt it. -
pbjamm at 00:12 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Hot sure where else to put this but it is so crazy that it has to be posted. Other readers of Climatecrocks will prob already have seen this. http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/ "Scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming is collapsing. Most scientists and 60 percent of the general public (in the U.S.) do not believe man-made global warming is a problem. (Keep reading for proof of these statements.) The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." We are through the looking glass... -
DSL at 23:55 PM on 4 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
BC, note the "related SkS posts" links at the bottom of the article above. -
DSL at 23:46 PM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
BC, there are a range of forces working at different speeds and volumes. Go here for a look at the basics of upper ocean mixing. Go here for a very thorough and technical look at mixing in general wrt energy exchange. Go here for a general look at large-scale ocean currents. Here is a SkS article on the subject, and that is where anyone else who replies to BC--and BC--should post. -
Realist at 23:25 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
[snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter. N.B. Your earlier post (#65) was considered to be inflamatory/offensive by at least one poster (and I can understand the reasons). I didn't delete that post either. Perhaps your time might be better spent considering why your post elicited the response that it did, rather than causing unnecessary work for the moderators. This is my last word on the subject. Except to say that military budgets are now off-topic for this thread, any further posts that mention this will be deleted. -
muoncounter at 23:13 PM on 4 May 2012It cooled mid-century
"Any evidence that aerosol loading from tests and large enough and continuous enough to have a significant effect..." Not much. It takes a yield of at least 50 ktons to make a cloud tall enough to reach the stratosphere. Large yield testing didn't begin until 1952; mid-century cooling started several years prior to that (there's a lag problem). And the USGS shows that it is not dust as much as sulfate aerosol that causes detectable multi-year cooling. About the only significant climate-scale result from nuclear testing is the C14 spike. And that doesn't make a blip in the older cosmic ray records. -
BC at 23:10 PM on 4 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Can someone explain how on the one hand the oceans' layers don't mix much at all. On the other hand there are the AMOC and La Nina and other ocean flows where the deeper layers come to the surface and vice versa? And these ocean flows have a huge impact on the worlds climate so they seem to be very significant. -
Realist at 22:46 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
[snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It is the job of the moderators to draw the line where posts are considered to have contravened the comments policy, not yours. Making unnecessary work for the moderators by repeatedly posting moderation complaints is not doing you any favours. Please restart the discussion in more civil manner as I have asked both sides to do. If you feel a post is offensive, then please feel free to say so, but the best thing to do is not to respond in kind and instead prove your case using rational argument. -
CBDunkerson at 21:24 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
#69 "No my point is that some people will always argue the military budget is optional or too big, no matter how small." Umm... you do realize that no one here has made that argument right? I mean, people have pointed that out repeatedly now, but you seem to keep returning to this 'argument' that doesn't actually exist. -
pauls at 19:41 PM on 4 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
#7 dana1981 - Equilibrium climate sensitivity is usually measured in GCMs by incorporating a 'slab ocean' - i.e. an 'ocean' which is little more than a surface with a low heat capacity. This is done because fully equilibrating a GCM with a realistic model of the ocean can take several centuries to millennia due to thermal inertia, and that means a large computation expense. Point being, representation of oceans can't have much effect on ECS, as traditonally measured. -
John Cook at 19:05 PM on 4 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
"ancient projection"? 1981 wasn't that long ago, you whipper snapper! :-) -
Realist at 19:01 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
[snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] All concerned need to cool down. Please leave the moderation to the moderators. -
Realist at 17:17 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Phillippe [snip]. Libya, Afghanistan, Bali twin towers etc come to mind You can't wait for a war before forming a military. My reference to France and England was a reference to those saved by previous US budgets (and implied short memories). Scaddenp, you are one of the few who can disagree without resorting to personal insults and name calling which is too common on this site. I won't even bother answering #66. If you are not prepared to say it face to face you shouldnt say it online! No my point is that some people will always argue the military budget is optional or too big, no matter how small. Was probably happening in 1938 too.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory material snipped. Please can all parties get back to a more civil tone of discussion. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:36 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @ 65: that comment is underhanded and has nothing to do with the reality of the current geopolitical situation. If your allusion to France, England and Australia is in reference to WWII (which it inevitably is), then relating that to the current idea of "budget" is inappropriate. The circumstances back then (70 years ago) were so completely different as to make any discussion of "budget" misplaced and misleading. There was a world war against a madly destructive ideology. The situation was dire. It was not a matter of working out a budget but of devoting all available resources to the highest priority of the moment. Comparing that to anything happening nowadaysModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Accusation of dishonesty snipped. Please accept my applogies, more was snipped than I had intended. -
scaddenp at 13:13 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist, you seem to be missing the point - military budgets show that governments can raise the budgets to combat significant external threats. Climate change is surely one. If averting an asteroid strike required a similar expenditure without the ability to know who was going to take the main punch, do think we could raise the money? Or would the problem be so politically tough that we would take the "adaption" route and hope some other country would take the direct hit? -
Tom Curtis at 13:13 PM on 4 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Fantasist @65 holds cheap the Australian lives spent in support of their ally in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan - conflicts in which Australia had (and in the case of Afghanistan, has) no national security interest. He thereby demonstrates not only that his world view is delusional, but that it is offensive as well.
Prev 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 Next
